BSP on polymer banknotes, true or false
ANOTHER infuriating press release from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) through its apparent spokesman, the deputy governor, Mamerto Tangonan, no less. Tangonan claims that following the “acceptability” of polymer banknotes circulated since 2021 (about 50 million) on an “experimental” (BSP’s choice of words in earlier press releases) basis, they will now circulate 1 billion banknotes of the same polymer currency.
We challenge the BSP to show us a survey from a reputable survey agency that shows the so-called acceptability of these polymer banknotes that are made of unsustainable material, rejected by our cash market economy and much criticized for the apparent marginalization of Philippine heroes and abaca, our premier and world-renowned natural fiber as material for the banknotes.
They have been substituted by flora, fauna and whatever landscapes they thought of to decorate the banknotes with. Apparently imitating other countries’ banknotes using such. Decorative, they are for which a clueless world banknote design group gave them a prize, which, of course, BSP has been crowing about. A nation’s currency is informative, relevant and meaningful in its history. It is not like wallpaper for decoration.
Anecdotal surveys show a virtual overwhelming dislike for these banknotes from jeepney drivers, market vendors and their clients as well as other entities that transact on a cash basis.
But then don’t take our word for it. Show us a survey by an independent and reputable survey company attesting to the so-called public acceptance of it. And do the survey in every tier of this society, not just bankers, check writers and card-using people. Or, persons who have secretaries, assistants, clerks to do their cash transactions. Include the majority of our citizens as the major respondents.
Furthermore, explain why without such a definitive public acceptance, BSP has ordered more polymer banknotes from its Australian supplier to the tune of the over 1 billion banknotes.
Another BSP claim on these banknotes is that they are cheaper than the abaca paper banknotes they are abandoning. This is false. The 500 million banknotes ordered earlier for the “experiment” (already an unusually large order for an experiment) cost about $50 million while an equivalent number of abaca paper banknotes would have cost about $30 million. This is from people who know about world prices of such things.
The BSP even gratuitously explains that while it has a security plant here that has done our banknotes in the past, it does not have the facility to print polymer banknotes. This is foretelling that their next move will be to buy another security plant that can print such polymer banknotes, with taxpayers’ money, of course. We just say “abangan.”
Governor Tangonan went on further to say without proof that these polymer banknotes are more hygienic. Opponents claim that abaca paper is equally hygienic. So we need proof from both sides which make them at this point equal on the matter.
Furthermore, Governor Tangonan claimed that they are now testing the durability of the polymer banknotes. Well, market vendors and others have tested the durability of these banknotes by force because of having had them rammed down their throats, and they say they crease badly when folded only about twice, while abaca paper banknotes can be folded much more (2,500 times is one claim) before they show the damage effect of creasing.
Another test on durability occurred by accident — if alcohol, or some such astringent liquid falls on the polymer banknote, its ink dissolves. Moreover, in a tropical agricultural setting where the majority of transactions are in cash with all the attendant environmental additions like dirt, heavy handling, adhesions of other material, the polymer banknotes last an average two years. Then they have to be withdrawn from circulation. It does look like the BSP will be a repeat customer and rapid consumer of polymer banknotes, on taxpayers’ money, naturally. Where is the economy of cost compared to abaca paper banknotes that last at least four years, if not more?
Another BSP claim is that polymer banknotes cannot be counterfeited, but recent news reports show they have already been counterfeited. These polymer banknotes are made from the lowest quality substrate plastic from another Australian company which mysteriously has changed its name two times (to hide something in the past?). So, since this cheap substrate plastic is widely available, it can easily be obtained by a counterfeiter who will be savvy enough to use a hologram also easily obtained online for a fake security feature as has already happened. Abaca paper banknotes feature a difficult-to-fake hologram.
The other false claim by BSP on the polymer banknotes is that it is sustainable. Is polymer, a form of plastic, sustainable? We all know the answer — no! But when at the Senate hearing on the matter, Sen. Pilar Juliana “Pia” Cayetano brought up its unsustainability, Governor Tangonan showed images of rather unattractive plastic furniture that they could turn these polymer banknotes into upon necessary withdrawal from circulation. This implied that the BSP already had the technology to do this transformation which then brought on the question that the technology must have come at some cost which would again impact on its so-called cheaper price.
Doubts were soon erased. BSP does not have the technology because a few months ago they put out a notice to university laboratories and outside laboratories announcing that they were looking at them to develop such a technology. And when it is found, you can be sure it will have a cost added to the polymer banknotes’ price.
On the whole, we judge the BSP as seeming to prevaricate on cost, on the so-called experimental introduction of polymer banknotes, on their claims on durability and immunity to counterfeiting, on sustainability as well as extravagant claims of hygiene compared to abaca paper banknotes.
The polymer banknotes’ introduction here has been a mistake no matter what claims BSP makes of approxi