"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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
A Very Eloquent & Deep Sharing of a Very Concerned Fellow Filipino: By Gemma S. Dimaculangan
"To all Filipinos Everywhere:
I used to think that corruption and criminality in the Philippines were caused by poverty. But recent events tell me this is not true.
It is one thing to see people turn into drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves and murderers because of hunger and poverty, but what excuse do these rich, educated people have that could possibly explain their bizarre behavior? And to think I was always so relieved when petty snatchers got caught and locked away in jail because I never fully realized that the big time thieves were out there, making the laws and running our country. Can it get any worse than this?
Every night, I come home and am compelled to turn on my tv to watch the latest turn of events. I am mesmerized by these characters. They are not men. They are caricatures of men - too unreal to be believable and too bad to be real.
To see these "honorable" crooks lambast each other, call each one names, look each other in the eye and accuse the other of committing the very same crimes that they themselves are guilty of, is so comical and appalling that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It is entertainment at its worst!
I have never seen so many criminals roaming around unfettered and looking smug until now. These criminals wear suits and barongs, strut around with the confidence of the rich and famous, inspire fear and awe from the very citizens who voted them to power, bear titles like "Honorable", "Senator", "Justice","General" and worse, "President".
Ironically, these lawless individuals practice law, make our laws, enforce the law. And we wonder why our policemen act the way they do! These are their leaders, and the leaders of this nation, “Robin Hoodlum" and his band of moneymen. Their motto, "Rob the poor, moderate the greed of the rich."
It makes me wonder where on earth these people came from, and what kind of upbringing they had to make them act the way they do for all the world to see. It makes me wonder what kind of schools they went to, what kind of teachers they had, what kind of environment would produce such creatures who can lie, cheat and steal from an already indebted country and from the impoverished people they had vowed to serve.
It makes me wonder what their children and grandchildren think of them, and if they are breeding a whole new generation of improved Filipino crooks and liars with maybe a tad more style but equally negligible conscience. Heaven forbid!
I am an ordinary citizen and taxpayer. I am blessed to have a job that pays for my needs and those of my family, even though 30% of my earnings go to the nation's coffers. Just like others in my lot, I have complained time and again because our government could not provide enough of the basic services that I expect and deserve. Rutty roads, poor educational system, poor social services, poor health services, poor everything.
But I have always thought that was what all third world countries were all about, and my complaints never amounted to anything more.
And then this. Scandalous government deals. Plundering presidents pointing fingers. Senators who are crooks. Congressmen who accept bribes. Big time lawyers on the side of injustice. De Venecia ratting on his boss only after his interminable term has ended, Enrile inquiring about someone's morality! The already filthy rich Abalos and Arroyo wanting more money than they or their great grandchildren could ever spend in a lifetime.
Joker caught red-handed. (Joker making a joke of his own "pag bad ka, lagot ka!"). Defensor rendered defenseless. General Razon involved in kidnapping. Security men providing anything but a sense of security. And it's all about money, money,money that the average Juan de la Cruz could not even imagine in his dreams. Is it any wonder why our few remaining decent and hardworking citizens are leaving to work in other countries?
And worst of all, we are once again saddled with a power-hungry President whose addiction has her clinging on to it like barnacle on a rusty ship. "Love (of power) is blind" takes a whole new meaning when PGMA time and again turns a blind eye on her husband's shady financial deals. And still blinded with all that is happening, she opts to traipse around the world with her cohorts in tow while her country is in shambles.
They say the few stupid ones like me who remain in the Philippines are no longer capable of showing disgust. I don't agree. Many like me feel anger at the brazenness of men we call our leaders, embarrassment to share the same nationality with them, frustration for our nation and helplessness at my own ineffectuality. It is not that I won't make a stand.
It is just that I am afraid my actions would only be futile. After all, these monsters are capable of anything. They can hurt me and my family. They already have, though I may not yet feel it.
But I am writing this because I need to do something concrete. I need to let others know that ordinary citizens like me do not remain lukewarm to issues that would later affect me and my children.
I want to make it known that there are also Filipinos who dream of something better for the Philippines . 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, a right to speak, a right to voice out ideas, a right to tell the people we have trusted to lead us that they have abused their power and that it is time for them to step down.
I refuse to let this country go to hell because it is the only country I call mine and it is my responsibility to make sure I have done what I could for it.
Those of us who do not have the wealth, power or position it needs to battle the evil crime lords in government can summon the power of good. We can pray. (We can offer petitions every time we celebrate Mass). We can do this with our families every night. We can ask others to pray, too, including relatives and friends here and overseas, just so we get the message to Him of our desperation in ridding our nation of these vermin. After all, they cannot be more powerful than God!
I implore mothers out there to raise your children the best way you can. Do not smother, pamper, or lavish them with too much of the material comforts of life even if you can well afford them. Teach them that there are more important things in this world.
I beg all fathers to spend time with their children, to teach them the virtues of hard work, honesty, fair play, sharing, dignity and compassion right from the sandbox till they are old enough to go on their own. Not just in your homes, but at work, in school, everywhere you go. Be good role models. Be shining examples for your children so they will learn to be responsible adults who will carry and pass on your family name with pride and honor.
I call on educators and teachers; we always underestimate the power of your influence on the minds of our youth. Encourage them to be aware of what is happening in their surroundings. Instill in them a love of their country, inculcate in them the value of perseverance in order to gain real, worthwhile knowledge, help us mold our children into honorable men and women.
Encourage our graduates, our best and brightest, to do what they can to lift this country from the mire our traditional politicians have sunk usbecause of you, our educators, that we will be able to into. The youth is our future and it would be largely repopulate the seats of power with good leaders, presidents, senators, congressmen, justices, lawmakers, law enforcers and lawful citizens.
I ask all students, young people and young professionals everywhere to look around and get involved in what is happening. Do not let your youth be an excuse for failure to concern yourselves with the harsh realities you see.
But neither let this make you cynical, because we need your idealism and fresh perspective just as you need the wisdom of your elders. YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU! Let your voices be heard. Do what you can for this land that gave you your ancestors and your heritage.
Use technology and all available resources at hand to spread good. Text meaningful messages to awaken social conscience. Try your best to fight moral decay because I promise you will not regret it when you become parents yourselves. You will look back at your past misdeeds and pray that your children will do better than you did.
Remember that there are a few handful who are capable of running this country. You can join their ranks and make their numbers greater. We are tired of the old trapos. We need brave idealistic leaders who will think of the greater good before anything else. Do your utmost to excel in your chosen field. Be good lawyers, civil servants, accountants, computer techs, engineers, doctors, military men so that when you are called to serve in government, you will have credibility and a record that can speak for itself.
For love of this country, for the future of our children, for the many who have sacrificed and died to uphold our rights and ideals, I urge you to do what you can. As ordinary citizens, we can do much more for the Philippines than sit around and let crooks lead us to perdition. We owe ourselves this. And we owe our country even more."
Gemma S. Dimaculangan
P.S. Pls translate in your dialect and forward to provincemates!"
End of quote: Received via email from a brother Mason. Moderator. Posted previously but recently managed to trace background and author Ms. Gemma S. Dimaculangan, a medical technologist working for Unilab in Metro Manila. With the popularity of her plea via email, this article was picked up by Philippine daily newspapers, and a rejoinder is also re-posted here. Some additions to the "original" email are enclosed in parentheses.
I used to think that corruption and criminality in the Philippines were caused by poverty. But recent events tell me this is not true.
It is one thing to see people turn into drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves and murderers because of hunger and poverty, but what excuse do these rich, educated people have that could possibly explain their bizarre behavior? And to think I was always so relieved when petty snatchers got caught and locked away in jail because I never fully realized that the big time thieves were out there, making the laws and running our country. Can it get any worse than this?
Every night, I come home and am compelled to turn on my tv to watch the latest turn of events. I am mesmerized by these characters. They are not men. They are caricatures of men - too unreal to be believable and too bad to be real.
To see these "honorable" crooks lambast each other, call each one names, look each other in the eye and accuse the other of committing the very same crimes that they themselves are guilty of, is so comical and appalling that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It is entertainment at its worst!
I have never seen so many criminals roaming around unfettered and looking smug until now. These criminals wear suits and barongs, strut around with the confidence of the rich and famous, inspire fear and awe from the very citizens who voted them to power, bear titles like "Honorable", "Senator", "Justice","General" and worse, "President".
Ironically, these lawless individuals practice law, make our laws, enforce the law. And we wonder why our policemen act the way they do! These are their leaders, and the leaders of this nation, “Robin Hoodlum" and his band of moneymen. Their motto, "Rob the poor, moderate the greed of the rich."
It makes me wonder where on earth these people came from, and what kind of upbringing they had to make them act the way they do for all the world to see. It makes me wonder what kind of schools they went to, what kind of teachers they had, what kind of environment would produce such creatures who can lie, cheat and steal from an already indebted country and from the impoverished people they had vowed to serve.
It makes me wonder what their children and grandchildren think of them, and if they are breeding a whole new generation of improved Filipino crooks and liars with maybe a tad more style but equally negligible conscience. Heaven forbid!
I am an ordinary citizen and taxpayer. I am blessed to have a job that pays for my needs and those of my family, even though 30% of my earnings go to the nation's coffers. Just like others in my lot, I have complained time and again because our government could not provide enough of the basic services that I expect and deserve. Rutty roads, poor educational system, poor social services, poor health services, poor everything.
But I have always thought that was what all third world countries were all about, and my complaints never amounted to anything more.
And then this. Scandalous government deals. Plundering presidents pointing fingers. Senators who are crooks. Congressmen who accept bribes. Big time lawyers on the side of injustice. De Venecia ratting on his boss only after his interminable term has ended, Enrile inquiring about someone's morality! The already filthy rich Abalos and Arroyo wanting more money than they or their great grandchildren could ever spend in a lifetime.
Joker caught red-handed. (Joker making a joke of his own "pag bad ka, lagot ka!"). Defensor rendered defenseless. General Razon involved in kidnapping. Security men providing anything but a sense of security. And it's all about money, money,money that the average Juan de la Cruz could not even imagine in his dreams. Is it any wonder why our few remaining decent and hardworking citizens are leaving to work in other countries?
And worst of all, we are once again saddled with a power-hungry President whose addiction has her clinging on to it like barnacle on a rusty ship. "Love (of power) is blind" takes a whole new meaning when PGMA time and again turns a blind eye on her husband's shady financial deals. And still blinded with all that is happening, she opts to traipse around the world with her cohorts in tow while her country is in shambles.
They say the few stupid ones like me who remain in the Philippines are no longer capable of showing disgust. I don't agree. Many like me feel anger at the brazenness of men we call our leaders, embarrassment to share the same nationality with them, frustration for our nation and helplessness at my own ineffectuality. It is not that I won't make a stand.
It is just that I am afraid my actions would only be futile. After all, these monsters are capable of anything. They can hurt me and my family. They already have, though I may not yet feel it.
But I am writing this because I need to do something concrete. I need to let others know that ordinary citizens like me do not remain lukewarm to issues that would later affect me and my children.
I want to make it known that there are also Filipinos who dream of something better for the Philippines . 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, a right to speak, a right to voice out ideas, a right to tell the people we have trusted to lead us that they have abused their power and that it is time for them to step down.
I refuse to let this country go to hell because it is the only country I call mine and it is my responsibility to make sure I have done what I could for it.
Those of us who do not have the wealth, power or position it needs to battle the evil crime lords in government can summon the power of good. We can pray. (We can offer petitions every time we celebrate Mass). We can do this with our families every night. We can ask others to pray, too, including relatives and friends here and overseas, just so we get the message to Him of our desperation in ridding our nation of these vermin. After all, they cannot be more powerful than God!
I implore mothers out there to raise your children the best way you can. Do not smother, pamper, or lavish them with too much of the material comforts of life even if you can well afford them. Teach them that there are more important things in this world.
I beg all fathers to spend time with their children, to teach them the virtues of hard work, honesty, fair play, sharing, dignity and compassion right from the sandbox till they are old enough to go on their own. Not just in your homes, but at work, in school, everywhere you go. Be good role models. Be shining examples for your children so they will learn to be responsible adults who will carry and pass on your family name with pride and honor.
I call on educators and teachers; we always underestimate the power of your influence on the minds of our youth. Encourage them to be aware of what is happening in their surroundings. Instill in them a love of their country, inculcate in them the value of perseverance in order to gain real, worthwhile knowledge, help us mold our children into honorable men and women.
Encourage our graduates, our best and brightest, to do what they can to lift this country from the mire our traditional politicians have sunk usbecause of you, our educators, that we will be able to into. The youth is our future and it would be largely repopulate the seats of power with good leaders, presidents, senators, congressmen, justices, lawmakers, law enforcers and lawful citizens.
I ask all students, young people and young professionals everywhere to look around and get involved in what is happening. Do not let your youth be an excuse for failure to concern yourselves with the harsh realities you see.
But neither let this make you cynical, because we need your idealism and fresh perspective just as you need the wisdom of your elders. YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU! Let your voices be heard. Do what you can for this land that gave you your ancestors and your heritage.
Use technology and all available resources at hand to spread good. Text meaningful messages to awaken social conscience. Try your best to fight moral decay because I promise you will not regret it when you become parents yourselves. You will look back at your past misdeeds and pray that your children will do better than you did.
Remember that there are a few handful who are capable of running this country. You can join their ranks and make their numbers greater. We are tired of the old trapos. We need brave idealistic leaders who will think of the greater good before anything else. Do your utmost to excel in your chosen field. Be good lawyers, civil servants, accountants, computer techs, engineers, doctors, military men so that when you are called to serve in government, you will have credibility and a record that can speak for itself.
For love of this country, for the future of our children, for the many who have sacrificed and died to uphold our rights and ideals, I urge you to do what you can. As ordinary citizens, we can do much more for the Philippines than sit around and let crooks lead us to perdition. We owe ourselves this. And we owe our country even more."
Gemma S. Dimaculangan
P.S. Pls translate in your dialect and forward to provincemates!"
End of quote: Received via email from a brother Mason. Moderator. Posted previously but recently managed to trace background and author Ms. Gemma S. Dimaculangan, a medical technologist working for Unilab in Metro Manila. With the popularity of her plea via email, this article was picked up by Philippine daily newspapers, and a rejoinder is also re-posted here. Some additions to the "original" email are enclosed in parentheses.
NSCB Data Validates RP's Worsening Poverty Situation by IBON Media
Poverty incidence could actually be higher, says think-tank.
"The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) report that poverty in the country worsened in 2006 only proves that the claim of Malacañang of an improving economy is false, said independent think-tank IBON Foundation).
It also validates the research group’s findings that poverty in the country is actually worsening for the past seven years.
According to the NSCB, 32.9% of the population, or 27.6 million Filipinos, are poor, nearly three percentage points higher than the 30% reported in 2003. This was computed using an annual poverty threshold of P15,057.
But says IBON executive editor Rosario Bella Guzman, “The poverty incidence could actually be worse than reported due to such low poverty threshold.”
Using official figures, a Filipino needs just P41.25 a day to meet his or her food and non-food basic requirements and stay out of poverty, a figure that is obviously insufficient for all but basic subsistence needs. “In fact, poverty in the Philippines could be so widespread that the NSCB is using these low threshold figures to understate the actual extent of poverty,” says Guzman.
In the IBON’s self-rated poverty survey conducted last January, 7 1.7% Filipinos considered themselves poor. The NSCB data is not the only evidence that validates the growing poverty in the country. Images of poverty still pervade the daily lives of millions of Filipinos, as shown by other government statistics.Real wages in the country (taking inflation into account with 2000 as the base year) have actually fallen from P340.80 in 2001 to P141.97 in 2007.
Even worse, the daily minimum wage in the NCR of P362 is just 40% of the estimated family living wage of P806 (as of December 2007).
Further, according to the 2006 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, the country’s poorest families (some 13.9 million) found themselves with less income than in 2001. The situation is worse for the poorest 5.2 million households who remain mired in debt, with an average of P1,700 debt per household in 2006.
Inequality also remained severe in 2006, as the richest 20% of Filipino families (3.5 million) accounted for 52.8% of total family income, while the poorest 80% (13.9 million) had to share the remaining 47.3 percent. The income of the richest 10% of Filipino households was equivalent to 19 times that of the poorest 10 percent."
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
(Sent via email by Mr Henry Ruiz)
My Comment to my good classmate:
Thanks for the data. Actually it is no surprise, you just need to walk around Manila and other environs and find that PHP41.25 (or about an A$1.00!) could not sustain a person's needs! Let alone a daily minimum legal wage of PHP362.00 can sustain a person, let alone a family of three.
Yet, our politicians and their cronies (yes they are back) are still full of greed and not too happy with the millions and billions of kickbacks from government deals.
In a related topic, our politicians and their businessmen cohorts does not even wait for the actual money to come into the national coffers before robbing our government. They just dream up of projects (NBN) and ask for a loan! A loan that our childrens' children will have to pay.
"The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) report that poverty in the country worsened in 2006 only proves that the claim of Malacañang of an improving economy is false, said independent think-tank IBON Foundation).
It also validates the research group’s findings that poverty in the country is actually worsening for the past seven years.
According to the NSCB, 32.9% of the population, or 27.6 million Filipinos, are poor, nearly three percentage points higher than the 30% reported in 2003. This was computed using an annual poverty threshold of P15,057.
But says IBON executive editor Rosario Bella Guzman, “The poverty incidence could actually be worse than reported due to such low poverty threshold.”
Using official figures, a Filipino needs just P41.25 a day to meet his or her food and non-food basic requirements and stay out of poverty, a figure that is obviously insufficient for all but basic subsistence needs. “In fact, poverty in the Philippines could be so widespread that the NSCB is using these low threshold figures to understate the actual extent of poverty,” says Guzman.
In the IBON’s self-rated poverty survey conducted last January, 7 1.7% Filipinos considered themselves poor. The NSCB data is not the only evidence that validates the growing poverty in the country. Images of poverty still pervade the daily lives of millions of Filipinos, as shown by other government statistics.Real wages in the country (taking inflation into account with 2000 as the base year) have actually fallen from P340.80 in 2001 to P141.97 in 2007.
Even worse, the daily minimum wage in the NCR of P362 is just 40% of the estimated family living wage of P806 (as of December 2007).
Further, according to the 2006 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, the country’s poorest families (some 13.9 million) found themselves with less income than in 2001. The situation is worse for the poorest 5.2 million households who remain mired in debt, with an average of P1,700 debt per household in 2006.
Inequality also remained severe in 2006, as the richest 20% of Filipino families (3.5 million) accounted for 52.8% of total family income, while the poorest 80% (13.9 million) had to share the remaining 47.3 percent. The income of the richest 10% of Filipino households was equivalent to 19 times that of the poorest 10 percent."
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
(Sent via email by Mr Henry Ruiz)
My Comment to my good classmate:
Thanks for the data. Actually it is no surprise, you just need to walk around Manila and other environs and find that PHP41.25 (or about an A$1.00!) could not sustain a person's needs! Let alone a daily minimum legal wage of PHP362.00 can sustain a person, let alone a family of three.
Yet, our politicians and their cronies (yes they are back) are still full of greed and not too happy with the millions and billions of kickbacks from government deals.
In a related topic, our politicians and their businessmen cohorts does not even wait for the actual money to come into the national coffers before robbing our government. They just dream up of projects (NBN) and ask for a loan! A loan that our childrens' children will have to pay.
Resignation Movement's Transformation: An Analysis By Alejandro Lichauco
By Alejandro Lichauco
ANALYSIS Column on Tribune Online (The Philippines' Daily Tribune)
03/06/2008
"The resign movement should transform into war against economic treason of political leaders.
For that treason and not - repeat, not - corruption is what lies at the root of the nation's crisis, of which the ZTE anomaly is but a miniscule aspect and manifestation. The nation's problem with GMA started long before GMA came up the presidential scene. It started after the Marcos dictatorship, with that cursed import liberalization program of 1986 that became the defining signature of the first post Edsa government, and which eventually lead to the mass slaughter of the nation's sources of livelihood. That program would peak with the nation's hasty membership in GATT and the WTO, which GMA as the then lead of the Senate committee on economic affairs, with the prodding of then President FVR, forced down the throat of the nation with the collaboration of the opposition.
And with FVR, the nation simply went on an orgy of selling off just about every crown jewel of the nation - from Fort Bonifacio, to Petron, to National Steel and so on and so forth - to global investors - all in the name and for the cause of FVR's favorite ideology called globalization.
Then came the move to amend the Constitution in order to eliminate remaining national restrictions on foreign ownership, particularly land. That move started with FVR, pursued by Estrada, further pursued by GMA only to end up in the decision of the Supreme Court that the whole damn thing was unconstitutional after all.
Following Edsa I, every government of this accursed - only Christian nation in Asia, was obsessed by one thing, and one thing only: To auction off the entire patrimony of the nation to international investors and to stifle any effort to industrialize the economy. In fact, the present Constitution contains a provision which literally prohibits the kind of industrial policy that made economic miracles of our neighbors.
The ZTE is but a manifestation of what the late Claro M. Recto called the colonial mentality of the nation's political leaders: The mentality of giving in to just about everything demanded or just requested or merely wished for foreign governments and foreign investors.
And that colonial mentality was implanted by guess whom? By no less than the US government, which as far back as 1949 made it official policy of Washington to see to it that this country is governed by leaders who owe their election to the CIA and other agencies of the US government.
That policy was even given the official designation of PPS 23, or Policy Planning Staff Memorandum 23. And if you don't believe that ask Dick Pascual of the Star who exposed that in several of his columns.
Any nation whose leaders have been deliberately programmed and habituated to be nothing but the servile executors of a particular foreign power eventually transforms into a nation whose leaders become the servile executors of just about any foreign power prepared and capable of buying those leaders off. Whether it be the US or, in the latest case, China. Next time around it could be Russia, South Korea or even tiny Taiwan and even tinier Singapore.
This is what the general membership of the ongoing Resign Movement should realize. GMA is a problem and should go. But she is only the shadow of a more real problem which should be identified and recognized for what it is. And that problem is imperialism. Whether it be the imperialism of the US or the imperialism of China. For any great power - whether it be capitalist or communist would have an inner inclination to expand and dominate and that's what happened to America, and that's what beginning to happen to China.
Modern wars today aren't won by armed conquest but by economic conquest. And the foreign conquest of the Philippines can be achieved by a foreign power acting indirectly through Filipino political and economic leaders in whom the colonial mentality has been implanted. That's GMA and that's just about every president we have had since 1946 with the exception of the late Carlos P. Garcia who was maneuvered out of power by the CIA for his "Filipino First" policy and who used former President Macapagal for its (CIA's) purpose.
If you don't believe that then read the confessions of the CIA man in charge of that affair. His name is Joseph Smith and his book was titled Portrait of a Cold Warrior.
The ZTE affair is actually an affair of rivalry between two great powers fighting for control of the Philippine economy and its politics. And that's the point which the Resign Movement should realize. That's the point which the Armed Forces in particular whose constitutional duty is to secure the sovereignty and the integrity of the national territory should realize.
To maintain one's allegiance to the present globalist regime is to commit nothing less than treason. For globalism, for reasons to be explained in further articles, is treason incarnate. And all our political leaders since Edsa have been confirmed globalists.
Read their lips."
My Comment: This is a spot on analysis by Mr Lichauco on the "State of Affairs" of the corruption, greed and the general malaise besetting our country.
A friend of mine from high school forwarded to me the "NSCB DATA VALIDATES RP'S WORSENING POVERTY SITUATION" report. After reading this and reacting to it, I've read this column by Mr Lichauco. This is it, I said to myself; another "fresh viewpoint" in the vein of nationalists Claro M Recto and Renato Constantino.
I don't think this is another conspiracy theory, as this goes beyond theories. As one astute US diplomat says: "we are here to protect US interests." And he was right. We have our own government officials; whether elected or not to protect OUR OWN interests. They are there as public servants, elected or appointed to do just that: to be of public service and to protect or interest against competing international interests.
When our own government officials: our own leaders; stop doing that, Mr Lichauco is right to brand them as committing treason.
We are not harking for more nationalist movement or becoming militant nationalists, we just wanted what is good and fair for our own citizens. What is rightfully ours in the first place.
When we start to liberalize and privatizing our public assets, we start to lose control. And that experience is nothing new. All around the world, when a particular public utility is privatized the consumers suffer. Let us not kid ourselves, private companies are there to make a profit, and profit they make. We are always being guiled into thinking that opening our public utilities and natural resources to liberalization would give more competition and hence, lower costs: wrong! Experience around the world proves that thinking wrong.
As members of GATT and the WTO, we like to think we belong to the big boys' network. What we do not know is that we are the pawns that big boys in the GATT and TWO play with. Free trade is a one way street, and that street goes the way to the big boys like the US and EU.
Those who are for global liberalization obviously wants that precisely because there is something in it for them. Smaller countries like us are gullible enough to believe that. Why do you think there is always a large of protesters in any given GATT or WTO meeting?
We should therefore heed the call of people such as Mr Lichauco. For our leaders to pay attention and start leading us into a more glorious future. For every citizen to make sure that whoever commits "treason" be punished and expelled from public office. If we fail to do that, we will become a country of poor for eternity.
M Baylon Jr
ANALYSIS Column on Tribune Online (The Philippines' Daily Tribune)
03/06/2008
"The resign movement should transform into war against economic treason of political leaders.
For that treason and not - repeat, not - corruption is what lies at the root of the nation's crisis, of which the ZTE anomaly is but a miniscule aspect and manifestation. The nation's problem with GMA started long before GMA came up the presidential scene. It started after the Marcos dictatorship, with that cursed import liberalization program of 1986 that became the defining signature of the first post Edsa government, and which eventually lead to the mass slaughter of the nation's sources of livelihood. That program would peak with the nation's hasty membership in GATT and the WTO, which GMA as the then lead of the Senate committee on economic affairs, with the prodding of then President FVR, forced down the throat of the nation with the collaboration of the opposition.
And with FVR, the nation simply went on an orgy of selling off just about every crown jewel of the nation - from Fort Bonifacio, to Petron, to National Steel and so on and so forth - to global investors - all in the name and for the cause of FVR's favorite ideology called globalization.
Then came the move to amend the Constitution in order to eliminate remaining national restrictions on foreign ownership, particularly land. That move started with FVR, pursued by Estrada, further pursued by GMA only to end up in the decision of the Supreme Court that the whole damn thing was unconstitutional after all.
Following Edsa I, every government of this accursed - only Christian nation in Asia, was obsessed by one thing, and one thing only: To auction off the entire patrimony of the nation to international investors and to stifle any effort to industrialize the economy. In fact, the present Constitution contains a provision which literally prohibits the kind of industrial policy that made economic miracles of our neighbors.
The ZTE is but a manifestation of what the late Claro M. Recto called the colonial mentality of the nation's political leaders: The mentality of giving in to just about everything demanded or just requested or merely wished for foreign governments and foreign investors.
And that colonial mentality was implanted by guess whom? By no less than the US government, which as far back as 1949 made it official policy of Washington to see to it that this country is governed by leaders who owe their election to the CIA and other agencies of the US government.
That policy was even given the official designation of PPS 23, or Policy Planning Staff Memorandum 23. And if you don't believe that ask Dick Pascual of the Star who exposed that in several of his columns.
Any nation whose leaders have been deliberately programmed and habituated to be nothing but the servile executors of a particular foreign power eventually transforms into a nation whose leaders become the servile executors of just about any foreign power prepared and capable of buying those leaders off. Whether it be the US or, in the latest case, China. Next time around it could be Russia, South Korea or even tiny Taiwan and even tinier Singapore.
This is what the general membership of the ongoing Resign Movement should realize. GMA is a problem and should go. But she is only the shadow of a more real problem which should be identified and recognized for what it is. And that problem is imperialism. Whether it be the imperialism of the US or the imperialism of China. For any great power - whether it be capitalist or communist would have an inner inclination to expand and dominate and that's what happened to America, and that's what beginning to happen to China.
Modern wars today aren't won by armed conquest but by economic conquest. And the foreign conquest of the Philippines can be achieved by a foreign power acting indirectly through Filipino political and economic leaders in whom the colonial mentality has been implanted. That's GMA and that's just about every president we have had since 1946 with the exception of the late Carlos P. Garcia who was maneuvered out of power by the CIA for his "Filipino First" policy and who used former President Macapagal for its (CIA's) purpose.
If you don't believe that then read the confessions of the CIA man in charge of that affair. His name is Joseph Smith and his book was titled Portrait of a Cold Warrior.
The ZTE affair is actually an affair of rivalry between two great powers fighting for control of the Philippine economy and its politics. And that's the point which the Resign Movement should realize. That's the point which the Armed Forces in particular whose constitutional duty is to secure the sovereignty and the integrity of the national territory should realize.
To maintain one's allegiance to the present globalist regime is to commit nothing less than treason. For globalism, for reasons to be explained in further articles, is treason incarnate. And all our political leaders since Edsa have been confirmed globalists.
Read their lips."
My Comment: This is a spot on analysis by Mr Lichauco on the "State of Affairs" of the corruption, greed and the general malaise besetting our country.
A friend of mine from high school forwarded to me the "NSCB DATA VALIDATES RP'S WORSENING POVERTY SITUATION" report. After reading this and reacting to it, I've read this column by Mr Lichauco. This is it, I said to myself; another "fresh viewpoint" in the vein of nationalists Claro M Recto and Renato Constantino.
I don't think this is another conspiracy theory, as this goes beyond theories. As one astute US diplomat says: "we are here to protect US interests." And he was right. We have our own government officials; whether elected or not to protect OUR OWN interests. They are there as public servants, elected or appointed to do just that: to be of public service and to protect or interest against competing international interests.
When our own government officials: our own leaders; stop doing that, Mr Lichauco is right to brand them as committing treason.
We are not harking for more nationalist movement or becoming militant nationalists, we just wanted what is good and fair for our own citizens. What is rightfully ours in the first place.
When we start to liberalize and privatizing our public assets, we start to lose control. And that experience is nothing new. All around the world, when a particular public utility is privatized the consumers suffer. Let us not kid ourselves, private companies are there to make a profit, and profit they make. We are always being guiled into thinking that opening our public utilities and natural resources to liberalization would give more competition and hence, lower costs: wrong! Experience around the world proves that thinking wrong.
As members of GATT and the WTO, we like to think we belong to the big boys' network. What we do not know is that we are the pawns that big boys in the GATT and TWO play with. Free trade is a one way street, and that street goes the way to the big boys like the US and EU.
Those who are for global liberalization obviously wants that precisely because there is something in it for them. Smaller countries like us are gullible enough to believe that. Why do you think there is always a large of protesters in any given GATT or WTO meeting?
We should therefore heed the call of people such as Mr Lichauco. For our leaders to pay attention and start leading us into a more glorious future. For every citizen to make sure that whoever commits "treason" be punished and expelled from public office. If we fail to do that, we will become a country of poor for eternity.
M Baylon Jr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
