Bridges to nowhere revisited
Editorial
‘It is, we suppose, the story of our national
life when it comes to foreign assistance in the name of development and
improving people’s lives.’
About two years ago,
there was an uproar over reports that many bridges under a program financed
by foreign lenders and implemented by the government were being built on
carabao cart paths while many roads built for mechanized vehicles remained
segmented for lack of spans across rivers and streams. There was even a
picture of an all-steel two-lane bridge built in the middle of a field, with
both ends leading to nowhere.
After the "bridges to nowhere" scandal had its 15 seconds of
fame, public attention passed on to other corruption controversies. Since the
Arroyo administration has an unbeaten record among all administrations this
country has had on graft-ridden deals, the seeming fickleness of public
attention is understandable. People have to catch their breath in following the
succession of anomalies unearthed one after the other.
The controversy is now as good as forgotten.
That’s P90 billion worth of taxpayers’ money spent over a
decade. While most of the bridges probably served their intended purpose, the
waste – through bloated costs and idle structures – is unconscionable.
A Commission Audit report has amply documented how the bridge
program got hijacked by politicians. A total of 3,701 bridges were supposed to
be in place over a 10-year period ending in 2006. Only 2,467, exactly two-thirds
of the target, were completed. Of these hundreds are practically useless, having
been erected at sites without suitable road links. We have a good idea how this
happened. Local pols needed showcases. Bridges have the added attraction of
their construction cost being easily padded.
That’s nothing new, of course. What needs explaining is why
governments which otherwise are known for their stance against corruption turned
a blind eye to anomalies in the program they financed. A British company is the
biggest supplier of these pre-fabricated bridges. The company managed to
convince London into providing the loans which with the Philippines paid for its
products. It was impossible for the British Embassy not to have heard of the
whispers of corruption, but no action was taken by London to hold the company
into account. On the contrary, the British government cited the company for the
export business it generated and, for good measure, awarded a knighthood to its
principal.
So everybody was happy. The British government for the export
earnings generated, the British company for the profits it earned (from
over-priced pre-fabricated bridges, according to critics), the administration
for the largesse it could distribute and the officials of implementing agencies
and the local executives for the money they could pocket.
It is, we suppose, the story of our national life when it comes to foreign
assistance in the name of development and improving people’s lives. | 
