"WASHINGTON – Barack Obama swept to victory as the nation's first black President Tuesday night in an electoral college landslide that overcame racial barriers as old as America itself.
"Change has come," he told a jubilant hometown Chicago crowd estimated at nearly a quarter-million people.
The son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, the Democratic senator from Illinois sealed his historic triumph by defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in a string of wins in hard-fought battleground states — Ohio, Florida, Iowa and more. He captured Virginia and Indiana, too, the first candidate of his party in 44 years to win either.
Obama's election capped a meteoric rise — from mere state senator to president-elect in four years.
Spontaneous celebrations erupted from Atlanta to New York and Philadelphia as word of Obama's victory spread. A big crowd filled Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.
In his first speech as victor, to an enormous throng at Grant Park in Chicago, Obama catalogued the challenges ahead. "The greatest of a lifetime," he said, "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."
He added, "There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."
McCain called his former rival to concede defeat — and the end of his own 10-year quest for the White House. "The American people have spoken, and spoken clearly," McCain told disappointed supporters in Arizona.
President Bush added his congratulations from the White House, where his tenure runs out on Jan. 20. "May God bless whoever wins tonight," he had told dinner guests earlier.
Obama, in his speech, invoked the words of Lincoln, recalled Martin Luther King Jr., and seemed to echo John F. Kennedy.
"So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder," he said.
He and his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, will take their oaths of office as president and vice president on Jan. 20, 2009. McCain remains in the Senate.
Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, returns to Alaska as governor after a tumultuous debut on the national stage.
He will move into the Oval Office as leader of a country that is almost certainly in recession, and fighting two long wars, one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan.
The popular vote was close — 51.7 percent to 47 percent with 84 percent of all U.S. precincts tallied — but not the count in the Electoral College, where it mattered most.
There, Obama's audacious decision to contest McCain in states that hadn't gone Democratic in years paid rich dividends.
Shortly after 2 a.m. the East, The Associated Press count showed Obama with 349 electoral votes, well over the 270 needed for victory. McCain had 144 after winning states that comprised the normal Republican base, including Texas and most of the South.
Interviews with voters suggested that almost six in 10 women were backing Obama nationwide, while men leaned his way by a narrow margin. Just over half of whites supported McCain, giving him a slim advantage in a group that Bush carried overwhelmingly in 2004.
The results of the AP survey were based on a preliminary partial sample of nearly 10,000 voters in Election Day polls and in telephone interviews over the past week for early voters.
Obama has said his first order of presidential business will be to tackle the economy. He has also pledged to withdraw most U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
In Washington, the Democratic leaders of Congress celebrated.
"It is not a mandate for a party or ideology but a mandate for change," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California: "Tonight the American people have called for a new direction. They have called for change in America."
Democrats also acclaimed Senate successes by former Gov. Mark Warner in Virginia, Rep. Tom Udall in New Mexico and Rep. Mark Udall in Colorado. All won seats left open by Republican retirements.
In New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen defeated Republican Sen. John Sununu in a rematch of their 2002 race, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole fell to Democrat Kay Hagan in North Carolina.
Biden won a new term in Delaware, a seat he will resign before he is sworn in as vice president.
The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, survived a scare in Kentucky, and in Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss hoped to avoid a December runoff.
The Democrats piled up gains in the House, as well.
They defeated seven Republican incumbents, including 22-year veteran Chris Shays in Connecticut, and picked up nine more seats where GOP lawmakers had retired.
At least three Democrats lost their seats, including Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney, turned out of office after admitting to two extramarital affairs while serving his first term in Florida. In Louisiana, Democratic Rep. Don Cazayoux lost the seat he had won in a special election six months ago.
The resurgent Democrats also elected a governor in one of the nation's traditional bellwether states when Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon won his race.
An estimated 187 million voters were registered, and in an indication of interest in the battle for the White House, 40 million or so had already voted as Election Day dawned.
Obama sought election as one of the youngest presidents, and one of the least experienced in national political affairs.
That wasn't what set the Illinois senator apart, though — neither from his rivals nor from the other men who had served as president since the nation's founding more than two centuries ago. A black man, he confronted a previously unbreakable barrier as he campaigned on twin themes of change and hope in uncertain times.
McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, a generation older than his rival at 72, was making his second try for the White House, following his defeat in the battle for the GOP nomination in 2000.
A conservative, he stressed his maverick's streak. And although a Republican, he did what he could to separate himself from an unpopular president.
For the most part, the two presidential candidates and their running mates, Biden and Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, spent weeks campaigning in states that went for Bush four years ago.
McCain and Obama each won contested nominations — the Democrat outdistancing former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton — and promptly set out to claim the mantle of change."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I have a dream
Am I dreaming or what? Mr Barack Obama won the US Presidency in very convincing numbers.
November 4 is a race of sorts. In [Melbourne] Australia, as all first Tuesdays of every, November 4 is the Melbourne Cup. A horse race that defines the psyche of every Australian punter, a nation literally stops for this race.
Fortunately for the average punter, Viewed, a 40 to 1 odd winner has paid handsomely for its backers. The result was photo finish for the second horse, Bauer, as well; one of the closest results in memory.
While in the US Presidential elections, Mr Barack Obama was ahead in the polls to take the election. The historic result for Mr Obama is a test of perseverance against all odds. As former Premier Minister Bob Carr wrote not too long ago, this election is more racial and financial than anything else (see a differing opinion here.)
Now that Obama is elected as the first African-American President, the real hard work begins. All the rhetoric must be backed up by concrete actions to solve the financial problems as well as the political ones that the previous White House occupant has helped to create.
Hopefully the experience of Mr John McCain during the Vietnam War will never happen to the young men and women who is serving their country now in Iraq and in other parts of the world.
The day for dreaming is past and gone, change is now the watchword and Mr Obama and his team is now on notice.
November 4 is a race of sorts. In [Melbourne] Australia, as all first Tuesdays of every, November 4 is the Melbourne Cup. A horse race that defines the psyche of every Australian punter, a nation literally stops for this race.
Fortunately for the average punter, Viewed, a 40 to 1 odd winner has paid handsomely for its backers. The result was photo finish for the second horse, Bauer, as well; one of the closest results in memory.
While in the US Presidential elections, Mr Barack Obama was ahead in the polls to take the election. The historic result for Mr Obama is a test of perseverance against all odds. As former Premier Minister Bob Carr wrote not too long ago, this election is more racial and financial than anything else (see a differing opinion here.)
Now that Obama is elected as the first African-American President, the real hard work begins. All the rhetoric must be backed up by concrete actions to solve the financial problems as well as the political ones that the previous White House occupant has helped to create.
Hopefully the experience of Mr John McCain during the Vietnam War will never happen to the young men and women who is serving their country now in Iraq and in other parts of the world.
The day for dreaming is past and gone, change is now the watchword and Mr Obama and his team is now on notice.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why Fil-Ams should vote for Obama by William M. Esposo
Why Filipino-Americans should vote for Obama
AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo
Sunday, November 2, 2008 Philippine Star
Republican and former George W. Bush State Secretary Colin Powell provided the best reason for preferring and endorsing the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, over the Republican Party candidate, Senator John McCain.
Powell said: “I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama.”
“He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president,” Powell added.
Powell started a long line of Republicans (and people one would expect to vote for a Republican presidential candidate) who have junked McCain in favor of Obama. Among them are Bush former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Alison Goldwater (granddaughter of former Republican 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater), Christopher Buckley (son of staunch Republican writer William Buckley) and Ron Reagan (son of President Ronald Reagan).
Republican stalwarts — Political Strategist Ed Rollins, Senator Richard Lugar (most senior in the Foreign Relations Committee) and writer George Will — fell short of openly endorsing Obama but made comments that reinforced Obama’s cause.
If McCain can’t even convince his own party’s staunch supporters, Filipinos in America should ask themselves why they should even consider voting for John McCain.
The renowned publication, The Economist, has conducted a world poll on the US presidential candidates using the very same US Electoral College system of voting. The Economist assigned each country a corresponding number of votes following the US yardstick.
China, as would be expected, was assigned the most number of Electoral College votes with 1,900. India had 1,588, the Philippines 132, Australia 31, Brazil 272, Russia with 205, South Africa with 70, Saudi Arabia with 37 and so forth.
As of last Sunday, McCain got a total of 228 electoral votes compared to Obama’s 9,009 electoral votes. The Economist Global Electoral College map was a sea of blue, the color assigned for Obama. From all continents, Obama was an outstanding choice — reinforcing Powell’s manifestation that a transformational US president is needed at this time.
McCain represents to most people in the Global Village the face of the Imperial America which many nations distrust. Ask people about McCain and the first thing that comes to mind is hawk, owing largely to his soldier background and his pronouncements of knowing how to win wars.
Here is a sampling of how the world voted (the first number is Obama, the second is McCain). China: Obama 83% — McCain 17%, India: 87% — 13%, Pakistan: 81% — 19%, Philippines: 88% — 12%, Indonesia: 96% — 4% , Thailand: 86% — 14%, Australia: 89% —11%, Brazil: 81% — 19%, Mexico: 86% — 14%, Canada: 89% — 11%, South Africa: 88% — 12%, Sudan: 47% — 53%, Egypt: 91% — 9%, Georgia: 48% — 53%, France: 91% — 9%, Germany: 90% - 10%, Syria: 100% — 0%, Iraq: 23% — 77%, Iran: 84% — 16%, and Afghanistan: 85% — 15%.
Regardless if the country is a traditional US ally or foe, Obama is the preferred next US president. Not only that, Obama is preferred in lopsided numbers that often exceed an 80 ‑ 20 ratio. If the US is to maintain their leader position in the world, the American voters will do well to listen to the sentiments of the peoples of the world.
Considering the key role that the US plays in promoting and keeping world peace, it is logical that Obama, and not McCain (and his braggadocio of being the more seasoned candidate for the world stage) who can be expected to promote cooperation among the peoples of the world towards a path of peace and an era of mutual development and cooperation.
The immense preference for Obama in known anti-US countries like Iran and Syria cannot be ignored by US voters if they truly want to keep their soldiers home and away from the deadly reach of Middle East suicide bombers. Obama has the political capital to be able to bring their foes to the conference table and work out a mutually-acceptable peace.
Iran and Syria will never trust a hawk like McCain whose Republican Party is supported by the very economic forces and vested interests in America that promote the US imperial character.
Most Americans want to promote democracy. They are great humanitarians and truly believe that democracy is the best political system in the world. Most Americans detest this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde image that their country has developed.
The vested interest groups who are known to support the Republican Party — Vice President Dick Cheney’s Haliburton among them — are the ones who provoke the Mr. Hyde character of the US that the world has come to distrust and hate.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is responsible for the creation of so many dictatorships in the world — including the Marcos dictatorship here. This Mr. Hyde character of the US allows them to disregard human rights abuses by tyrants who happen to serve US geopolitical objectives.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what transformed people like Osama Bin Laden — once a US ally in Afghanistan in fighting the Russians in the 1980s — into the dedicated anti-US terrorist that he is today. Osama Bin Laden’s rant is all about Imperial America.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what enables them to easily forget that Filipinos fought and died for the US war with Japan. That was not our war. That was a war of the US but more Filipinos died here than Americans.
What did the US do after Japan, the enemy, was defeated? Our poor war veterans remain unrecognized and uncompensated. Instead of pouring US resources to help us rise to our feet after World War II, they poured all their efforts and energies into helping Japan, the once enemy, to emerge as an Asian economic titan.
While the US was putting all the resources needed to get Japan back to its feet, the Mr. Hyde character of the US imposed on their Filipino allies a Parity Rights Agreement that opened Philippine natural resources to exploitation by American businessmen.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what accounts for their current interest to promote a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) in Mindanao even if that will mean a dismemberment of Philippine territory.
Really, if you think logically, Filipinos ought to declare war against the US because following historical precedent we stand to gain more than if we remain their trusting friend and ally.
On the hope that a Barack Obama presidency could mark the shelving of this Mr. Hyde grotesque character of the US and the emergence of a fair and loyal character of America, Filipino-Americans should vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday.
AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo
Sunday, November 2, 2008 Philippine Star
Republican and former George W. Bush State Secretary Colin Powell provided the best reason for preferring and endorsing the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, over the Republican Party candidate, Senator John McCain.
Powell said: “I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama.”
“He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president,” Powell added.
Powell started a long line of Republicans (and people one would expect to vote for a Republican presidential candidate) who have junked McCain in favor of Obama. Among them are Bush former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Alison Goldwater (granddaughter of former Republican 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater), Christopher Buckley (son of staunch Republican writer William Buckley) and Ron Reagan (son of President Ronald Reagan).
Republican stalwarts — Political Strategist Ed Rollins, Senator Richard Lugar (most senior in the Foreign Relations Committee) and writer George Will — fell short of openly endorsing Obama but made comments that reinforced Obama’s cause.
If McCain can’t even convince his own party’s staunch supporters, Filipinos in America should ask themselves why they should even consider voting for John McCain.
The renowned publication, The Economist, has conducted a world poll on the US presidential candidates using the very same US Electoral College system of voting. The Economist assigned each country a corresponding number of votes following the US yardstick.
China, as would be expected, was assigned the most number of Electoral College votes with 1,900. India had 1,588, the Philippines 132, Australia 31, Brazil 272, Russia with 205, South Africa with 70, Saudi Arabia with 37 and so forth.
As of last Sunday, McCain got a total of 228 electoral votes compared to Obama’s 9,009 electoral votes. The Economist Global Electoral College map was a sea of blue, the color assigned for Obama. From all continents, Obama was an outstanding choice — reinforcing Powell’s manifestation that a transformational US president is needed at this time.
McCain represents to most people in the Global Village the face of the Imperial America which many nations distrust. Ask people about McCain and the first thing that comes to mind is hawk, owing largely to his soldier background and his pronouncements of knowing how to win wars.
Here is a sampling of how the world voted (the first number is Obama, the second is McCain). China: Obama 83% — McCain 17%, India: 87% — 13%, Pakistan: 81% — 19%, Philippines: 88% — 12%, Indonesia: 96% — 4% , Thailand: 86% — 14%, Australia: 89% —11%, Brazil: 81% — 19%, Mexico: 86% — 14%, Canada: 89% — 11%, South Africa: 88% — 12%, Sudan: 47% — 53%, Egypt: 91% — 9%, Georgia: 48% — 53%, France: 91% — 9%, Germany: 90% - 10%, Syria: 100% — 0%, Iraq: 23% — 77%, Iran: 84% — 16%, and Afghanistan: 85% — 15%.
Regardless if the country is a traditional US ally or foe, Obama is the preferred next US president. Not only that, Obama is preferred in lopsided numbers that often exceed an 80 ‑ 20 ratio. If the US is to maintain their leader position in the world, the American voters will do well to listen to the sentiments of the peoples of the world.
Considering the key role that the US plays in promoting and keeping world peace, it is logical that Obama, and not McCain (and his braggadocio of being the more seasoned candidate for the world stage) who can be expected to promote cooperation among the peoples of the world towards a path of peace and an era of mutual development and cooperation.
The immense preference for Obama in known anti-US countries like Iran and Syria cannot be ignored by US voters if they truly want to keep their soldiers home and away from the deadly reach of Middle East suicide bombers. Obama has the political capital to be able to bring their foes to the conference table and work out a mutually-acceptable peace.
Iran and Syria will never trust a hawk like McCain whose Republican Party is supported by the very economic forces and vested interests in America that promote the US imperial character.
Most Americans want to promote democracy. They are great humanitarians and truly believe that democracy is the best political system in the world. Most Americans detest this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde image that their country has developed.
The vested interest groups who are known to support the Republican Party — Vice President Dick Cheney’s Haliburton among them — are the ones who provoke the Mr. Hyde character of the US that the world has come to distrust and hate.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is responsible for the creation of so many dictatorships in the world — including the Marcos dictatorship here. This Mr. Hyde character of the US allows them to disregard human rights abuses by tyrants who happen to serve US geopolitical objectives.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what transformed people like Osama Bin Laden — once a US ally in Afghanistan in fighting the Russians in the 1980s — into the dedicated anti-US terrorist that he is today. Osama Bin Laden’s rant is all about Imperial America.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what enables them to easily forget that Filipinos fought and died for the US war with Japan. That was not our war. That was a war of the US but more Filipinos died here than Americans.
What did the US do after Japan, the enemy, was defeated? Our poor war veterans remain unrecognized and uncompensated. Instead of pouring US resources to help us rise to our feet after World War II, they poured all their efforts and energies into helping Japan, the once enemy, to emerge as an Asian economic titan.
While the US was putting all the resources needed to get Japan back to its feet, the Mr. Hyde character of the US imposed on their Filipino allies a Parity Rights Agreement that opened Philippine natural resources to exploitation by American businessmen.
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what accounts for their current interest to promote a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) in Mindanao even if that will mean a dismemberment of Philippine territory.
Really, if you think logically, Filipinos ought to declare war against the US because following historical precedent we stand to gain more than if we remain their trusting friend and ally.
On the hope that a Barack Obama presidency could mark the shelving of this Mr. Hyde grotesque character of the US and the emergence of a fair and loyal character of America, Filipino-Americans should vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday.
Seditious by Ellen Tordesillas
The Latest from Ellen Tordesillas - Seditious
Posted: 30 Oct 2008 09:39 AM PDT
The Webster dictionary defines “seditious” as “tending to cause discontent among the people; fostering the spirit of rebellion.”
I think Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the pronouncements of Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines; Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz; Bataan Bishop Socrates Villegas; Masbate Bishop Joel Baylon, and Legazpi Bishop Emeritus Jose Sorra at a press conference last Tuesday were “seditious”.
I checked again what the five bishops said. Their statements were mostly on graft and corruption which they said were the “biggest culprit and major cause of the our nation’s poverty and hunger.”
Asked if they think Gloria Arroyo is corrupt, Archbishop Cruz did not hesitate to say, “Yes, because the incumbent Malacanang occupant has received not long ago the very distinguished award, never have been given before in Philippine history, as the most corrupt President.”
Cruz further said, “To say that the Malacanang occupant is but the follower of corruption and not a leader of corruption is asking too much. It will take somebody from the moon to believe that the head of corruption is down below and not from above.”
Since “seditious” means “tending to cause discontent among the people or fostering the spirit of rebellion”; what causes people to be enraged, the corrupt practices or the criticism of the corruption?
The impeachment complaint filed by citizens concerned of the the country’s degradation enumerates the documented crimes of the Arroyo against the Filipino people. Here’s the short list:
1.The $329 million deal with the Chinese firm, ZTE Corp to establish a national broadband network;
2. The sale of the country’s gold reserve in Mt. Diwalwal to ZTE Corp. in an agreement described by the complainants as “grossly disadvantageous to the country’s interests”;
3. Entering into the Northrail Project without the approval of the Monetary Board and which failed to give preference to Filipino labor and investment;
4. Distribution of bribe money to congressmen last year, which she supposedly authorized, to speed up the referral of the impeachment complaint filed against her last year by lawyer Roel Pulido to prevent the filing of a genuine complaint;
5.The diversion of P3.3 billion intended for farmers, P728 million of which were supposed to be spent for fertilizer, to the campaign kitty of Arroyo in the 2004 elections;
6.Similar to the fertilizer scam is the illegal and improper use of the P5 billion loan obtained by the Quedan Rural Credit Guarantee Corp. to fund her 2004 election campaign.
7.Cheating in the 2004 elections.
It’s good that former Agriculture Secretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante is back. He has a lot of explaining to do on the P3.3 billion supposedly for agriculture that were released just a few weeks before the 2004 elections and the P5 billion unaccounted Quedancor funds.
Every impeachment complaint filed against Arroyo the past three years includes cheating in the 2004 elections that is referred by Bishop Cruz the “original sin” because all of the other crimes cited in the impeachment complaint were committed to either cover up or pay back her accomplices in the rigging of the 2004 election results. The NBN/ZTE deal, for example. Why was a retiring Comelec official into a telecommunication project? Simple. Abalos gave her the presidency that the Filipino people denied her in 2004. He had to be rewarded for that.
Arroyo has yet to explain why she said “I am sorry” when the “Hello Garci” tapes surfaced in June 2005. In that tape, she was heard talking to Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano about tampering the election results in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.
In this year’s complaint, lawyer Harry Roque has included the testimonies of some members of the Special Action Forces of the Philippine National Police who participated in the switching of election returns at the Batasan Pambansa storage room.
Now, what could be more seditious than thwarting the will of the people?
Gonzalez was so riled up with the statement of the five bishops saying that “The time to start radical reforms is now. ..The time to prepare a new government is now. ”
Arroyo was never elected by the people. Every day of her illegitimate presidency is sedition at its highest form.
For more hard hitting articles from Ellen Tordesillas, visit her site here.
Posted: 30 Oct 2008 09:39 AM PDT
The Webster dictionary defines “seditious” as “tending to cause discontent among the people; fostering the spirit of rebellion.”
I think Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the pronouncements of Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines; Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz; Bataan Bishop Socrates Villegas; Masbate Bishop Joel Baylon, and Legazpi Bishop Emeritus Jose Sorra at a press conference last Tuesday were “seditious”.
I checked again what the five bishops said. Their statements were mostly on graft and corruption which they said were the “biggest culprit and major cause of the our nation’s poverty and hunger.”
Asked if they think Gloria Arroyo is corrupt, Archbishop Cruz did not hesitate to say, “Yes, because the incumbent Malacanang occupant has received not long ago the very distinguished award, never have been given before in Philippine history, as the most corrupt President.”
Cruz further said, “To say that the Malacanang occupant is but the follower of corruption and not a leader of corruption is asking too much. It will take somebody from the moon to believe that the head of corruption is down below and not from above.”
Since “seditious” means “tending to cause discontent among the people or fostering the spirit of rebellion”; what causes people to be enraged, the corrupt practices or the criticism of the corruption?
The impeachment complaint filed by citizens concerned of the the country’s degradation enumerates the documented crimes of the Arroyo against the Filipino people. Here’s the short list:
1.The $329 million deal with the Chinese firm, ZTE Corp to establish a national broadband network;
2. The sale of the country’s gold reserve in Mt. Diwalwal to ZTE Corp. in an agreement described by the complainants as “grossly disadvantageous to the country’s interests”;
3. Entering into the Northrail Project without the approval of the Monetary Board and which failed to give preference to Filipino labor and investment;
4. Distribution of bribe money to congressmen last year, which she supposedly authorized, to speed up the referral of the impeachment complaint filed against her last year by lawyer Roel Pulido to prevent the filing of a genuine complaint;
5.The diversion of P3.3 billion intended for farmers, P728 million of which were supposed to be spent for fertilizer, to the campaign kitty of Arroyo in the 2004 elections;
6.Similar to the fertilizer scam is the illegal and improper use of the P5 billion loan obtained by the Quedan Rural Credit Guarantee Corp. to fund her 2004 election campaign.
7.Cheating in the 2004 elections.
It’s good that former Agriculture Secretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante is back. He has a lot of explaining to do on the P3.3 billion supposedly for agriculture that were released just a few weeks before the 2004 elections and the P5 billion unaccounted Quedancor funds.
Every impeachment complaint filed against Arroyo the past three years includes cheating in the 2004 elections that is referred by Bishop Cruz the “original sin” because all of the other crimes cited in the impeachment complaint were committed to either cover up or pay back her accomplices in the rigging of the 2004 election results. The NBN/ZTE deal, for example. Why was a retiring Comelec official into a telecommunication project? Simple. Abalos gave her the presidency that the Filipino people denied her in 2004. He had to be rewarded for that.
Arroyo has yet to explain why she said “I am sorry” when the “Hello Garci” tapes surfaced in June 2005. In that tape, she was heard talking to Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano about tampering the election results in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.
In this year’s complaint, lawyer Harry Roque has included the testimonies of some members of the Special Action Forces of the Philippine National Police who participated in the switching of election returns at the Batasan Pambansa storage room.
Now, what could be more seditious than thwarting the will of the people?
Gonzalez was so riled up with the statement of the five bishops saying that “The time to start radical reforms is now. ..The time to prepare a new government is now. ”
Arroyo was never elected by the people. Every day of her illegitimate presidency is sedition at its highest form.
For more hard hitting articles from Ellen Tordesillas, visit her site here.
On Racism and Barack Obama by Ted Regencia
On Racism - Barack Obama and the re-education of Fil-Am voters 08/12/08
By Ted Regencia, Contributor
AT the height of the US presidential primaries that pitted Chicago’s very own Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one Filipino American [fil-Am] social butterfly emphatically said, “Ay, ayaw ko kay Obama! Baka yung White House magiging Black House.” [I don'tlike Obama. The White House will turn into a Black House!]
It’s a sentiment not so few of Chicago’s Filipino-Americans feel towards their very own senator who is an African-American. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for president, a historic achievement for a black candidate, the antagonism has only intensified.
It all started when Obama won the Iowa caucus on January 3. Shortly after, an online group of Filipinos received a forwarded email attacking Obama’s “Muslim upbringing.” The email asked, “Are you aware that Obama’s middle name is Mohammed (It’s actually Hussein, which means “the handsome one” in Arabic). Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get?” It warned that Obama is “possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today.”
“This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa,” it added. The smear provoked a sharp response from Chicago-based Filipino publisher and editor, Mariano Santos, who described it as “worse than witch-hunt.”
“People who started this fear-mongering are more dangerous than their black propaganda. Filipinos had lived through this dark age, when they cannot even rent a house in a white neighborhood, or date a white American without being in danger of lynching. Now these pathetic Pinoys are circulating this email like they are scions of the Ku Klux Klan,” he said referring to the white supremacist group, KKK.
“These rumor mongers have only prejudice and lies to peddle. They are the danger to true American way of life,” Santos said while castigating the source, a Filipino American and devout Catholic. The online message turned out to be just an initial assault of the candidate.
A second version of the email immediately followed. This time, it accuses Obama of having “a black Muslim” father “a white atheist” mother, and “a radical Muslim” Indonesian step-father. “Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level,” it warned.
Curiously, the attacks were not based on Obama’s liberal policy positions, like his support of abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples. Or even his Iraq withdrawal plan. Rather, it was an in-your-face attack of his race, and his “Muslim links.” Reports of Obama’s Muslim upbringing, however, have been repeatedly debunked by international news organizations like CNN and New York Times. Americans of the Muslim faith also assailed the malicious implication that being a Muslim automatically equates to being unpatriotic, or worse, a supporter of terrorists. By March, as the odds of an Obama nomination increased, the voices of opposition within the Filipino community became even louder.
A former president of the Filipino-American Council of Greater Chicago taunted the Chicago-based publication, PINOY Newsmagazine, by e-mailing altered pictures with the heading, “If Obama wins.” One image shows the Kentucky Fried Chicken logo with Colonel Sanders wearing a turban. Another photo shows the iconic McDonald’s sign changed to McHammed’s.
The Chicago alumni president of a very reputable Catholic university in Manila chimed-in by forwarding a message with the subject entitled, “Interesting: Barack H. Obama, 50 Lies and Counting.” Asked by one of the recipients, who is he recommending for president, his loaded reply was, “The one who tells the TRUTH.” When confronted, he feigned innocence by saying that he was only trying to pass the information around.
Yet another personality, who was crowned Mrs. Philippines in Chicago , was more direct. Santos , the newspaper publisher, recalled that after writingabout Senator Obama, he was confronted in public by the said individual who claimed “in loud and emotional outburst” that Obama is an “evil man.” That same community leader also heads the Philippine Lions Club of Chicago.
The onslaught of racially-charged denunciations continued by the start of Spring. On the 40th Death Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr. last April, for instance, this reporter invited a friend to watch a one-act play honoring the legacy of the foremost civil rights leader. Out of nowhere, a pointed rejection came: “Those blacks are parasites” followed by an Obama-bashing comment.
Another friend, a graduate of the Philippines ’ oldest university, could not hide his disdain of Obama either. As a healthcare practitioner, he said that he had encountered a number of African-American patients. He said that they are “lazy” and dependent on government dole-outs. He concluded that a win by Obama will only perpetuate the black’s sense of victimhood. Suspicions and mistrusts towards the African American community run deep, and the Filipino community is not immune to those false impressions.
For one, many Filipino immigrants have limited understanding of the very violent black experience in America . As Filipinos migrate to America , many bring with them, some deep-seated prejudice against people of darker color, in itself a product of colonial mentality that dictates that everything white is superior.
Even religious upbringing may have unwittingly played a role in forming these pre-conceived notions about color. In church, black always represents sin and bad omen. A wild child in the family is called a “black sheep.”
It’s not always the fault of Filipinos migrants to have brought with them these views from the motherland. Many are hard-working, decent and God-fearing individuals who only have the best interest of their families and community in their hearts. But, as they become part of a multi-cultural and pluralistic society like the United States , it is also necessary for them to understand the new dynamics of the whole community, including the important issue of race. Ignorance of that can create misinformed if not bigoted views.
A deep economic disparity, however, generally prevents Filipino Americans from interacting with their African-American brothers and sisters. An estimated 60 percent of Filipino-Americans have income over $50,000 a year, allowing them to live in middle-class and upper middle-class neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, majority of blacks who suffered many decades of racial discrimination remains disproportionately stuck in the lowest income level, pushing many of them to live in urban ghettos. Many become unemployed for long periods and get involved in various crimes. Absent those physical bonds, the opportunity to have a healthy social integration and interaction between the African American and Filipino-American communities is vastly limited.
The only exposure many Filipinos may have of blacks is when they appear in the news about gang shootings and drug arrests, and that only exacerbates the already dysfunctional view towards the black community. The recent spike in murder rate in Chicago — which is naturally getting intense media attention — only highlights those existing unease. It’s not unusual to hear comments by Filipinos like, “They’re lazy! “How come we’ve managed to improve our way of life here in America , when we are only here for five, 10 years?” “These blacks have been here in America their whole life, and they’re still poor.” While maybe true, comments such as those are myopic and ill-informed.
It does not take into account the long history of slavery and racial discrimination. It also misses the fact that a significant number of African-Americans have climbed up the economic scale by sheer hard work, just like many others.
Indeed, even here in the Windy City , home of well-loved African Americans like the entertainment titan Oprah Winfrey and sports legend Michael Jordan, racial understanding still has a long way to go. And that’s the fragile scenario, where all these political dramas about Senator Obama are being played.
As the new face of politics, the Hawaii-born and Harvard-educated politician has become “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” As CNN political commentator Donna Brazile said, “Race is one of the most difficult issues to navigate in presidential politics especially when often the race card is played. So it all depends if the race card is play and whether or not Barrack Obama will be able to navigate that. Bottom of the deck.”
In this 2008 presidential derby, the challenge for the Filipino-American voters is to avoid being dealt with those race cards, as they decide on their choice for president. A vote for Republican candidate Senator John McCain should not be a vote against Senator Obama’s skin color. Rather it should be about what the Arizona senator stands for on critical issues at that matter.
Let it be about the debate on the economy and national security, and never about who does and doesn’t look “All-American.” It was not too long ago when Filipinos from all over the world were up in arms over the perceived racist treatment of Filipino doctors by the popular US television show, “Desperate Housewives.” And rightly so, for indeed Filipino doctors are of the highest caliber.
Locally in Chicago, Pinoys slammed the department store H&M for the racist slur directed at a Filipino-American customer Frannie Richards, who is a nurse and a U.S. Air Force Reserve Staff Sgt. There was also the brouhaha over the identification by a local television station, of a crime suspect as “Filipino.” The protesters argued that by calling the suspect by his country of origin, it stigmatized the whole Filipino community. The station would later apologize, while the suspect was convicted.
Filipino-Americans cannot claim to be victims of racism, while turning a blind eye on its own prejudice towards the black community and the candidacy of Barack Obama. The larger point is, Filipino-Americans cannot allow the stain of racism smudge its image as a model community. It must confront it head on and condemn it with full force. So when history is written, we will not be sidelined with a footnote as a bunch of racist minority.
Ted Regencia is a Chicago-based Filipino journalist. He is a journalism graduate at Silliman University in Dumaguete City .
Dr. Jose V. Abueva President, Kalayaan College at Riverbanks, 1803 Marikina, Philippines Telefax (632)934 4865 Website: www.kalayaan. edu.ph Email: joseabueva@yahoo. com
By Ted Regencia, Contributor
AT the height of the US presidential primaries that pitted Chicago’s very own Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one Filipino American [fil-Am] social butterfly emphatically said, “Ay, ayaw ko kay Obama! Baka yung White House magiging Black House.” [I don'tlike Obama. The White House will turn into a Black House!]
It’s a sentiment not so few of Chicago’s Filipino-Americans feel towards their very own senator who is an African-American. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for president, a historic achievement for a black candidate, the antagonism has only intensified.
It all started when Obama won the Iowa caucus on January 3. Shortly after, an online group of Filipinos received a forwarded email attacking Obama’s “Muslim upbringing.” The email asked, “Are you aware that Obama’s middle name is Mohammed (It’s actually Hussein, which means “the handsome one” in Arabic). Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get?” It warned that Obama is “possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today.”
“This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa,” it added. The smear provoked a sharp response from Chicago-based Filipino publisher and editor, Mariano Santos, who described it as “worse than witch-hunt.”
“People who started this fear-mongering are more dangerous than their black propaganda. Filipinos had lived through this dark age, when they cannot even rent a house in a white neighborhood, or date a white American without being in danger of lynching. Now these pathetic Pinoys are circulating this email like they are scions of the Ku Klux Klan,” he said referring to the white supremacist group, KKK.
“These rumor mongers have only prejudice and lies to peddle. They are the danger to true American way of life,” Santos said while castigating the source, a Filipino American and devout Catholic. The online message turned out to be just an initial assault of the candidate.
A second version of the email immediately followed. This time, it accuses Obama of having “a black Muslim” father “a white atheist” mother, and “a radical Muslim” Indonesian step-father. “Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level,” it warned.
Curiously, the attacks were not based on Obama’s liberal policy positions, like his support of abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples. Or even his Iraq withdrawal plan. Rather, it was an in-your-face attack of his race, and his “Muslim links.” Reports of Obama’s Muslim upbringing, however, have been repeatedly debunked by international news organizations like CNN and New York Times. Americans of the Muslim faith also assailed the malicious implication that being a Muslim automatically equates to being unpatriotic, or worse, a supporter of terrorists. By March, as the odds of an Obama nomination increased, the voices of opposition within the Filipino community became even louder.
A former president of the Filipino-American Council of Greater Chicago taunted the Chicago-based publication, PINOY Newsmagazine, by e-mailing altered pictures with the heading, “If Obama wins.” One image shows the Kentucky Fried Chicken logo with Colonel Sanders wearing a turban. Another photo shows the iconic McDonald’s sign changed to McHammed’s.
The Chicago alumni president of a very reputable Catholic university in Manila chimed-in by forwarding a message with the subject entitled, “Interesting: Barack H. Obama, 50 Lies and Counting.” Asked by one of the recipients, who is he recommending for president, his loaded reply was, “The one who tells the TRUTH.” When confronted, he feigned innocence by saying that he was only trying to pass the information around.
Yet another personality, who was crowned Mrs. Philippines in Chicago , was more direct. Santos , the newspaper publisher, recalled that after writingabout Senator Obama, he was confronted in public by the said individual who claimed “in loud and emotional outburst” that Obama is an “evil man.” That same community leader also heads the Philippine Lions Club of Chicago.
The onslaught of racially-charged denunciations continued by the start of Spring. On the 40th Death Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr. last April, for instance, this reporter invited a friend to watch a one-act play honoring the legacy of the foremost civil rights leader. Out of nowhere, a pointed rejection came: “Those blacks are parasites” followed by an Obama-bashing comment.
Another friend, a graduate of the Philippines ’ oldest university, could not hide his disdain of Obama either. As a healthcare practitioner, he said that he had encountered a number of African-American patients. He said that they are “lazy” and dependent on government dole-outs. He concluded that a win by Obama will only perpetuate the black’s sense of victimhood. Suspicions and mistrusts towards the African American community run deep, and the Filipino community is not immune to those false impressions.
For one, many Filipino immigrants have limited understanding of the very violent black experience in America . As Filipinos migrate to America , many bring with them, some deep-seated prejudice against people of darker color, in itself a product of colonial mentality that dictates that everything white is superior.
Even religious upbringing may have unwittingly played a role in forming these pre-conceived notions about color. In church, black always represents sin and bad omen. A wild child in the family is called a “black sheep.”
It’s not always the fault of Filipinos migrants to have brought with them these views from the motherland. Many are hard-working, decent and God-fearing individuals who only have the best interest of their families and community in their hearts. But, as they become part of a multi-cultural and pluralistic society like the United States , it is also necessary for them to understand the new dynamics of the whole community, including the important issue of race. Ignorance of that can create misinformed if not bigoted views.
A deep economic disparity, however, generally prevents Filipino Americans from interacting with their African-American brothers and sisters. An estimated 60 percent of Filipino-Americans have income over $50,000 a year, allowing them to live in middle-class and upper middle-class neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, majority of blacks who suffered many decades of racial discrimination remains disproportionately stuck in the lowest income level, pushing many of them to live in urban ghettos. Many become unemployed for long periods and get involved in various crimes. Absent those physical bonds, the opportunity to have a healthy social integration and interaction between the African American and Filipino-American communities is vastly limited.
The only exposure many Filipinos may have of blacks is when they appear in the news about gang shootings and drug arrests, and that only exacerbates the already dysfunctional view towards the black community. The recent spike in murder rate in Chicago — which is naturally getting intense media attention — only highlights those existing unease. It’s not unusual to hear comments by Filipinos like, “They’re lazy! “How come we’ve managed to improve our way of life here in America , when we are only here for five, 10 years?” “These blacks have been here in America their whole life, and they’re still poor.” While maybe true, comments such as those are myopic and ill-informed.
It does not take into account the long history of slavery and racial discrimination. It also misses the fact that a significant number of African-Americans have climbed up the economic scale by sheer hard work, just like many others.
Indeed, even here in the Windy City , home of well-loved African Americans like the entertainment titan Oprah Winfrey and sports legend Michael Jordan, racial understanding still has a long way to go. And that’s the fragile scenario, where all these political dramas about Senator Obama are being played.
As the new face of politics, the Hawaii-born and Harvard-educated politician has become “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” As CNN political commentator Donna Brazile said, “Race is one of the most difficult issues to navigate in presidential politics especially when often the race card is played. So it all depends if the race card is play and whether or not Barrack Obama will be able to navigate that. Bottom of the deck.”
In this 2008 presidential derby, the challenge for the Filipino-American voters is to avoid being dealt with those race cards, as they decide on their choice for president. A vote for Republican candidate Senator John McCain should not be a vote against Senator Obama’s skin color. Rather it should be about what the Arizona senator stands for on critical issues at that matter.
Let it be about the debate on the economy and national security, and never about who does and doesn’t look “All-American.” It was not too long ago when Filipinos from all over the world were up in arms over the perceived racist treatment of Filipino doctors by the popular US television show, “Desperate Housewives.” And rightly so, for indeed Filipino doctors are of the highest caliber.
Locally in Chicago, Pinoys slammed the department store H&M for the racist slur directed at a Filipino-American customer Frannie Richards, who is a nurse and a U.S. Air Force Reserve Staff Sgt. There was also the brouhaha over the identification by a local television station, of a crime suspect as “Filipino.” The protesters argued that by calling the suspect by his country of origin, it stigmatized the whole Filipino community. The station would later apologize, while the suspect was convicted.
Filipino-Americans cannot claim to be victims of racism, while turning a blind eye on its own prejudice towards the black community and the candidacy of Barack Obama. The larger point is, Filipino-Americans cannot allow the stain of racism smudge its image as a model community. It must confront it head on and condemn it with full force. So when history is written, we will not be sidelined with a footnote as a bunch of racist minority.
Ted Regencia is a Chicago-based Filipino journalist. He is a journalism graduate at Silliman University in Dumaguete City .
Dr. Jose V. Abueva President, Kalayaan College at Riverbanks, 1803 Marikina, Philippines Telefax (632)934 4865 Website: www.kalayaan. edu.ph Email: joseabueva@yahoo. com
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An Open Letter to Joc Joc Bolante from Jun Lozada
I am posting this so-called open letter to Joc Joc Bolante of the fertilizer scam, who is now overseas; from Jun Lozada of the ZTE deal scam. For obvious reasons, I do not 100% sure whether this is really from Jun Lozada, but I believe and think this is a good read. UPDATE: I managed to find the source of this open letter: Jun Lozada's blog, click here.
Here goes:
----------------------
"October 24, 2008
Dear Joc-Joc,
Allow me to call you Joc-Joc as you are known in the media and by many Filipinos, too. As of this morning of the 24th of October, 2008, news about your lawyer petitioning the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the implementation of the arrest warrant issued by the Senate upon your arrival, hugs the headline of the major dailies together with the radio and TV news broadcast. The whole country seems to be anxiously awaiting your return, I am sure your family is also eager to see you back as well.
It is about your family that I am writing you, because of what my own family went through when I was in a similar situation that you are in now. Being a father myself, I know that the welfare and safety of your family is your foremost concern in the middle of all the controversy and the uncertainty that you are facing.
There is so much fear right now that pervades your life along with your loved ones. Questions such as, how safe are you in Manila? Is there a possibility that someone may attempt to harm you or your family? How are the people that you are covering for going to help you? How are you going to answer questions from media? How can the people you are covering up be trusted with their dilatory tactics to get you off the hook, away from the prying questions of the opposition senators?
We're caught up in all of these questions and an "us versus them" way of thinking, that we almost forget to ask the right questions anymore - right questions such as: how are my children hurt with the truth that I am generally perceived as a corrupt criminal by the Filipino nation? How are my children going to explain my involvement in this fertilizer scam to their friends? How is my wife going to face our friends and still be seen as a person with integrity? What legacy am I leaving my children? Is leaving them with millions and big houses in Ayala Alabang better than leaving them with a good name?
I am sharing these insights with you, because if there is one thing that I did regret in telling the truth about how this Arroyo administration has been stealing from the very people it is supposed to serve, it is that I was not able to prepare my wife and my children well enough against the backlash of this government's wrath against me for telling the people about their crimes. You still have time to discern your next move, whether or not you are going to tell the people the truth about the fertilizer scam or bring the secret to your grave, just like Romy Neri.
As a father, I am asking you to please think about your children, please consider the legacy you are going to leave to them. Are you going to forever leave them as pariahs branded as children of a thief--or as children of someone who did wrong and yet chose to serve his country in the end, rather than to be a captive forever of the dark forces he used to serve? And, please prepare your family whatever way you may wish to choose. Discuss this together with them because at the end of it all, they will suffer or be affected more as a consequence of your decision.
Secondly, as a fellow Rotarian, how about taking the Four Way test as part of your discernment process? Is it the Truth? Is it fair to everyone concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendship? Will it be beneficial to everyone concerned? You have been a good Rotarian for many good years of your life. Will you now turn your back on these ideals in the biggest test of your Rotarian values?
Lastly, let me share with you one of the most profound lessons I have learned in my own journey towards the truth, a truth not as a goal to be reached but rather as a way of life to be lived.
I have found that the opposite of all the fears I am confronted with is not courage but faith. It is faith in a God who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life", a just God who will judge us not in terms of the wealth we have on earth but in terms of what we did to our fellow human beings. It is my faith in this God that allowed me to face all the fears that I am confronted with when I decided to tell the truth that I know about the NBN-ZTE scam. May you find the faith to lead you to the Light of God's love that no darkness can ever defeat, not even a President of the Republic of the Philippines.
May God bless you with the wisdom to choose your path.
Jun Lozada"
--
We all have to link and expand our ranks till the entire country is bound together with the strength and the ardor of our resolve. I do not exaggerate when I say this could be our last chance to save democracy in the Philippines. The darkness thickens and we have to move. - Joaquin "Chino" Roces, 1985
Bobby Kennedy - "Laws can embody standards; governments can enforce laws--but the final task is not a task for government. It is a task for each and every one of us. Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted--when we tolerate what we know to be wrong--when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened-- when we fail to speak up and speak out--we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice."
-
Here goes:
----------------------
"October 24, 2008
Dear Joc-Joc,
Allow me to call you Joc-Joc as you are known in the media and by many Filipinos, too. As of this morning of the 24th of October, 2008, news about your lawyer petitioning the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the implementation of the arrest warrant issued by the Senate upon your arrival, hugs the headline of the major dailies together with the radio and TV news broadcast. The whole country seems to be anxiously awaiting your return, I am sure your family is also eager to see you back as well.
It is about your family that I am writing you, because of what my own family went through when I was in a similar situation that you are in now. Being a father myself, I know that the welfare and safety of your family is your foremost concern in the middle of all the controversy and the uncertainty that you are facing.
There is so much fear right now that pervades your life along with your loved ones. Questions such as, how safe are you in Manila? Is there a possibility that someone may attempt to harm you or your family? How are the people that you are covering for going to help you? How are you going to answer questions from media? How can the people you are covering up be trusted with their dilatory tactics to get you off the hook, away from the prying questions of the opposition senators?
We're caught up in all of these questions and an "us versus them" way of thinking, that we almost forget to ask the right questions anymore - right questions such as: how are my children hurt with the truth that I am generally perceived as a corrupt criminal by the Filipino nation? How are my children going to explain my involvement in this fertilizer scam to their friends? How is my wife going to face our friends and still be seen as a person with integrity? What legacy am I leaving my children? Is leaving them with millions and big houses in Ayala Alabang better than leaving them with a good name?
I am sharing these insights with you, because if there is one thing that I did regret in telling the truth about how this Arroyo administration has been stealing from the very people it is supposed to serve, it is that I was not able to prepare my wife and my children well enough against the backlash of this government's wrath against me for telling the people about their crimes. You still have time to discern your next move, whether or not you are going to tell the people the truth about the fertilizer scam or bring the secret to your grave, just like Romy Neri.
As a father, I am asking you to please think about your children, please consider the legacy you are going to leave to them. Are you going to forever leave them as pariahs branded as children of a thief--or as children of someone who did wrong and yet chose to serve his country in the end, rather than to be a captive forever of the dark forces he used to serve? And, please prepare your family whatever way you may wish to choose. Discuss this together with them because at the end of it all, they will suffer or be affected more as a consequence of your decision.
Secondly, as a fellow Rotarian, how about taking the Four Way test as part of your discernment process? Is it the Truth? Is it fair to everyone concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendship? Will it be beneficial to everyone concerned? You have been a good Rotarian for many good years of your life. Will you now turn your back on these ideals in the biggest test of your Rotarian values?
Lastly, let me share with you one of the most profound lessons I have learned in my own journey towards the truth, a truth not as a goal to be reached but rather as a way of life to be lived.
I have found that the opposite of all the fears I am confronted with is not courage but faith. It is faith in a God who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life", a just God who will judge us not in terms of the wealth we have on earth but in terms of what we did to our fellow human beings. It is my faith in this God that allowed me to face all the fears that I am confronted with when I decided to tell the truth that I know about the NBN-ZTE scam. May you find the faith to lead you to the Light of God's love that no darkness can ever defeat, not even a President of the Republic of the Philippines.
May God bless you with the wisdom to choose your path.
Jun Lozada"
--
We all have to link and expand our ranks till the entire country is bound together with the strength and the ardor of our resolve. I do not exaggerate when I say this could be our last chance to save democracy in the Philippines. The darkness thickens and we have to move. - Joaquin "Chino" Roces, 1985
Bobby Kennedy - "Laws can embody standards; governments can enforce laws--but the final task is not a task for government. It is a task for each and every one of us. Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted--when we tolerate what we know to be wrong--when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened-- when we fail to speak up and speak out--we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice."
-
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Numbed with Obama vs McCain
Introduction:
I have been bombarded with McCain "positive" postings and anti-Obama postings in a particular Yahoo group email discussions. I guess the guy is so passionate with his choice of John McCain as his candidate for the US Presidency - to each his own. Hence this email reply:
Thanks Kuyang Willy for pointing this out (an article in Yahoo - click here). I did missed it since am numb with McCain vs Obama issues.
I guess we have our own in built biases as human beings. In the end, we tend to believe what we wanted to believe regardless of the facts at hand. All we can do is diligently do our research and vote for the ones we like. As long as we participate in the process, that is all what counts. If we don't participate at all, we better close our mouth and suffer whatever the consequences.
As a way of sharing, I've been reading a very good (to my own bias mind!) this article by a former Australian Premier, Bob Carr. Here are the excerpts:
Title: This race is far from over (The Sun-Herald, pp 14-15 issue 26 Oct 2008)
"We've been educated in the Bradley (the black Tom Bradley, who was defeated in 1982 for governor of California, he was 15 point ahead in the LA Times poll!) effect -- namely, that a percentage of white voters will tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate but in the privacy of the voting booths do the opposite."
"The brutal truth is that Obama's was not the ideal biography for someone seeking to vault over three centuries of race prejudice. There's the Arabic name: Barack Hussein Obama. And the stubborn ignorance that has Americans insisting he is a Muslim. There are the 20 years spent in the congregation of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Above all, the absence of executive experience.
"None of the above needs count. Except that whites in the South stopped voting Democrats in 1968 in protest of Lyndon Johnson giving votes to blacks and the Democratic party desegregating. Race was the magic that turned the South Republican for 40 years. Remember too, only 18 per cent of American population have passports (compared with about half Australians) and are fed by a media that reports celebrities above news of the world. Their working class is crushed and demoralised, besotted with gun ownership and old time religion. Colin Powell, war hero and conservative, would have been a better bet to break the habits of prejudice.
"By the middle of the year, polls confirmed the election was becoming a referendum for Obama. Six years into an unpopular war and in the middle of what was then a modest recession, everything suggested the election should be about George Bush, not the Democratic candidate.
"A narrow McCain win was - for realist and pessimists -- more likely, especially as the incumbent party generally catches up in the last week of a campaign.
"Then came September 15. Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At 9 am John McCain said in Jacksonville: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." The ensuing full-blown, epoch-making economic crisis propelled Obama ahead. Economics dominates the election.
"To be fair, it was Obama's coolness under fire that seemed to clinch the deal, especially in the three debates in which he held his own and pressed every advantage.
"Michael Kelly, an Australian who teaches speech communication, describes the Obama voice as smooth, deep, lyrical, with the use of swinging cadence to "entertain the ear", stringing words and phrases together like a jazz musician.
"It was deliberate, Obama knew he had to prove to whites an African-American need not be angry, aggressive, emotional.
"The first Africans arrived in America in 1619. This was a full year before the Mayflower. Yet America has been coming to terms with their presence ever since.
"Its constitution contradicted the Declaration of Independence to accommodate slavery. The country then fought a civil war to end it. For a century the South fenced in black citizens behind Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation. In the 1950's blacks insisted on due process in the constitutional courts. The nation yielded to black pressure for equality.
"In 1968, Martin Luther King jnr was cut down by racists and the "nigger lover" Robert Kennedy followed King to a martyr's grave.
"If an African-American wins the November 4 election there will be no avoiding the symbolism.
"Abraham Lincoln once warned Americans: "We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves."
"Economic suffering may overtake the last redoubts of race prejudice. And some Americans - in spite of themselves - may do something to make their friends cheer."
Bob Carr, premier of NSW from 1995 to 2005, is a student of American political history.
Also please see and read this news: Aussies jump on Obama bandwagon: survey (click here).
I have been bombarded with McCain "positive" postings and anti-Obama postings in a particular Yahoo group email discussions. I guess the guy is so passionate with his choice of John McCain as his candidate for the US Presidency - to each his own. Hence this email reply:
Thanks Kuyang Willy for pointing this out (an article in Yahoo - click here). I did missed it since am numb with McCain vs Obama issues.
I guess we have our own in built biases as human beings. In the end, we tend to believe what we wanted to believe regardless of the facts at hand. All we can do is diligently do our research and vote for the ones we like. As long as we participate in the process, that is all what counts. If we don't participate at all, we better close our mouth and suffer whatever the consequences.
As a way of sharing, I've been reading a very good (to my own bias mind!) this article by a former Australian Premier, Bob Carr. Here are the excerpts:
Title: This race is far from over (The Sun-Herald, pp 14-15 issue 26 Oct 2008)
"We've been educated in the Bradley (the black Tom Bradley, who was defeated in 1982 for governor of California, he was 15 point ahead in the LA Times poll!) effect -- namely, that a percentage of white voters will tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate but in the privacy of the voting booths do the opposite."
"The brutal truth is that Obama's was not the ideal biography for someone seeking to vault over three centuries of race prejudice. There's the Arabic name: Barack Hussein Obama. And the stubborn ignorance that has Americans insisting he is a Muslim. There are the 20 years spent in the congregation of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Above all, the absence of executive experience.
"None of the above needs count. Except that whites in the South stopped voting Democrats in 1968 in protest of Lyndon Johnson giving votes to blacks and the Democratic party desegregating. Race was the magic that turned the South Republican for 40 years. Remember too, only 18 per cent of American population have passports (compared with about half Australians) and are fed by a media that reports celebrities above news of the world. Their working class is crushed and demoralised, besotted with gun ownership and old time religion. Colin Powell, war hero and conservative, would have been a better bet to break the habits of prejudice.
"By the middle of the year, polls confirmed the election was becoming a referendum for Obama. Six years into an unpopular war and in the middle of what was then a modest recession, everything suggested the election should be about George Bush, not the Democratic candidate.
"A narrow McCain win was - for realist and pessimists -- more likely, especially as the incumbent party generally catches up in the last week of a campaign.
"Then came September 15. Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At 9 am John McCain said in Jacksonville: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." The ensuing full-blown, epoch-making economic crisis propelled Obama ahead. Economics dominates the election.
"To be fair, it was Obama's coolness under fire that seemed to clinch the deal, especially in the three debates in which he held his own and pressed every advantage.
"Michael Kelly, an Australian who teaches speech communication, describes the Obama voice as smooth, deep, lyrical, with the use of swinging cadence to "entertain the ear", stringing words and phrases together like a jazz musician.
"It was deliberate, Obama knew he had to prove to whites an African-American need not be angry, aggressive, emotional.
"The first Africans arrived in America in 1619. This was a full year before the Mayflower. Yet America has been coming to terms with their presence ever since.
"Its constitution contradicted the Declaration of Independence to accommodate slavery. The country then fought a civil war to end it. For a century the South fenced in black citizens behind Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation. In the 1950's blacks insisted on due process in the constitutional courts. The nation yielded to black pressure for equality.
"In 1968, Martin Luther King jnr was cut down by racists and the "nigger lover" Robert Kennedy followed King to a martyr's grave.
"If an African-American wins the November 4 election there will be no avoiding the symbolism.
"Abraham Lincoln once warned Americans: "We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves."
"Economic suffering may overtake the last redoubts of race prejudice. And some Americans - in spite of themselves - may do something to make their friends cheer."
Bob Carr, premier of NSW from 1995 to 2005, is a student of American political history.
Also please see and read this news: Aussies jump on Obama bandwagon: survey (click here).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Public Lives - Two speeches that made Barack Obama By Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 02:37:00 10/18/2008
MANILA , Philippines —No one who has watched Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in American politics in the last four years can fail to be intrigued by what he represents. More than his charismatic presence and eloquence, I think it is Obama’s deep understanding of the major themes of American culture that has given him an intimate connection to the American people. He has grasped these themes well, weaving them methodically into nearly every speech he has made.
Before July 27, 2004, few outside the state of Illinois knew who Barack Obama was. He had been a state senator in Illinois for more than seven years when he decided to run for the US Senate. The Democratic Party chose him to deliver the keynote at the convention that would proclaim John Kerry as the party’s presidential bet against George W. Bush.
That day, all of America took notice — not of Kerry, but of the unknown young man from Illinois . Obama’s speech eclipsed everyone else’s. He spoke about John Kerry and why he should be the next president of the United States . But above all he spoke about himself and how his improbable presence in US politics affirmed the authenticity of the American dream — the dream that in this land of promise, everyone can boldly hope to become what he sets out to be.
“I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation — not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy.
“Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ “That is the true genius of America —a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles.”
I think the true genius of America lies in its ability to create a social order based on the plurality of races and cultures. Yet race remains an explosive issue. Instead of eliding it as others often do, Obama tackles the issue head-on, almost unmindful of the minefield that surrounds it. He does not ignore the residues of racial prejudice that still divide the American nation, but he chooses to harp on the unity that was meant by the nation’s founders to emerge from the diversity of its people.
“‘E pluribus unum.’ Out of many, one…. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America .... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America …. I’m not talking about blind optimism here…. I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores…. The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.”
This brings us to the other speech that launched Obama’s political star. Apart from its multiracial character, what Obama knows about America is its religiosity — an astonishing irony in a society that projects itself as a beacon of secular democracy. On June 28, 2006, two years after he won a seat in the US Senate, he was invited to keynote a gathering of religious leaders, a perfect occasion to claim space on an issue that had been the turf of Republicans — religion in the public square. Before joining politics, Obama had been a professor of constitutional law. He was expected to articulate a robust secularism against the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. Instead, he expressed a nuanced view of the vital role of religion in society.
“[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause…. Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”
Obama doesn’t leave the issue there however. “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Beside John McCain, who personifies an exhausted empire, the younger Barack Obama symbolizes an American nation that is conscious of its most basic strengths — faith in a time of despair, audacity in a time of uncertainty. . America is lucky to have him as its next president.
MANILA , Philippines —No one who has watched Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in American politics in the last four years can fail to be intrigued by what he represents. More than his charismatic presence and eloquence, I think it is Obama’s deep understanding of the major themes of American culture that has given him an intimate connection to the American people. He has grasped these themes well, weaving them methodically into nearly every speech he has made.
Before July 27, 2004, few outside the state of Illinois knew who Barack Obama was. He had been a state senator in Illinois for more than seven years when he decided to run for the US Senate. The Democratic Party chose him to deliver the keynote at the convention that would proclaim John Kerry as the party’s presidential bet against George W. Bush.
That day, all of America took notice — not of Kerry, but of the unknown young man from Illinois . Obama’s speech eclipsed everyone else’s. He spoke about John Kerry and why he should be the next president of the United States . But above all he spoke about himself and how his improbable presence in US politics affirmed the authenticity of the American dream — the dream that in this land of promise, everyone can boldly hope to become what he sets out to be.
“I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation — not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy.
“Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ “That is the true genius of America —a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles.”
I think the true genius of America lies in its ability to create a social order based on the plurality of races and cultures. Yet race remains an explosive issue. Instead of eliding it as others often do, Obama tackles the issue head-on, almost unmindful of the minefield that surrounds it. He does not ignore the residues of racial prejudice that still divide the American nation, but he chooses to harp on the unity that was meant by the nation’s founders to emerge from the diversity of its people.
“‘E pluribus unum.’ Out of many, one…. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America .... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America …. I’m not talking about blind optimism here…. I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores…. The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.”
This brings us to the other speech that launched Obama’s political star. Apart from its multiracial character, what Obama knows about America is its religiosity — an astonishing irony in a society that projects itself as a beacon of secular democracy. On June 28, 2006, two years after he won a seat in the US Senate, he was invited to keynote a gathering of religious leaders, a perfect occasion to claim space on an issue that had been the turf of Republicans — religion in the public square. Before joining politics, Obama had been a professor of constitutional law. He was expected to articulate a robust secularism against the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. Instead, he expressed a nuanced view of the vital role of religion in society.
“[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause…. Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”
Obama doesn’t leave the issue there however. “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Beside John McCain, who personifies an exhausted empire, the younger Barack Obama symbolizes an American nation that is conscious of its most basic strengths — faith in a time of despair, audacity in a time of uncertainty. . America is lucky to have him as its next president.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Cancer of Corruption by Senator Ping Lacson
This is a speech delivered by Philippine Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson before a public forum sponsored by the Concerned Citizens Movement delivered at the Manila Polo Club, Makati City last May 28, 2008.
"Let me begin with a short story.
A big acacia tree crashed on a segment of the fence surrounding
Malacanang palace. Hence, it needed immediate repairs. Wanting to
show "hands-on" leadership, the lady tenant came down to oversee the bidding among competing contractors.
Contractor Nr 1 is from Amsterdam - "Madam, I can fix it for P900,000."
Contractor Nr 2 is Chinese - "Ma'am, I can do it for P700,000."
Contractor Nr 3 is no ordinary Filipino. He works in the Comelec. "I
will repair the damaged fence for P2.7M."
P2.7M! The lady tenant exclaimed. Why? she asked.
The Filipino Comelec official replies, P1M for you, P1M for me and I
will hire the Chinese to do the job.
The following morning, people saw the Chinaman doing the repairs.
I can end my speech right here and you can understand why we are the most corrupt in Asia.
But let me pay for my dinner.
To all citizens who are deeply concerned, and deeply disturbed, as
well as those whose concern has blossomed into a fierce commitment towards shared principles of good governance; Ladies and Gentlemen,Good Evening:
We meet in deeply troubled times. Not that this country has been
really out of trouble in this horrible decade, but because the prices
of basic commodities from food to fuel have skyrocketed beyond the
means of our people, a scenario filled with gloom and doom.
The millennium supposedly ushered in the Asia-Pacific century. Yet
our country is nowhere in the radar screens of the world economy,
embellished and over-stated statistics notwithstanding.
In an era defined by global competitiveness, we are most
uncompetitive. Our physical infrastructure is woefully inadequate.
Our social infrastructure even more so. Our manufacturing sector has
shrunk. Our agricultural sector has hardly grown, unable even to feed
our increasingly growing population.
Direct foreign investments have looked at countries which used to be
much poorer than ours, when it comes to locating in Asia. Worse,
those which have previously located here in the fifties up to the
eighties, are moving elsewhere. Countries like Thailand used to learn
farming technologies from us; now we have to beg them to export us
some rice. Even Vietnam which was ravaged by a terribly brutal war
barely a generation ago, now gets more foreign tourists and visitors
than our far more beautiful islands.
Our economy is kept on a lifeline coming from the dollars of our
overseas workers, which in turn drives a consumer economy where what is consumed is mostly imported anyhow, and the value added is service. Filipinos are reduced to servicing the labor needs of the outside world, which in turn allows service industries to cater to the dependents of our OFW's.
The majority of our people have remained helplessly poor.
But if the indicia of poverty is high, something else beats that.
When it comes to the indicia of corruption, we are truly world-
class.The latest survey of Transparency International ranks our
country the 8th most corrupt country in the world. Political and
Economic Risk Consultancy based in Hong Kong classifies us the most corrupt in Asia.
Yet fifty years back, we were the envy of many of the countries of
the Asia-Pacific region.
What happened?
Academics and economists will debate endlessly about the wisdom or un-wisdom of the economic policies we pursued. When we were into protectionism, our so-called industrialists took advantage of the lack of competition to make oodles and oodles of money from the domestic market, and failed to keep in pace with the technologies of the outside world. And when we embraced the global economy, we were hardly prepared.
I am aware that this is not the forum for an assessment of where and
when we went wrong with economic policy. But one thing is certain --- regardless of economic directions, the single most negative impact on all our efforts at progress and development has been corruption.Corruption so massive in scale and so endemic in scope.
There is petty corruption committed every day, by lowly clerks and
lowly examiners, by kotong cops and traffic aides. There is
corruption in land transportation agencies, where driving licenses
are given even to the blind, and corruption in sea travel, wherefor a price. Our roads peel with the first heavy downpour; our
schools turn roofless with the first typhoon. Police generals, along
with mayors, governors and congressmen tolerate illegal gambling;
some even operate it themselves. Fiscals are fixed by the rich to
file cases against the poor, no matter if innocent. And judges deny
justice for money, or pressure from the powerful, mostly both.
But corruption in the highest of power circles is worse. It affects,
nay, shapes public policy and program implementation in the most
egregious manner. It used to be that programs and projects were
crafted with public need and public good in mind. And corruption was
a by-product of the implementation of a project that was imbued with
public good to begin with. Those were the long bygone times when a
10% commission, was deemed "acceptable" by contractors and suppliers, and delivered to the government officials with a "smile". "Smiling money", as Jun Lozada calls it.
These days, public need and public good are farthest from the minds
of crooks in high places. Programs and projects are designed
principally for personal profit, never mind if no real public good is
served. The NBN-ZTE project is the most recent example.
A national broadband network that is not urgently needed, that is
better left to the private sector, is designed to take advantage of
the overflowing resources of a friendly nation. Instead of an
investment by way of a build and operate arrangement, a supply
contract is drawn with a foreign company, and the same is billed as
an investment. But that was not bad enough. The more horrible story
unraveled piece by piece, where equipment, service and training worth 130 million dollars balloons into a 329 million dollar purchase. This is not 10%. This is not even the 30 to 40% that has become "usual" in pork barrel funded projects. This is an overprice of 150%, to be paid for by present and even future generations of our people.
Unconscionable. Excessively greedy. But worse was when a witness
whose conscience bothered him was clearly abducted upon arrival at
the airport, and only the vigilance of an alert media and concerned
citizens like you saved him from the designs of the minions of the
guilty.
And yet, two years earlier, another crime in the highest of places
was uncovered. It involved the corruption of a commissioner in charge
of elections, and along with him, a cabal of other government
officials, civilian as well as military. And the prize was much much
more than hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of pesos. The
prize was the presidency itself which in a democracy is supposed to
be decided by the sovereign people. No less than the presidency had
become the object of transactions by persons willing to subvert that
sovereign will. Corruption could not possibly be worse than this ---
where the corruptor is no less than the sitting president of the
republic.
Yet when shit hit the fan, and guilt was too obvious for everyone to
see, corruption once more proved to be the solution to her problem.
She lied and got most everybody else to lie. And to ensure that
congressmen sworn to protect democracy would willingly close their
eyes to obvious truth, the executive simply bought consciences with
more pork and greater perks.
A year after, another impeachment case was filed, and those who saw the futility of fighting for truth and giving justice to the sovereign people, succumbed to the same transactions of corruption.
Successful each year, they became more brazen. Fat envelopes were distributed right in Malacanang, all a matter of course, all without a shred of shame. When a priestly governor denounced it, ridiculous contortions were passed off as explanations, and soon, the matter just died down. Evil triumphed once more.
Yet the signs were all there to begin with.
All of us hoped that in the aftermath of the second ousting of a president by people power, the successor government would consecrate itself to good governance and minimum corruption. Yet barely a week after taking power, sovereign guarantee was extended to IMPSA, amid whispers of an offer of $14M. That was seven years and a half ago,and only recently did the Ombudsman file charges against a former justice secretary, the unexplained dollar trail of which I first exposed, and the Swiss federal officials confirmed. Don't count on those charges prospering, for as long as this government remains in power. They have to protect those who know too much about the rest of the money trail.
Remember Pacifico Marcelo, whose telecommunications business this leadership wanted to take over barely a month after Edsa Dos? The guy had to flee for his life.
A 2.2 kilometer boulevard built by the previous government at a cost
of 650 million pesos was taken over by the officials of this
administration, finished by the new dispensation with landscaping
touches, and suddenly, the cost ballooned to 1.1 billion pesos.
Filipinos refer to it as the most expensive boulevard in the whole
universe.
The leadership was so proud of this most expensive boulevard that she had it named after her father, a former president remembered kindly for the simple life.
There was the short-lived but long remembered saga of Jose Pidal,
where a cacophony of bare-faced lies and an abduction of a material
witness, was made to cover-up for money laundering and unexplained
wealth so brazen.
And in another instance where programs are prostituted for perfidious
money-making, the Department of Agriculture bought overpriced fake
fertilizers ostensibly for food production, and distributed these
even to congressmen in Metro Manila where no farms exist, for them to convert into cash to be used to buy the elections of 2004.
Another set of lies for explanations nobody in his right mind could
buy. Just another scandal to wiggle itself from. When the Senate was
closing in, the architect of the fertilizer scam, Joc-Joc Bolante,
simply flew away.
These cases are never closed. They live in the public mind. But
temporary "closure" buys time for the corrupt. Time to steal some
more. Time to continue making a mockery of governance. Time to
continue crafting public policy with the aim of making more and more
money.
In the words of Dean Raul Pangalangan written recently in his
Inquirer column, we ushered into power "a kleptocratic mafia whose
greed is unprecedented in Philippine history".
Indeed,name it and you see or smell the same "kleptocratic mafia" at play. In smuggling, wherever the waterfront is, whether Manila, Batangas, Subic, Cebu or Cagayan, via containers or breakbulk cargo. And even shipside in the case of oil. In gambling, legal or illegal. In land registration anomalies and in the registration of hot cars. In the importation of rice and sugar. In public works projects and in
the misuse of close to 10 billion pesos annually of road user funds.In big-ticket transportation and telecommunications projects. In buying high-priced X-ray machines for containers, ostensibly to fight smuggling, even in ports where hardly any containers are shipped. And computers for public schools whose teachers are not even computer-literate. In the North Rail as well as the South Rail.
So pervasive is the corruption that its cancer has metastasized all
over the body politic. Almost everybody and everything has become
transactional ---a legislator's vote or his verbosity in defense of
the mafia, even judicial decisions. And of course, that which is
called the foundation of democratic rule --- elections.
So where do we go from here? Can we ever put an end to corruption?
We are where we are now --- mired in corruption, because in the past
and up to the present, we as a people tolerated "small" graft, be it
the "kotong" of cops or the "lagay" for clerks in regulatory and
licensing agencies. We took jueteng as "normal" and accepted the
corruption of our officials by jueteng lords as a "way of life". We
know that our congressmen and senators take kickbacks from the
projects funded by their pork barrel, but we nevertheless thank them
for the overpriced or under-specified project. And elect them back to
office.
We see the crooks at Holy Mass, the first even to receive the
sacraments, and we forget their mortal sins of corruption and
avarice. We see them at parties, and we oblige them with greetings.
Some would call that social form. Just like our so-called democracy---
all form and little substance.
For crooks, crime pays in our corrupted body politic, because no one
is severely punished. In time, even the shame disappears. As it has.
The culture of impunity has firmly taken root.
We need to install leaders who, trite though it may sound, will lead
by the power of good example.
We need a benevolent, strong leader who can make government feel
afraid of its people and make people unafraid of their government,
Sure we can re-design our procurement systems, tighten our audit of
government contracts, go into electronic bidding, even increase the
penalties for graft. But all these require zealous implementation,
without any let-up and without any exceptions to the rule. But a
leader cannot compel obedience if those who should follow, are aware that the leader himself or herself participates in corruption.
We need a leader who is ready and willing to "break glass" in
fighting all forms of corruption, not someone who would rather sweet-
talk, or pass by through propaganda spins.
Never again should we allow the least of us to lead us. The "least"
is here defined not in terms of a lack of academic preparation or
intellectual gifts, rather, the "least" are those who have had a
history of corruption, or who have gone up the political ladder by
cutting deals and compromises with the corrupt.
Never must we subscribe to the false reasoning that says a public
servant on his way up the political ladder has to accept certain
givens of the political game, and compromise with what is morally
wrong. One who has compromised with small graft in his or her salad
days will partake of bigger and bigger graft as he or she occupies
higher and higher office.
For moderate greed eventually becomes immoderate and excessive.
As a nation, we have suffered enough from years of unabated
corruption. Our schools are sub-standard; proper health care is
unaffordable to the middle-class and inaccessible to the poor; our
peace-keeping forces are ill-equipped and under-manned. Our food
supply is short, and the patience of our people is wearing extremely
thin. Corruption has robbed us of the most fundamental of services
that are the responsibility of a government our taxes support. We are
into exceedingly difficult times.
If we seriously meditate on why our quality of life has so
deteriorated through the years, we will agree that the biggest
culprit is corruption. We have to excise the malignancy, and
thereafter, begin to build a kinder society and a more responsive
polity.
We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to future generations.
There are problems of policy that we may debate and discuss. There is a sense of nationhood that we must begin to inculcate. There is a business environment whose playing field we must always level. There is social unrest that we must quell through the provision of fundamental services that will ensure equal opportunity. But first and foremost, there is a rot in the body politic that we must excise.There is a cancer of corruption that we must extinguish.
At the end of the day, for all of us, there is a responsibility to
the next generation and to the future Philippines, to redeem our
nation from the curse of corruption. As Pilosopong Tasio said, "No
todos dormian en la noche de nuestros abuelos" Not everyone slept in the long night of our forefathers. "
The debate on public policy and economic directions are replete with
pros and cons, conflicting sides each with subsequent merit. But
there is only one side to corruption. No matter what, it is evil. And
there can be, there should be, no compromise with evil.
It wasn't like this before. Those of you who like me are over fifty still remember when times were kinder. When the middle-class and the poor could hope. And when hard work could yet turn those hopes into reality.
Let me end with another story:
Many, many years ago, there was a poor couple with eight children.Despite their poverty, or perhaps because of it, they dreamt of sending all of eight children to school and earn their college degrees.
Raising eight children and seeing them through school was back-
breaking for that poor couple. But through honest toil and plenty of
prayers, the couple managed to get all their eight children through
public school, and thence, through college.
"May awa ang Diyos, makakaraos din tayo mga anak. Sukdulang hindi kami kumaing mag-asawa ng tatlong beses isang araw, makatapos lamang kayo sa inyong pag-aaral " - iyan ang madalas sabihin ng mag-asawa.
They were a deeply religious couple. Never a Sunday passed that they did not attend Mass in the town's parish church. And they instilled the same moral values they practiced among their brood of eight.
The fourth child became a soldier, law-enforcer and eventually a
public servant.He may not be the ideal public servant in the minds
of his critics and doubting Thomases, but he does his best to live by
the virtues that his poor parents had imbued in his young mind and
the rest of his siblings.
How many such poor couples, in this day and age, can yet succeed to give their kids, even a smaller brood of two or three, the same blessings received by the eight children from the hard and honest toil of their poor parents in my story?
If we all leave this hall tonight determined --- that together we can
yet bring back those kinder times when everyone could hope, under a
government that provided enough reason to hope, enough reason to be believed, then the concerns that brought us together here tonight shall have become a mighty, committed force.
By the way, the poor couple in my short story are my parents. I am
their fourth child.
Thank you and good evening."
"Let me begin with a short story.
A big acacia tree crashed on a segment of the fence surrounding
Malacanang palace. Hence, it needed immediate repairs. Wanting to
show "hands-on" leadership, the lady tenant came down to oversee the bidding among competing contractors.
Contractor Nr 1 is from Amsterdam - "Madam, I can fix it for P900,000."
Contractor Nr 2 is Chinese - "Ma'am, I can do it for P700,000."
Contractor Nr 3 is no ordinary Filipino. He works in the Comelec. "I
will repair the damaged fence for P2.7M."
P2.7M! The lady tenant exclaimed. Why? she asked.
The Filipino Comelec official replies, P1M for you, P1M for me and I
will hire the Chinese to do the job.
The following morning, people saw the Chinaman doing the repairs.
I can end my speech right here and you can understand why we are the most corrupt in Asia.
But let me pay for my dinner.
To all citizens who are deeply concerned, and deeply disturbed, as
well as those whose concern has blossomed into a fierce commitment towards shared principles of good governance; Ladies and Gentlemen,Good Evening:
We meet in deeply troubled times. Not that this country has been
really out of trouble in this horrible decade, but because the prices
of basic commodities from food to fuel have skyrocketed beyond the
means of our people, a scenario filled with gloom and doom.
The millennium supposedly ushered in the Asia-Pacific century. Yet
our country is nowhere in the radar screens of the world economy,
embellished and over-stated statistics notwithstanding.
In an era defined by global competitiveness, we are most
uncompetitive. Our physical infrastructure is woefully inadequate.
Our social infrastructure even more so. Our manufacturing sector has
shrunk. Our agricultural sector has hardly grown, unable even to feed
our increasingly growing population.
Direct foreign investments have looked at countries which used to be
much poorer than ours, when it comes to locating in Asia. Worse,
those which have previously located here in the fifties up to the
eighties, are moving elsewhere. Countries like Thailand used to learn
farming technologies from us; now we have to beg them to export us
some rice. Even Vietnam which was ravaged by a terribly brutal war
barely a generation ago, now gets more foreign tourists and visitors
than our far more beautiful islands.
Our economy is kept on a lifeline coming from the dollars of our
overseas workers, which in turn drives a consumer economy where what is consumed is mostly imported anyhow, and the value added is service. Filipinos are reduced to servicing the labor needs of the outside world, which in turn allows service industries to cater to the dependents of our OFW's.
The majority of our people have remained helplessly poor.
But if the indicia of poverty is high, something else beats that.
When it comes to the indicia of corruption, we are truly world-
class.The latest survey of Transparency International ranks our
country the 8th most corrupt country in the world. Political and
Economic Risk Consultancy based in Hong Kong classifies us the most corrupt in Asia.
Yet fifty years back, we were the envy of many of the countries of
the Asia-Pacific region.
What happened?
Academics and economists will debate endlessly about the wisdom or un-wisdom of the economic policies we pursued. When we were into protectionism, our so-called industrialists took advantage of the lack of competition to make oodles and oodles of money from the domestic market, and failed to keep in pace with the technologies of the outside world. And when we embraced the global economy, we were hardly prepared.
I am aware that this is not the forum for an assessment of where and
when we went wrong with economic policy. But one thing is certain --- regardless of economic directions, the single most negative impact on all our efforts at progress and development has been corruption.Corruption so massive in scale and so endemic in scope.
There is petty corruption committed every day, by lowly clerks and
lowly examiners, by kotong cops and traffic aides. There is
corruption in land transportation agencies, where driving licenses
are given even to the blind, and corruption in sea travel, wherefor a price. Our roads peel with the first heavy downpour; our
schools turn roofless with the first typhoon. Police generals, along
with mayors, governors and congressmen tolerate illegal gambling;
some even operate it themselves. Fiscals are fixed by the rich to
file cases against the poor, no matter if innocent. And judges deny
justice for money, or pressure from the powerful, mostly both.
But corruption in the highest of power circles is worse. It affects,
nay, shapes public policy and program implementation in the most
egregious manner. It used to be that programs and projects were
crafted with public need and public good in mind. And corruption was
a by-product of the implementation of a project that was imbued with
public good to begin with. Those were the long bygone times when a
10% commission, was deemed "acceptable" by contractors and suppliers, and delivered to the government officials with a "smile". "Smiling money", as Jun Lozada calls it.
These days, public need and public good are farthest from the minds
of crooks in high places. Programs and projects are designed
principally for personal profit, never mind if no real public good is
served. The NBN-ZTE project is the most recent example.
A national broadband network that is not urgently needed, that is
better left to the private sector, is designed to take advantage of
the overflowing resources of a friendly nation. Instead of an
investment by way of a build and operate arrangement, a supply
contract is drawn with a foreign company, and the same is billed as
an investment. But that was not bad enough. The more horrible story
unraveled piece by piece, where equipment, service and training worth 130 million dollars balloons into a 329 million dollar purchase. This is not 10%. This is not even the 30 to 40% that has become "usual" in pork barrel funded projects. This is an overprice of 150%, to be paid for by present and even future generations of our people.
Unconscionable. Excessively greedy. But worse was when a witness
whose conscience bothered him was clearly abducted upon arrival at
the airport, and only the vigilance of an alert media and concerned
citizens like you saved him from the designs of the minions of the
guilty.
And yet, two years earlier, another crime in the highest of places
was uncovered. It involved the corruption of a commissioner in charge
of elections, and along with him, a cabal of other government
officials, civilian as well as military. And the prize was much much
more than hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of pesos. The
prize was the presidency itself which in a democracy is supposed to
be decided by the sovereign people. No less than the presidency had
become the object of transactions by persons willing to subvert that
sovereign will. Corruption could not possibly be worse than this ---
where the corruptor is no less than the sitting president of the
republic.
Yet when shit hit the fan, and guilt was too obvious for everyone to
see, corruption once more proved to be the solution to her problem.
She lied and got most everybody else to lie. And to ensure that
congressmen sworn to protect democracy would willingly close their
eyes to obvious truth, the executive simply bought consciences with
more pork and greater perks.
A year after, another impeachment case was filed, and those who saw the futility of fighting for truth and giving justice to the sovereign people, succumbed to the same transactions of corruption.
Successful each year, they became more brazen. Fat envelopes were distributed right in Malacanang, all a matter of course, all without a shred of shame. When a priestly governor denounced it, ridiculous contortions were passed off as explanations, and soon, the matter just died down. Evil triumphed once more.
Yet the signs were all there to begin with.
All of us hoped that in the aftermath of the second ousting of a president by people power, the successor government would consecrate itself to good governance and minimum corruption. Yet barely a week after taking power, sovereign guarantee was extended to IMPSA, amid whispers of an offer of $14M. That was seven years and a half ago,and only recently did the Ombudsman file charges against a former justice secretary, the unexplained dollar trail of which I first exposed, and the Swiss federal officials confirmed. Don't count on those charges prospering, for as long as this government remains in power. They have to protect those who know too much about the rest of the money trail.
Remember Pacifico Marcelo, whose telecommunications business this leadership wanted to take over barely a month after Edsa Dos? The guy had to flee for his life.
A 2.2 kilometer boulevard built by the previous government at a cost
of 650 million pesos was taken over by the officials of this
administration, finished by the new dispensation with landscaping
touches, and suddenly, the cost ballooned to 1.1 billion pesos.
Filipinos refer to it as the most expensive boulevard in the whole
universe.
The leadership was so proud of this most expensive boulevard that she had it named after her father, a former president remembered kindly for the simple life.
There was the short-lived but long remembered saga of Jose Pidal,
where a cacophony of bare-faced lies and an abduction of a material
witness, was made to cover-up for money laundering and unexplained
wealth so brazen.
And in another instance where programs are prostituted for perfidious
money-making, the Department of Agriculture bought overpriced fake
fertilizers ostensibly for food production, and distributed these
even to congressmen in Metro Manila where no farms exist, for them to convert into cash to be used to buy the elections of 2004.
Another set of lies for explanations nobody in his right mind could
buy. Just another scandal to wiggle itself from. When the Senate was
closing in, the architect of the fertilizer scam, Joc-Joc Bolante,
simply flew away.
These cases are never closed. They live in the public mind. But
temporary "closure" buys time for the corrupt. Time to steal some
more. Time to continue making a mockery of governance. Time to
continue crafting public policy with the aim of making more and more
money.
In the words of Dean Raul Pangalangan written recently in his
Inquirer column, we ushered into power "a kleptocratic mafia whose
greed is unprecedented in Philippine history".
Indeed,name it and you see or smell the same "kleptocratic mafia" at play. In smuggling, wherever the waterfront is, whether Manila, Batangas, Subic, Cebu or Cagayan, via containers or breakbulk cargo. And even shipside in the case of oil. In gambling, legal or illegal. In land registration anomalies and in the registration of hot cars. In the importation of rice and sugar. In public works projects and in
the misuse of close to 10 billion pesos annually of road user funds.In big-ticket transportation and telecommunications projects. In buying high-priced X-ray machines for containers, ostensibly to fight smuggling, even in ports where hardly any containers are shipped. And computers for public schools whose teachers are not even computer-literate. In the North Rail as well as the South Rail.
So pervasive is the corruption that its cancer has metastasized all
over the body politic. Almost everybody and everything has become
transactional ---a legislator's vote or his verbosity in defense of
the mafia, even judicial decisions. And of course, that which is
called the foundation of democratic rule --- elections.
So where do we go from here? Can we ever put an end to corruption?
We are where we are now --- mired in corruption, because in the past
and up to the present, we as a people tolerated "small" graft, be it
the "kotong" of cops or the "lagay" for clerks in regulatory and
licensing agencies. We took jueteng as "normal" and accepted the
corruption of our officials by jueteng lords as a "way of life". We
know that our congressmen and senators take kickbacks from the
projects funded by their pork barrel, but we nevertheless thank them
for the overpriced or under-specified project. And elect them back to
office.
We see the crooks at Holy Mass, the first even to receive the
sacraments, and we forget their mortal sins of corruption and
avarice. We see them at parties, and we oblige them with greetings.
Some would call that social form. Just like our so-called democracy---
all form and little substance.
For crooks, crime pays in our corrupted body politic, because no one
is severely punished. In time, even the shame disappears. As it has.
The culture of impunity has firmly taken root.
We need to install leaders who, trite though it may sound, will lead
by the power of good example.
We need a benevolent, strong leader who can make government feel
afraid of its people and make people unafraid of their government,
Sure we can re-design our procurement systems, tighten our audit of
government contracts, go into electronic bidding, even increase the
penalties for graft. But all these require zealous implementation,
without any let-up and without any exceptions to the rule. But a
leader cannot compel obedience if those who should follow, are aware that the leader himself or herself participates in corruption.
We need a leader who is ready and willing to "break glass" in
fighting all forms of corruption, not someone who would rather sweet-
talk, or pass by through propaganda spins.
Never again should we allow the least of us to lead us. The "least"
is here defined not in terms of a lack of academic preparation or
intellectual gifts, rather, the "least" are those who have had a
history of corruption, or who have gone up the political ladder by
cutting deals and compromises with the corrupt.
Never must we subscribe to the false reasoning that says a public
servant on his way up the political ladder has to accept certain
givens of the political game, and compromise with what is morally
wrong. One who has compromised with small graft in his or her salad
days will partake of bigger and bigger graft as he or she occupies
higher and higher office.
For moderate greed eventually becomes immoderate and excessive.
As a nation, we have suffered enough from years of unabated
corruption. Our schools are sub-standard; proper health care is
unaffordable to the middle-class and inaccessible to the poor; our
peace-keeping forces are ill-equipped and under-manned. Our food
supply is short, and the patience of our people is wearing extremely
thin. Corruption has robbed us of the most fundamental of services
that are the responsibility of a government our taxes support. We are
into exceedingly difficult times.
If we seriously meditate on why our quality of life has so
deteriorated through the years, we will agree that the biggest
culprit is corruption. We have to excise the malignancy, and
thereafter, begin to build a kinder society and a more responsive
polity.
We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to future generations.
There are problems of policy that we may debate and discuss. There is a sense of nationhood that we must begin to inculcate. There is a business environment whose playing field we must always level. There is social unrest that we must quell through the provision of fundamental services that will ensure equal opportunity. But first and foremost, there is a rot in the body politic that we must excise.There is a cancer of corruption that we must extinguish.
At the end of the day, for all of us, there is a responsibility to
the next generation and to the future Philippines, to redeem our
nation from the curse of corruption. As Pilosopong Tasio said, "No
todos dormian en la noche de nuestros abuelos" Not everyone slept in the long night of our forefathers. "
The debate on public policy and economic directions are replete with
pros and cons, conflicting sides each with subsequent merit. But
there is only one side to corruption. No matter what, it is evil. And
there can be, there should be, no compromise with evil.
It wasn't like this before. Those of you who like me are over fifty still remember when times were kinder. When the middle-class and the poor could hope. And when hard work could yet turn those hopes into reality.
Let me end with another story:
Many, many years ago, there was a poor couple with eight children.Despite their poverty, or perhaps because of it, they dreamt of sending all of eight children to school and earn their college degrees.
Raising eight children and seeing them through school was back-
breaking for that poor couple. But through honest toil and plenty of
prayers, the couple managed to get all their eight children through
public school, and thence, through college.
"May awa ang Diyos, makakaraos din tayo mga anak. Sukdulang hindi kami kumaing mag-asawa ng tatlong beses isang araw, makatapos lamang kayo sa inyong pag-aaral " - iyan ang madalas sabihin ng mag-asawa.
They were a deeply religious couple. Never a Sunday passed that they did not attend Mass in the town's parish church. And they instilled the same moral values they practiced among their brood of eight.
The fourth child became a soldier, law-enforcer and eventually a
public servant.He may not be the ideal public servant in the minds
of his critics and doubting Thomases, but he does his best to live by
the virtues that his poor parents had imbued in his young mind and
the rest of his siblings.
How many such poor couples, in this day and age, can yet succeed to give their kids, even a smaller brood of two or three, the same blessings received by the eight children from the hard and honest toil of their poor parents in my story?
If we all leave this hall tonight determined --- that together we can
yet bring back those kinder times when everyone could hope, under a
government that provided enough reason to hope, enough reason to be believed, then the concerns that brought us together here tonight shall have become a mighty, committed force.
By the way, the poor couple in my short story are my parents. I am
their fourth child.
Thank you and good evening."
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Dear Gemma: A Rejoinder by Herman Tiu Laurel
Below is a rejoinder/reply to an open letter circulated on the internet attributed to a Ms Gemma S. Dimaculangan. Daily Tribune columnist, Herman Tiu Laurel, wrote the following on his March 28, 2008 Die Hard III column. He offered a more deeper and somewhat detailed analysis to what ails this country of almost 90 million people, more than half of which lives in poverty while a great percentage of its middle class are overseas workers.
"Dear Gemma,
Your heartbreak letter pouring your disgust over corruption in the Philippines has circulated all over the Internet and returned to Manila as a piece in one of the mainstream newspapers. You rail as a “taxpayer” against the “criminals in ‘barong’” stealing the 30 percent from your income you pay as a citizen, expressing disgust over the senators associated with crooks (referring to Gloria’s gang).
I especially liked your snide remark on Joker Arroyo for “making a joke of his own ‘pag bad ka, lagot ka!” You missed the mark somewhat when you allowed Gloria leeway in saying “PGMA time and again turns a blind eye to her husband’s financial deals” — as if Gloria weren’t the mastermind of the entire caboodle of corruption.
You correctly lamented the attitude by some expat Filipinos: “They say the few stupid ones like me who remain in the Philippines are no longer capable of showing disgust.” It’s good you said you “…don’t agree” and “Many like me feel anger at the brazenness of men we call our leaders, embarrassment to share the same nationality with them… But I am writing this because I need to do something concrete… I want to make it known that there are also Filipinos who dream of something better … I want them to know that my country is not filled with scalawags and crooks in every corner, and that there are citizens left who believe in decency, fairness…” You called for Filipinos to summon the power of good and implored “mothers out there to raise your children the best way you can…”
Ms. Dimaculangan, your letter struck a powerful chord among Filipinos abroad that they circulated it until your plaintive cry came all the way back to your home country. It rang a powerful bell in the hearts of your countrymen to your call not to be cynical but to let “… your voices be heard” to do “what you can for this land of your ancestors and your heritage.” But the question you have not provided an answer to is “what to do?” Before I proceed to give my response to your cries, Gemma, let me say this country — along with its government — is really replete with good, self-sacrificing and honest citizens — the vast majority of its soldiers and policemen are honest and faithful to their service despite living in pitiful hovels in squatter areas while the elite they protect wall themselves off in Forbes or Dasmariñas Village, or in Makati condos aeries.
There are over half-a-milion Filipino public school teachers and many, like Teacher Julie of Patubig Elementary School in Bulacan and Teacher Deo of Krus na Ligas High School in Quezon City, who work in oversized classes of up to 70 students. Underpaid and they often foot the bill for what the schools lack — such as a busted fluorescent light tube or even electricity payment the provincial and education funds can not cover because 60 percent of the National Budget goes to payment of external debt. Which really brings us to the international dimension of our crisis and the corruption of the country’s top government echelons: we are country endowed with natural bounties other countries covet and exploit while we grow poorer, but we never elected the most corrupt leaders like Arroyo who was installed by foreign powers with their local collaborators.
Take Edsa II which deposed a national leader elected by 11 million Filipinos in only two-and-a-half years in office; Estrada was not even given a chance to fail; he was never given the opportunity to prove the viability programs. Who did him in? This is what most people now know: A combination of local oligarchs in the power, water utility and telecommunications businesses aided by local church potentates like Cardinal Sin, trapos par excellence like FVR with the most corrupt police and military generals and proclaimed by a Supreme Court unfaithful to the Constitution. What few Filipinos realize is that Bush and corporate America were behind it too, to push the “War on Terror” and privatize and plunder the national wealth.
Like many Filipinos, you do not see the methods of the foreign predatory powers that have plagued the country from Lapu-Lapu through Gabriela Silang, to Jose Rizal and Bonifacio down to this day: the foreign powers use their economic and political clout to put in their “gobernador-general”. The foreign powers were appointed to her “Council of Foreign Economic Advisers” Gloria. The foreign powers love corrupt leaders like Mrs. Arroyo because they are “buyable”, and if the financial price becomes too high like Gloria’s (the Chinese are bidding higher) then they are “blackmail-able” like in ZTE-NBN. Worse comes to worse, the foreign power can oust a leader by Filipino generals trained in Fort Bragg staging a “coup” disguised as “people power.” It was in the hope of ousting the foreign powers that Rizal, Bonifacio, Mabini et al dedicated their lives to national revolution.
Ms. Dimaculangan, this aspect of foreign corruption of our national affairs is what you miss in your otherwise comprehensive review of corruption in our society. Putting the moral of the story in a nutshell, I turn to the current rice supply problem, which is a food supply issue. Arroyo’s regime used the agricultural budget for fertilizers to buy the 2004 elections while letting rice smuggling go unchecked the past seven years; President Estrada put as top priority food security, certified an irrigation expansion bill into law and prioritized other food programs — like milk production. The next food crisis is the global shortage of milk which is already felt everywhere in rising prices. Estrada put into law the Carabao Breeding Program, anticipating this milk crisis by a decade. Gloria has done nothing on this score, and it is the youngest Filipinos who will suffer.
President Marcos prioritized irrigation and food productivity while Cory Aquino canceled almost all major irrigation dams Marcos initiated, yet to this day Marcos is demonized while Cory Aquino is lionized by the Western and local elite-controlled media. The fact is, in many surveys, the pining for the “good old days” of tangible economic development and benefits of the Marcos era is growing in the hearts of many poor Filipinos. It is not easy to sort out the truth after the “demonization” of Marcos and Estrada by international and local media, and even by the educational system directed by those in control today. Over time truth will out and the un-Filipino character of the puppet leaders of the foreign powers are sure to be exposed completely while the pro-Filipino will stand out: deposed Marcos and Estrada had Filipino welfare at heart while Cory, FVR and Gloria who have enjoyed Western support have brought us to the present dire straits.
Corruption is always an issue, but not all corrupt countries get poorer and poorer like the Philippines. China and India are corrupt, higher than the Philippines in many corruption surveys but they are growing as economic dragons. You see, Gemma, the greatest corruption is betrayal of your country’s welfare. I have news reports on the milk crisis now in the US, Britain, India and many other countries. Like the early warning the past years on the growing rice shortage, I am alerting Filipinos to the impending milk crisis for the Philippines — but as usual, few will take heed; while the country rails and flails about ZTE-NBN and corruption the next famine is creeping into every crib in every home: the milk shortage."
"Dear Gemma,
Your heartbreak letter pouring your disgust over corruption in the Philippines has circulated all over the Internet and returned to Manila as a piece in one of the mainstream newspapers. You rail as a “taxpayer” against the “criminals in ‘barong’” stealing the 30 percent from your income you pay as a citizen, expressing disgust over the senators associated with crooks (referring to Gloria’s gang).
I especially liked your snide remark on Joker Arroyo for “making a joke of his own ‘pag bad ka, lagot ka!” You missed the mark somewhat when you allowed Gloria leeway in saying “PGMA time and again turns a blind eye to her husband’s financial deals” — as if Gloria weren’t the mastermind of the entire caboodle of corruption.
You correctly lamented the attitude by some expat Filipinos: “They say the few stupid ones like me who remain in the Philippines are no longer capable of showing disgust.” It’s good you said you “…don’t agree” and “Many like me feel anger at the brazenness of men we call our leaders, embarrassment to share the same nationality with them… But I am writing this because I need to do something concrete… I want to make it known that there are also Filipinos who dream of something better … I want them to know that my country is not filled with scalawags and crooks in every corner, and that there are citizens left who believe in decency, fairness…” You called for Filipinos to summon the power of good and implored “mothers out there to raise your children the best way you can…”
Ms. Dimaculangan, your letter struck a powerful chord among Filipinos abroad that they circulated it until your plaintive cry came all the way back to your home country. It rang a powerful bell in the hearts of your countrymen to your call not to be cynical but to let “… your voices be heard” to do “what you can for this land of your ancestors and your heritage.” But the question you have not provided an answer to is “what to do?” Before I proceed to give my response to your cries, Gemma, let me say this country — along with its government — is really replete with good, self-sacrificing and honest citizens — the vast majority of its soldiers and policemen are honest and faithful to their service despite living in pitiful hovels in squatter areas while the elite they protect wall themselves off in Forbes or Dasmariñas Village, or in Makati condos aeries.
There are over half-a-milion Filipino public school teachers and many, like Teacher Julie of Patubig Elementary School in Bulacan and Teacher Deo of Krus na Ligas High School in Quezon City, who work in oversized classes of up to 70 students. Underpaid and they often foot the bill for what the schools lack — such as a busted fluorescent light tube or even electricity payment the provincial and education funds can not cover because 60 percent of the National Budget goes to payment of external debt. Which really brings us to the international dimension of our crisis and the corruption of the country’s top government echelons: we are country endowed with natural bounties other countries covet and exploit while we grow poorer, but we never elected the most corrupt leaders like Arroyo who was installed by foreign powers with their local collaborators.
Take Edsa II which deposed a national leader elected by 11 million Filipinos in only two-and-a-half years in office; Estrada was not even given a chance to fail; he was never given the opportunity to prove the viability programs. Who did him in? This is what most people now know: A combination of local oligarchs in the power, water utility and telecommunications businesses aided by local church potentates like Cardinal Sin, trapos par excellence like FVR with the most corrupt police and military generals and proclaimed by a Supreme Court unfaithful to the Constitution. What few Filipinos realize is that Bush and corporate America were behind it too, to push the “War on Terror” and privatize and plunder the national wealth.
Like many Filipinos, you do not see the methods of the foreign predatory powers that have plagued the country from Lapu-Lapu through Gabriela Silang, to Jose Rizal and Bonifacio down to this day: the foreign powers use their economic and political clout to put in their “gobernador-general”. The foreign powers were appointed to her “Council of Foreign Economic Advisers” Gloria. The foreign powers love corrupt leaders like Mrs. Arroyo because they are “buyable”, and if the financial price becomes too high like Gloria’s (the Chinese are bidding higher) then they are “blackmail-able” like in ZTE-NBN. Worse comes to worse, the foreign power can oust a leader by Filipino generals trained in Fort Bragg staging a “coup” disguised as “people power.” It was in the hope of ousting the foreign powers that Rizal, Bonifacio, Mabini et al dedicated their lives to national revolution.
Ms. Dimaculangan, this aspect of foreign corruption of our national affairs is what you miss in your otherwise comprehensive review of corruption in our society. Putting the moral of the story in a nutshell, I turn to the current rice supply problem, which is a food supply issue. Arroyo’s regime used the agricultural budget for fertilizers to buy the 2004 elections while letting rice smuggling go unchecked the past seven years; President Estrada put as top priority food security, certified an irrigation expansion bill into law and prioritized other food programs — like milk production. The next food crisis is the global shortage of milk which is already felt everywhere in rising prices. Estrada put into law the Carabao Breeding Program, anticipating this milk crisis by a decade. Gloria has done nothing on this score, and it is the youngest Filipinos who will suffer.
President Marcos prioritized irrigation and food productivity while Cory Aquino canceled almost all major irrigation dams Marcos initiated, yet to this day Marcos is demonized while Cory Aquino is lionized by the Western and local elite-controlled media. The fact is, in many surveys, the pining for the “good old days” of tangible economic development and benefits of the Marcos era is growing in the hearts of many poor Filipinos. It is not easy to sort out the truth after the “demonization” of Marcos and Estrada by international and local media, and even by the educational system directed by those in control today. Over time truth will out and the un-Filipino character of the puppet leaders of the foreign powers are sure to be exposed completely while the pro-Filipino will stand out: deposed Marcos and Estrada had Filipino welfare at heart while Cory, FVR and Gloria who have enjoyed Western support have brought us to the present dire straits.
Corruption is always an issue, but not all corrupt countries get poorer and poorer like the Philippines. China and India are corrupt, higher than the Philippines in many corruption surveys but they are growing as economic dragons. You see, Gemma, the greatest corruption is betrayal of your country’s welfare. I have news reports on the milk crisis now in the US, Britain, India and many other countries. Like the early warning the past years on the growing rice shortage, I am alerting Filipinos to the impending milk crisis for the Philippines — but as usual, few will take heed; while the country rails and flails about ZTE-NBN and corruption the next famine is creeping into every crib in every home: the milk shortage."
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Gloria and Cory: A Study in Contrast by Conrado de Quiros
"Corazon Conjuangco Aquino came to power by being the Asian Joan of Arc, the housewife who rose from obscurity and stormed the ramparts of tyranny. When those ramparts fell, others tried to seize the crown, chief of them, Juan Ponce Enrile, who figured that his change of heart at the 11th hour had given him a claim to it. The public did not buy it and gave the mantle to Cory.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power by hiding behind the skirts of Cory and Sin while the battle raged, and emerging when the smoke had cleared to claim the throne. It was the nation’s misfortune that Cory and Sin did not read the signs early on. Cory gave up her office when her time was up, like she said she would. She could have gotten around the constitutional ban on a second term on some pretext or other, but she did not. She believed in giving a good example; she believed that the democracy she helped restore rested on institutions and not on individuals, on the people and not on messiahs.
Her example was lost on her protégé. Gloria said she would not run again because if she did she would bring upon this country “never-ending divisiveness.” She lied about the first, but she told the truth about the second. Cory is held in the highest esteem abroad, having achieved world-class status by birthing the political phenomenon of People Power, which countries like Burma are desperately trying to imitate. When she adds her voice to the universal call for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released from house arrest and for the Burmese junta to hold free elections, the world applauds and Suu Kyi herself is eternally grateful.
Gloria has achieved world-class status by turning the Philippines into the most corrupt country in Asia and the second most dangerous country in the world for journalists.
Cory is loved by her people, and though she is no longer the political force she once was (the loss of Sin has diminished her), she continues to command respect where politics meets morality. She has stepped into that role without trying.
Gloria is loved by, well, her family and pets. As to the rest of the country, Pulse Asia’s latest survey sufficiently shows how Filipinos feel about her: three out of five of them distrust her, the other two probably being deaf and mute. Elsewhere in the world you get ratings like those, whether you are the legitimate leader or not, you slink away in shame and never show your face in public again.
Cory will not hide her plight from the nation, telling it she has colon cancer. Of course, she has also asked the nation to respect her privacy and not inquire too closely about her condition or the medical regimen she means to go through. She is a profile in courage.
Gloria will not tell the nation that it is being ravaged by a cancer of her making. Of course, she keeps asking the nation to give her more time to find the cure, when an instant one can be had by her disappearing from view. She is a profile in outrage."
– Conrado de Quiros, Inquirer
To read the full article, please click main title or here. To read opinion maker Conrado de Quiros' other essays, please click here to go to Philippine Inquirer's column "There's The Rub".
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power by hiding behind the skirts of Cory and Sin while the battle raged, and emerging when the smoke had cleared to claim the throne. It was the nation’s misfortune that Cory and Sin did not read the signs early on. Cory gave up her office when her time was up, like she said she would. She could have gotten around the constitutional ban on a second term on some pretext or other, but she did not. She believed in giving a good example; she believed that the democracy she helped restore rested on institutions and not on individuals, on the people and not on messiahs.
Her example was lost on her protégé. Gloria said she would not run again because if she did she would bring upon this country “never-ending divisiveness.” She lied about the first, but she told the truth about the second. Cory is held in the highest esteem abroad, having achieved world-class status by birthing the political phenomenon of People Power, which countries like Burma are desperately trying to imitate. When she adds her voice to the universal call for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released from house arrest and for the Burmese junta to hold free elections, the world applauds and Suu Kyi herself is eternally grateful.
Gloria has achieved world-class status by turning the Philippines into the most corrupt country in Asia and the second most dangerous country in the world for journalists.
Cory is loved by her people, and though she is no longer the political force she once was (the loss of Sin has diminished her), she continues to command respect where politics meets morality. She has stepped into that role without trying.
Gloria is loved by, well, her family and pets. As to the rest of the country, Pulse Asia’s latest survey sufficiently shows how Filipinos feel about her: three out of five of them distrust her, the other two probably being deaf and mute. Elsewhere in the world you get ratings like those, whether you are the legitimate leader or not, you slink away in shame and never show your face in public again.
Cory will not hide her plight from the nation, telling it she has colon cancer. Of course, she has also asked the nation to respect her privacy and not inquire too closely about her condition or the medical regimen she means to go through. She is a profile in courage.
Gloria will not tell the nation that it is being ravaged by a cancer of her making. Of course, she keeps asking the nation to give her more time to find the cure, when an instant one can be had by her disappearing from view. She is a profile in outrage."
– Conrado de Quiros, Inquirer
To read the full article, please click main title or here. To read opinion maker Conrado de Quiros' other essays, please click here to go to Philippine Inquirer's column "There's The Rub".
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Focus on Filipino Americans: The Best Kept Secret - Philippine Culture 101 By France Viana
"Textbooks say that the Philippines is composed of 7,100 islands. The truth is, no one knows exactly how many there are at any given point, it depends on the tide. So it is with Philippine culture. There are so many different influences that come into the mix that a homogenous culture is hard to define and I am not going to even attempt to do so.
Instead, what I will do in the next 10 minutes or so is give you a quick psychographic handle on the culture by speaking on the top 4 influences on our culture and some marketing dos and don'ts. To do so I am going to have to make some sweeping generalizations to which there are many many exemptions, so please keep that in mind. I will end by teaching you two tricks to find out if someone is Filipino and to actually pass for one yourselves.)
You’ve heard our historical backdrop: Four hundred years under Spain, 50 years under the U.S. and 4 under Japan. In fact, our being named one people is a fairly recent artifice. The term Filipino originally referred to Spaniards born in the Philippines.
To understand what all this colonization has done to us as a people, imagine what is like spending 400 years in a convent followed by 50 years in Hollywood. This is why as a culture we have so many contradictions and are both sophisticated and superstitious, conservative and flamboyant, sheltered and sexy. We wear the latest sexiest Victoria’s Secret lingerie to bed but under the pillow we will hide a rosary."
To read the full story, click main title (or here). I believe this was first published in Filipinas Magazine, an oline magazine.
Instead, what I will do in the next 10 minutes or so is give you a quick psychographic handle on the culture by speaking on the top 4 influences on our culture and some marketing dos and don'ts. To do so I am going to have to make some sweeping generalizations to which there are many many exemptions, so please keep that in mind. I will end by teaching you two tricks to find out if someone is Filipino and to actually pass for one yourselves.)
You’ve heard our historical backdrop: Four hundred years under Spain, 50 years under the U.S. and 4 under Japan. In fact, our being named one people is a fairly recent artifice. The term Filipino originally referred to Spaniards born in the Philippines.
To understand what all this colonization has done to us as a people, imagine what is like spending 400 years in a convent followed by 50 years in Hollywood. This is why as a culture we have so many contradictions and are both sophisticated and superstitious, conservative and flamboyant, sheltered and sexy. We wear the latest sexiest Victoria’s Secret lingerie to bed but under the pillow we will hide a rosary."
To read the full story, click main title (or here). I believe this was first published in Filipinas Magazine, an oline magazine.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Manila’s Bungle in The South China Sea By Barry Wain
As published in the Far Eastern Economic Review (January/February 2008 edition).
"When Vietnamese students gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi last December to protest against China’s perceived bullying over disputed territory in the South China Sea, it signaled Hanoi’s intention to turn up the heat a bit.
And Beijing reacted in kind; instead of downplaying the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman complained, “China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.” The bluster on both sides, while just a blip in this long-running feud, is a timely reminder that the South China Sea remains one of the region’s flashpoints. What most observers don’t realize is that in the last few years, regional cooperative efforts to coax Beijing into a more measured stance have been set back by one of the rival claimants to the islands.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia. Within six months, however, Vietnam, the harshest critic, dropped its objections and joined the venture, which went ahead on a tripartite basis and shrouded in secrecy.
In the absence of any progress towards solving complex territorial and jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea, the concept of joint development is resonating stronger than ever. The idea is fairly simple: Shelve sovereignty claims temporarily and establish joint development zones to share the ocean’s fish, hydrocarbon and other resources. The agreement between China, the Philippines and Vietnam, three of the six governments that have conflicting claims, is seen as a step in the right direction and a possible model for the future.
But as details of the undertaking emerge, it is beginning to look like anything but the way to go. For a start, the Philippine government has broken ranks with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which was dealing with China as a bloc on the South China Sea issue. The Philippines also has made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China and Vietnam. Through its actions, Manila has given a certain legitimacy to China’s legally spurious “historic claim” to most of the South China Sea.
Although the South China Sea has been relatively peaceful for the past decade, it remains one of East Asia’s potential flashpoints. The Paracel Islands in the northwest are claimed by China and Vietnam, while the Spratly Islands in the south are claimed in part or entirety by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. All but Brunei, whose claim is limited to an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf that overlap those of its neighbors, man military garrisons in the scattered islets, cays and rocks of the Spratlys.
After extensive Chinese structures were discovered in 1995 on Mischief Reef, on the Philippine continental shelf and well within the Philippine 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, Asean persuaded Beijing to drop its resistance to the “internationalization” of the South China Sea issue. Instead of insisting on only bilateral discussions with claimant states, China agreed to deal with Asean as a group on the matter.
Rodolfo Severino, a former secretary-general of Asean, has lauded “Asean solidarity and cooperation in a matter of vital security concern.”
Asean and China, however, failed in their attempt to negotiate a code of conduct. In the “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” signed in 2002, they pledged to settle territorial disagreements peacefully and to exercise restraint in activities that could spark conflict. But the declaration is far from watertight. A political statement, not a legally binding treaty, it doesn’t specify the geographical scope and is, at best, an interim step.
Since the issuance of the declaration, a tenuous stability has descended on the South China Sea. With Asean countries benefiting from China’s booming economy, boosted by a free-trade agreement, Southeast Asian political leaders are happy to forget about this particular set of problems that once bedeviled their relations with Beijing. Yet none of the multifaceted disputes has been resolved, and no mechanism exists to prevent or manage conflicts. With no plans to discuss even the sovereignty of contested islands, claimants now accept that it will be decades, perhaps generations, before the tangled claims are reconciled.
Recent incidents and skirmishes are a sharp reminder of how dangerous the situation remains. In the middle of last year, Chinese naval vessels fired on Vietnamese fishing boats near the Paracels, killing one fisherman and wounding six others, while British giant BP halted work associated with a gas pipeline off the Vietnamese coast after a warning by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. In the past few months, Beijing and Hanoi have traded denunciations as the Chinese, in particular, maneuver to reinforce territorial claims. Vietnam protested when China conducted a large naval exercise around the Paracels in November.
China’s decision in December to create an administrative center on Hainan to manage the Paracels, Spratlys and another archipelago, though symbolic, was regarded as particularly provocative by Hanoi. The Vietnamese authorities facilitated demonstrations outside the Chinese diplomatic missions in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to make known their displeasure.
Friction can be expected to increase as the demand for energy by China and dynamic Southeast Asian economies rises and they intensify the search for oil and gas. While hydrocarbon reserves in the South China Sea are unproven, the belief that huge deposits exist keeps interest intense. As world oil prices hit record levels, the discovery of commercially viable reserves would raise tensions and “transform security circumstances” in the Spratlys, according to Ralf Emmers, an associate professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
President Arroyo’s agreement with China for a joint seismic study was controversial in several respects. By not consulting other Asean members beforehand, the Philippines abandoned the collective stance that was key to the group’s success with China over the South China Sea. Ironically, it was Manila that first sought a united front and rallied Asean to confront China over its intrusion into Mischief Reef a decade earlier. Sold the idea by politicians with business links who have other deals going with the Chinese, Ms. Arroyo did not seek the views of her foreign ministry, Philippines officials say. By the time the foreign ministry heard about it and objected, it was too late, the officials say.
Philippine diplomats might have been able to warn her that while joint development has been successfully implemented elsewhere, Beijing’s understanding of the concept is peculiarly Chinese. The only location that China is known to have nominated for joint development is a patch off the southern coast of Vietnam called Vanguard Bank, which is in Vietnamese waters where China has “no possibly valid claim,” as a study by a U.S. law firm put it. Beijing’s suggestion in the 1990s that it and Hanoi jointly develop Vanguard Bank was considered doubly outrageous because China insisted that it alone must retain sovereignty of the area. Also of no small consideration was the fact that such a bilateral deal would split Southeast Asia.
The hollowness of China’s policy of joint development, loudly proclaimed for nearly 20 years, was confirmed long ago by Hasjim Djalal, Indonesia’s foremost authority on maritime affairs, when he headed a series of workshops on the South China Sea. Mr. Hasjim set out to test the concept of joint development, taking several years to identify an area in which each country would both relinquish and gain something in terms of its claims. In 1996, he designated an area of some thousands of square kilometers, amounting to a small opening in the middle of the South China Sea, which cut across the Spratlys and went beyond them. Joint development, unspecified, was to take place in the “hole,” with no participant having to formally abandon its claims. Beijing alone refused to further explore the doughnut proposal, as it was dubbed, complaining that the intended zone was in the area China claimed. Of course it was, that being the essence of the plan, without which it was difficult to imagine having joint development.
China’s bottom line on joint development at that time: What is mine is mine and what is yours is ours.
Beijing and Manila did not make public the text of their “Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company.” After the agreement was signed on Sept. 1, 2004, the Philippine government said the joint seismic study, lasting three years, would “gather and process data on stratigraphy, tectonics and structural fabric of the subsurface of the area.”
Although the government said the undertaking “has no reference to petroleum exploration and production,” it was obvious that the survey was intended precisely to gauge prospects for oil and gas exploration and production. Nobody could think of an alternative explanation for seismic work, especially in the wake of year-earlier press reports that CNOOC and PNOC had signed a letter of intent to begin the search for oil and gas.
Vietnam immediately voiced concern, declaring that the agreement, concluded without consultation, was not in keeping with the spirit of the 2002 Asean-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties. Hanoi “requested” Beijing and Manila disclose what they had agreed and called on other Asean members to join Vietnam in “strictly implementing” the declaration. After what Hanoi National University law lecturer Nguyen Hong Thao calls “six months of Vietnamese active struggle, supported by other countries,” state-owned PetroVietnam joined the China-Philippine pact.
Vietnam’s inclusion in the modified and renamed “Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea,” signed on March 14, 2005, was scarcely a victory for consensus-building and voluntary restraint. The Philippines, militarily weak and lagging economically, had opted for Chinese favors at the expense of Asean political solidarity. In danger of being cut out, the Vietnamese joined, “seeking to make the best out of an unsatisfactory situation,” as Mr. Severino puts it. The transparency that Hanoi had demanded was still missing, with even the site of the proposed seismic study concealed.
Now that the location is known, the details having leaked into research circles, the reasons for wanting to keep it under wraps are apparent: “Some would say it was a sell-out on the part of the Philippines,” says Mark Valencia, an independent expert on the South China Sea. The designated zone, a vast swathe of ocean off Palawan in the southern Philippines, thrusts into the Spratlys and abuts Malampaya, a Philippine producing gas field. About one-sixth of the entire area, closest to the Philippine coastline, is outside the claims by China and Vietnam. Says Mr. Valencia: “Presumably for higher political purposes, the Philippines agreed to these joint surveys that include parts of its legal continental shelf that China and Vietnam don’t even claim.”
Worse, by agreeing to joint surveying, Manila implicitly considers the Chinese and Vietnamese claims to have a legitimate basis, he says. In the case of Beijing, this has serious implications, since the broken, U-shaped line on Chinese maps, claiming almost the entire South China Sea on “historic” grounds, is nonsensical in international law. (Theoretically, Beijing might stake an alternative claim based on an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from nearby islets that it claims, but they would be restricted by similar claims by rivals.) Manila’s support for the Chinese “historic claim,” however indirect, weakens the positions of fellow Asean members Malaysia and Brunei, whose claimed areas are partly within the Chinese U-shaped line. It is a stunning about-face by Manila, which kicked up an international fuss in 1995 when the Chinese moved onto the submerged Mischief Reef on the same underlying “historic claim” to the area.
Some commentators have hailed the tripartite seismic survey as a landmark event, echoing the upbeat interpretation put on it by the Philippines and China. The parties insist it is a strictly commercial venture by their national oil companies that does not change the sovereignty claims of the three countries involved. Ms. Arroyo calls it an “historic diplomatic breakthrough for peace and security in the region.” But that assessment is, at the very least, premature.
Not only do the details of the three-way agreement remain unknown, but almost nothing has been disclosed about progress on the seismic study, which should be completed in the next few months. Much will depend on the results and what the parties do next. Already, according to regional officials, China has approached Malaysia and Brunei separately, suggesting similar joint ventures. If it is confirmed that China has split Asean and the Southeast Asian claimants and won the right to jointly develop areas of the South China Sea it covets only by virtue of its “historic claim,” Beijing will have scored a significant victory."
Mr. Wain, writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, is a former editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia.
"When Vietnamese students gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi last December to protest against China’s perceived bullying over disputed territory in the South China Sea, it signaled Hanoi’s intention to turn up the heat a bit.
And Beijing reacted in kind; instead of downplaying the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman complained, “China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.” The bluster on both sides, while just a blip in this long-running feud, is a timely reminder that the South China Sea remains one of the region’s flashpoints. What most observers don’t realize is that in the last few years, regional cooperative efforts to coax Beijing into a more measured stance have been set back by one of the rival claimants to the islands.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia. Within six months, however, Vietnam, the harshest critic, dropped its objections and joined the venture, which went ahead on a tripartite basis and shrouded in secrecy.
In the absence of any progress towards solving complex territorial and jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea, the concept of joint development is resonating stronger than ever. The idea is fairly simple: Shelve sovereignty claims temporarily and establish joint development zones to share the ocean’s fish, hydrocarbon and other resources. The agreement between China, the Philippines and Vietnam, three of the six governments that have conflicting claims, is seen as a step in the right direction and a possible model for the future.
But as details of the undertaking emerge, it is beginning to look like anything but the way to go. For a start, the Philippine government has broken ranks with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which was dealing with China as a bloc on the South China Sea issue. The Philippines also has made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China and Vietnam. Through its actions, Manila has given a certain legitimacy to China’s legally spurious “historic claim” to most of the South China Sea.
Although the South China Sea has been relatively peaceful for the past decade, it remains one of East Asia’s potential flashpoints. The Paracel Islands in the northwest are claimed by China and Vietnam, while the Spratly Islands in the south are claimed in part or entirety by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. All but Brunei, whose claim is limited to an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf that overlap those of its neighbors, man military garrisons in the scattered islets, cays and rocks of the Spratlys.
After extensive Chinese structures were discovered in 1995 on Mischief Reef, on the Philippine continental shelf and well within the Philippine 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, Asean persuaded Beijing to drop its resistance to the “internationalization” of the South China Sea issue. Instead of insisting on only bilateral discussions with claimant states, China agreed to deal with Asean as a group on the matter.
Rodolfo Severino, a former secretary-general of Asean, has lauded “Asean solidarity and cooperation in a matter of vital security concern.”
Asean and China, however, failed in their attempt to negotiate a code of conduct. In the “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” signed in 2002, they pledged to settle territorial disagreements peacefully and to exercise restraint in activities that could spark conflict. But the declaration is far from watertight. A political statement, not a legally binding treaty, it doesn’t specify the geographical scope and is, at best, an interim step.
Since the issuance of the declaration, a tenuous stability has descended on the South China Sea. With Asean countries benefiting from China’s booming economy, boosted by a free-trade agreement, Southeast Asian political leaders are happy to forget about this particular set of problems that once bedeviled their relations with Beijing. Yet none of the multifaceted disputes has been resolved, and no mechanism exists to prevent or manage conflicts. With no plans to discuss even the sovereignty of contested islands, claimants now accept that it will be decades, perhaps generations, before the tangled claims are reconciled.
Recent incidents and skirmishes are a sharp reminder of how dangerous the situation remains. In the middle of last year, Chinese naval vessels fired on Vietnamese fishing boats near the Paracels, killing one fisherman and wounding six others, while British giant BP halted work associated with a gas pipeline off the Vietnamese coast after a warning by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. In the past few months, Beijing and Hanoi have traded denunciations as the Chinese, in particular, maneuver to reinforce territorial claims. Vietnam protested when China conducted a large naval exercise around the Paracels in November.
China’s decision in December to create an administrative center on Hainan to manage the Paracels, Spratlys and another archipelago, though symbolic, was regarded as particularly provocative by Hanoi. The Vietnamese authorities facilitated demonstrations outside the Chinese diplomatic missions in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to make known their displeasure.
Friction can be expected to increase as the demand for energy by China and dynamic Southeast Asian economies rises and they intensify the search for oil and gas. While hydrocarbon reserves in the South China Sea are unproven, the belief that huge deposits exist keeps interest intense. As world oil prices hit record levels, the discovery of commercially viable reserves would raise tensions and “transform security circumstances” in the Spratlys, according to Ralf Emmers, an associate professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
President Arroyo’s agreement with China for a joint seismic study was controversial in several respects. By not consulting other Asean members beforehand, the Philippines abandoned the collective stance that was key to the group’s success with China over the South China Sea. Ironically, it was Manila that first sought a united front and rallied Asean to confront China over its intrusion into Mischief Reef a decade earlier. Sold the idea by politicians with business links who have other deals going with the Chinese, Ms. Arroyo did not seek the views of her foreign ministry, Philippines officials say. By the time the foreign ministry heard about it and objected, it was too late, the officials say.
Philippine diplomats might have been able to warn her that while joint development has been successfully implemented elsewhere, Beijing’s understanding of the concept is peculiarly Chinese. The only location that China is known to have nominated for joint development is a patch off the southern coast of Vietnam called Vanguard Bank, which is in Vietnamese waters where China has “no possibly valid claim,” as a study by a U.S. law firm put it. Beijing’s suggestion in the 1990s that it and Hanoi jointly develop Vanguard Bank was considered doubly outrageous because China insisted that it alone must retain sovereignty of the area. Also of no small consideration was the fact that such a bilateral deal would split Southeast Asia.
The hollowness of China’s policy of joint development, loudly proclaimed for nearly 20 years, was confirmed long ago by Hasjim Djalal, Indonesia’s foremost authority on maritime affairs, when he headed a series of workshops on the South China Sea. Mr. Hasjim set out to test the concept of joint development, taking several years to identify an area in which each country would both relinquish and gain something in terms of its claims. In 1996, he designated an area of some thousands of square kilometers, amounting to a small opening in the middle of the South China Sea, which cut across the Spratlys and went beyond them. Joint development, unspecified, was to take place in the “hole,” with no participant having to formally abandon its claims. Beijing alone refused to further explore the doughnut proposal, as it was dubbed, complaining that the intended zone was in the area China claimed. Of course it was, that being the essence of the plan, without which it was difficult to imagine having joint development.
China’s bottom line on joint development at that time: What is mine is mine and what is yours is ours.
Beijing and Manila did not make public the text of their “Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company.” After the agreement was signed on Sept. 1, 2004, the Philippine government said the joint seismic study, lasting three years, would “gather and process data on stratigraphy, tectonics and structural fabric of the subsurface of the area.”
Although the government said the undertaking “has no reference to petroleum exploration and production,” it was obvious that the survey was intended precisely to gauge prospects for oil and gas exploration and production. Nobody could think of an alternative explanation for seismic work, especially in the wake of year-earlier press reports that CNOOC and PNOC had signed a letter of intent to begin the search for oil and gas.
Vietnam immediately voiced concern, declaring that the agreement, concluded without consultation, was not in keeping with the spirit of the 2002 Asean-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties. Hanoi “requested” Beijing and Manila disclose what they had agreed and called on other Asean members to join Vietnam in “strictly implementing” the declaration. After what Hanoi National University law lecturer Nguyen Hong Thao calls “six months of Vietnamese active struggle, supported by other countries,” state-owned PetroVietnam joined the China-Philippine pact.
Vietnam’s inclusion in the modified and renamed “Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea,” signed on March 14, 2005, was scarcely a victory for consensus-building and voluntary restraint. The Philippines, militarily weak and lagging economically, had opted for Chinese favors at the expense of Asean political solidarity. In danger of being cut out, the Vietnamese joined, “seeking to make the best out of an unsatisfactory situation,” as Mr. Severino puts it. The transparency that Hanoi had demanded was still missing, with even the site of the proposed seismic study concealed.
Now that the location is known, the details having leaked into research circles, the reasons for wanting to keep it under wraps are apparent: “Some would say it was a sell-out on the part of the Philippines,” says Mark Valencia, an independent expert on the South China Sea. The designated zone, a vast swathe of ocean off Palawan in the southern Philippines, thrusts into the Spratlys and abuts Malampaya, a Philippine producing gas field. About one-sixth of the entire area, closest to the Philippine coastline, is outside the claims by China and Vietnam. Says Mr. Valencia: “Presumably for higher political purposes, the Philippines agreed to these joint surveys that include parts of its legal continental shelf that China and Vietnam don’t even claim.”
Worse, by agreeing to joint surveying, Manila implicitly considers the Chinese and Vietnamese claims to have a legitimate basis, he says. In the case of Beijing, this has serious implications, since the broken, U-shaped line on Chinese maps, claiming almost the entire South China Sea on “historic” grounds, is nonsensical in international law. (Theoretically, Beijing might stake an alternative claim based on an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from nearby islets that it claims, but they would be restricted by similar claims by rivals.) Manila’s support for the Chinese “historic claim,” however indirect, weakens the positions of fellow Asean members Malaysia and Brunei, whose claimed areas are partly within the Chinese U-shaped line. It is a stunning about-face by Manila, which kicked up an international fuss in 1995 when the Chinese moved onto the submerged Mischief Reef on the same underlying “historic claim” to the area.
Some commentators have hailed the tripartite seismic survey as a landmark event, echoing the upbeat interpretation put on it by the Philippines and China. The parties insist it is a strictly commercial venture by their national oil companies that does not change the sovereignty claims of the three countries involved. Ms. Arroyo calls it an “historic diplomatic breakthrough for peace and security in the region.” But that assessment is, at the very least, premature.
Not only do the details of the three-way agreement remain unknown, but almost nothing has been disclosed about progress on the seismic study, which should be completed in the next few months. Much will depend on the results and what the parties do next. Already, according to regional officials, China has approached Malaysia and Brunei separately, suggesting similar joint ventures. If it is confirmed that China has split Asean and the Southeast Asian claimants and won the right to jointly develop areas of the South China Sea it covets only by virtue of its “historic claim,” Beijing will have scored a significant victory."
Mr. Wain, writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, is a former editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia.
Treason: By Ricky Carandang
"Allow me to expound a little on a story I did for The Correspondents on February 19th.
Seven countries claim ownership of the disputed Spratly Islands, just off of Palawan. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines all claim to own part or all of the Spratlys. These overlapping claims have been a source of tension over the years since the Spratlys (we Filipinos call them the Kalayaan Islands) are believed to contain significant reserves of oil and natural gas. China was the most aggressive in pursuing its claim. In 1999, the Philippines–under President Joseph Estrada– led an effort to prevent tensions by getting all the claimants to agree not to take actions to provoke other claimants.
But in 2003, the Philippines–now under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo– rocked the boat that it previously steadied when it signed an agreement with China to jointly undertake seismic studies of the Spratlys and explore for oil and natural gas. Naturally, the other claimants were angry. After getting them to agree not to rock the boat, the Philippines sucker-punched them with the China deal. China's traditional ally, Vietnam was so angry they it had to be let in to the deal to
appease them.
Aside from angering our neighbors and potentially undermining regional stability, Arroyo's action may also be illegal. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez–who was then acting justice secretary–told former Senator Frank Drilon, who was then allied with the administration, that she believed that the deal violated the constitution, because while it was a deal between the state owned oil firms (PNOC of the Philippines and CNOOC of China) of the two countries, it implicitly gave China access to our reserves. Officers of the Foreign Affairs Department were also upset because the deal effectively strengthened China and Vietnam's claim to the Spratlys.
What would compel Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign a deal that potentially undermines regional stability, possibly grants China parity rights to oil reserves in
the Spratlys that we claim to be ours, and likely violates our constitution?
How about $2 billion a year? After the Spratly deal was signed, the Chinese government committed $2 billion in official development assistance a year to the Philippines until 2010, when Arroyo is supposed to step down from office. My sources tell me that the Spratly deal was an explicit precondition to the loans.
A sizable amount to be sure, but for the Arroyo administration the China loans is particularly appealing. Not so much because the interest rates are so low and the repayment terms so lenient, but because Chinese loans do not have the cumbersome requirements that loans from the US, Japan, the EU, and big multilateral lenders have. Requirements for documentation, bidding, transparency and other details that make it very difficult for corrupt public officials to commit graft. In fact, in November of last year, those cumbersome requirements made it impossible for some government officials and private individuals with sticky fingers to avail themselves of the World Bank's generosity.
It had gotten to the point where a corrupt government could no longer make a dishonest buck. That is until China's generous offer came along. Given China's laxity with certain conditions, its no wonder why almost every big ticket government project funded by Chinese ODA has been the subject of allegations of graft and corruption. There's Northrail, Cyber Education, the Fuhua agricultural projects, Southrail, and of course the ZTE National Broadband project.
Until the ZTE National Broadband scandal, the Chinese government has had little official reaction to any of these allegations. Why should they? The $8 billion is a loan, not a grant. It enhances their influence in the region, strengthens their claim to the Spratlys, and expands their influence in the Philippines. The best part is, regardless of what Philippine officials do with the money–whether they put it to good use or steal it–it still has to be paid back. Its no wonder that anytime some midlevel Chinese official comes to the country, congressmen and adminstration officials literally trip over themselves to roll out the red carpet.
For corrupt Adminstration officials and their cronies, $8 billion represents unprecedented opportunities for graft on a scale that would shock ordinary Filipinos.
And at the end of the day, that $8 billion is going to be paid back. Not by the grafters in and out of government; not by the Chinese citizens; but by the millions of ordinary middle class Filipinos who go to work everyday, pay their taxes, struggle and to keep their small and medium businesses afloat. The price will also be paid indirectly by tens of millions of poor Filipinos who will not have access to health care, quality education and a functioning court system because those resources are not going where they should be going.
There's a word for that. Its called Treason."
My comment: Ricky Carandang's has outdone himself again with this very succint view of what our present "leaders" are doing.
It reminded me of the Bataan Nuclear Plant fiasco in my school days in the 80's. I was against the project then as I am now of the broadband so-called "project". For the nuclear plant to be viable, we should have at the very least sited it in a "safer" place, away from the earthquake prone areas of our nation. Choosing the lesser of two evils, I would have like to seen the plant operable, at least, so we can have at the very least made use of it. The only people who benefitted from it are those who received hefty commissions and General Electric.
See also article re: Singapore's Private Banking enterprise, a magnet for ill-gotten wealth. A private closer to home, one need not go to Switzerland.
We have been sending our poor countrymen and women abroad as virtual slaves. Now we are again (remember the US bases) selling our patrimony by giving access to our territories. What's next?
Seven countries claim ownership of the disputed Spratly Islands, just off of Palawan. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines all claim to own part or all of the Spratlys. These overlapping claims have been a source of tension over the years since the Spratlys (we Filipinos call them the Kalayaan Islands) are believed to contain significant reserves of oil and natural gas. China was the most aggressive in pursuing its claim. In 1999, the Philippines–under President Joseph Estrada– led an effort to prevent tensions by getting all the claimants to agree not to take actions to provoke other claimants.
But in 2003, the Philippines–now under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo– rocked the boat that it previously steadied when it signed an agreement with China to jointly undertake seismic studies of the Spratlys and explore for oil and natural gas. Naturally, the other claimants were angry. After getting them to agree not to rock the boat, the Philippines sucker-punched them with the China deal. China's traditional ally, Vietnam was so angry they it had to be let in to the deal to
appease them.
Aside from angering our neighbors and potentially undermining regional stability, Arroyo's action may also be illegal. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez–who was then acting justice secretary–told former Senator Frank Drilon, who was then allied with the administration, that she believed that the deal violated the constitution, because while it was a deal between the state owned oil firms (PNOC of the Philippines and CNOOC of China) of the two countries, it implicitly gave China access to our reserves. Officers of the Foreign Affairs Department were also upset because the deal effectively strengthened China and Vietnam's claim to the Spratlys.
What would compel Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign a deal that potentially undermines regional stability, possibly grants China parity rights to oil reserves in
the Spratlys that we claim to be ours, and likely violates our constitution?
How about $2 billion a year? After the Spratly deal was signed, the Chinese government committed $2 billion in official development assistance a year to the Philippines until 2010, when Arroyo is supposed to step down from office. My sources tell me that the Spratly deal was an explicit precondition to the loans.
A sizable amount to be sure, but for the Arroyo administration the China loans is particularly appealing. Not so much because the interest rates are so low and the repayment terms so lenient, but because Chinese loans do not have the cumbersome requirements that loans from the US, Japan, the EU, and big multilateral lenders have. Requirements for documentation, bidding, transparency and other details that make it very difficult for corrupt public officials to commit graft. In fact, in November of last year, those cumbersome requirements made it impossible for some government officials and private individuals with sticky fingers to avail themselves of the World Bank's generosity.
It had gotten to the point where a corrupt government could no longer make a dishonest buck. That is until China's generous offer came along. Given China's laxity with certain conditions, its no wonder why almost every big ticket government project funded by Chinese ODA has been the subject of allegations of graft and corruption. There's Northrail, Cyber Education, the Fuhua agricultural projects, Southrail, and of course the ZTE National Broadband project.
Until the ZTE National Broadband scandal, the Chinese government has had little official reaction to any of these allegations. Why should they? The $8 billion is a loan, not a grant. It enhances their influence in the region, strengthens their claim to the Spratlys, and expands their influence in the Philippines. The best part is, regardless of what Philippine officials do with the money–whether they put it to good use or steal it–it still has to be paid back. Its no wonder that anytime some midlevel Chinese official comes to the country, congressmen and adminstration officials literally trip over themselves to roll out the red carpet.
For corrupt Adminstration officials and their cronies, $8 billion represents unprecedented opportunities for graft on a scale that would shock ordinary Filipinos.
And at the end of the day, that $8 billion is going to be paid back. Not by the grafters in and out of government; not by the Chinese citizens; but by the millions of ordinary middle class Filipinos who go to work everyday, pay their taxes, struggle and to keep their small and medium businesses afloat. The price will also be paid indirectly by tens of millions of poor Filipinos who will not have access to health care, quality education and a functioning court system because those resources are not going where they should be going.
There's a word for that. Its called Treason."
My comment: Ricky Carandang's has outdone himself again with this very succint view of what our present "leaders" are doing.
It reminded me of the Bataan Nuclear Plant fiasco in my school days in the 80's. I was against the project then as I am now of the broadband so-called "project". For the nuclear plant to be viable, we should have at the very least sited it in a "safer" place, away from the earthquake prone areas of our nation. Choosing the lesser of two evils, I would have like to seen the plant operable, at least, so we can have at the very least made use of it. The only people who benefitted from it are those who received hefty commissions and General Electric.
See also article re: Singapore's Private Banking enterprise, a magnet for ill-gotten wealth. A private closer to home, one need not go to Switzerland.
We have been sending our poor countrymen and women abroad as virtual slaves. Now we are again (remember the US bases) selling our patrimony by giving access to our territories. What's next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
