my Trade Tripper column in this 16-17 July 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
Almost two months after the last elections, perhaps now may be a good time to start exploring and assessing the merits of amending the Constitution. Some of the following suggestions have long been made by myself (naturally, with many others), although a number have been brought about by the peculiar circumstances of May 2016, and still others by taking advantage of the experiences of other democratic countries.
PRESIDENTIAL TANDEMS
Constitutionally, the president and vice-president should be voted together as a team, with the choice of the vice-presidential candidate left to the presidential candidate. Yes, the reason for the voting separately rule is to ostensibly make the process more “democratic,” the people being allowed to directly elect the top two officials of the land. The problem with that, as we’ve seen repeatedly, is it just results in too much conflict and politicking. The executive branch already has the two other branches to contend with, why add another source of hostilities within the branch itself? Besides, the choice of a vice-president would be a good first indicator of the presidential candidate’s decision-making abilities. And by choosing someone he likes, the vice-president will presumably be in the loop for many of the administration’s programs, thus making that vice-president better prepared to assume office should something indeed happen to the president.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Presidents should be constitutionally required to have a majority of votes cast, with a run-off election if need be. One way of minimizing the need for runoffs is to have the two parties with the highest number of votes in a preceding election be the only ones named in the ballot (the rest falling under category of “others”). This encourages the institutionalization of parties while avoiding the Comelec’s unconstitutional act of disqualifying candidates possessing the qualifications contained in the Constitution.
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL WORK
The Vice-President currently has a monthly salary of P100,000 (plus other benefits), so it’s ridiculous for this public official to not have any specifically designated work. Constitutionally make the VP, at least, the Senate presiding officer, with voting power available in case of ties. This makes sense as the Senate currently has an even number of senators. Or at least reserve a Cabinet position, preferably Finance (as that would be a serious training ground for one who should be ready anytime to assume the presidency).
THE SENATE
The elections for the Senate should constitutionally be converted to a regional or provincial (including autonomous regions) rather than national basis. That reason of trying to make the Senate have a more expansive outlook clearly doesn’t work in reality. It just makes the Senate a petulant body unaccountable to no one. At least by electing the Senate on a more localized basis, greater equal representation is effected. And to make the Senate even more responsive to their region (or province), it’s suggested further that Senate members be appointed by the respective Provincial Boards; thus, making the senators accountable to that Board (and, hence, region or province) directly.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local government units can be further strengthened by simply amending the Local Government Code (not necessarily through the Constitution). The power to make investment regulations should be devolved to a per provincial basis, rather than centralized through the Board of Investments. International trade (and customs) can be a coordinated program between the national government and the LGU, with revenues proportionally shared between the two; provided, that the LGU be the main accountable entity for attracting and processing importations (tariff setting could arguably be delegated by Congress to the LGU’s), with security being the responsibility of the national government. Prime responsibility for exports and identifying market access should be with the LGU, with the Department of Trade being merely coordinative (including processing trade remedy complaints).
As it is now, all earnings of the LGU should still remain with that LGU but with the consequence of no longer being entitled to any further share in the national budget. The latter would be now left to the discretion of the national government. Additionally, the LGU’s should also be made primarily responsible for all education, welfare, and health functions, with the national government merely giving assistance, and the Departments of education, welfare, and health relegated to mere coordinating agencies.
CIVIL SERVICE
The structure should be amended (and this can be done through revising the civil service code rather than constitutional amendment) so that only department secretaries can be appointed by the president, with the rest (i.e., undersecretaries down) being permanent employees of the government. This has the advantage of a more stable, professional, and politically neutral civil service system with better institutional memory.
COURT OF APPEALS
Finally, the Congress can legislate to have the different divisions of the Court of Appeals assigned jurisdictionally and physically to different regions or provinces. There really is no reason to bunch up most of the CA in Manila.
So let change come indeed.
Showing posts with label bangsamoro issue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bangsamoro issue. Show all posts
16.9.16
‘Brexit’ and the progressive mental meltdown
my Trade Tripper column in this 2-3 July 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
Progressives make it sound like “sovereignty” is a bad thing. But if they’re right, then efforts by the Philippines to protect our territory against China, reject hazardous wastes from Japan, or protest alleged political interference by the US are therefore -- all logically -- wrong.
As it is, the very Filipinos in social media and academe that previously screamed “freedom,” “democracy,” “vox populi, vox dei,” and “sovereignty” now urge -- in robotic conformity with the rest of the international progressive community -- that the British people’s vote to leave the European Union be disregarded.
Instead, it’s suggested -- and again this coming not only from supposedly cosmopolitan liberals but also their clones from the local academe and media -- that the sovereign British people follow unquestioningly the dictates of politicians, the elites, academics, and foreign bureaucrats.
To see how ridiculously odious that is, try imagining the Philippines being dictated upon -- on matters including taxation, immigration, and agricultural policy -- by Indonesian, Thai, Malaysian or Singaporean bureaucrats in ASEAN.
Stop claiming national sovereignty if you find that acceptable.
What progressives try to ignore (and any one who loves reason has to really relish this part) is that the British essentially spoke truth to power. Since the Left loves nothing more than “sticking it to the man,” the fact that they’re so bitter and angry at “Brexit’s” electoral success is bizarrely ironic. Probably because “the man” (i.e., the EU officials) are progressives themselves.
Indeed. “Brexit” revealed the authoritarian mindset of those in the academic or political class: thinking they’re better than others, quickly labeling anyone disagreeing with them as xenophobic, stupid, uninformed, shortsighted, selfish, or intolerant.
Hence why writers like Olivia Goldhill pontificate that “Brexiters” didn’t really understand the philosophy of freedom, forgetting all the while that the right definition of freedom is what conservatives have been encouraging liberals to understand during the debates on same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion.
So, as Ian Tuttle (“Liberal Cosmopolitans Lash Out at the Shattering of Their Worldview,” June 25 2016) points out, “both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other worldview than their own. The anti-‘Brexit’ crowd cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security -- that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly.”
But, “if ‘Brexit’ critics are right, the European Union should be glad to be rid of the United Kingdom.” Instead, the anger of EU anti-“Brexit” people is so thick you can spread it on bread like Marmite.
And it’s really hypocritical at how easy progressives feel about rejecting the democratic process, concluding it hijacked by “populists” or “demagogues,” and instead advocate for the rule of a small, thinking elite (i.e., themselves). Simply because they didn’t get their way.
Hence you have academics and commentators desperately suggesting that the British people’s vote be ignored, hold another plebiscite, another general election, or wait for something terrible to happen. Anything. Except admit that the British people have the right to chart their own destiny.
Michael Sandel is correct: Much of the energy animating the “Brexit” sentiment is born of the failure of elites to speak directly to people’s aspiration to feel they have some meaningful say in shaping the forces that govern their lives.
The fact is, despite their intellectual pretensions or “credentials,” the anti-“Brexits” just cheapened public discourse, making the opposing sides dig deeper into their positions.
Ivory tower academics make much of the idea that there should be no “others.” Which is naive. There will always be “another” to “others”. That is reality.
Rather than imposing the idea of peoples or countries having no separate identity or differences, acknowledgement instead should be made of that “otherness,” allowing us the space to embrace it and respect it.
Not forcing people (as self-proclaimed “real experts” want) to make our individual existences uniform and, thus, inconsequential and meaningless.
The favorite game now, of course, for progressives is predicting Britain’s doom. But no political scientist or commentator can foretell how “Brexit” will play out. Anyone doing that is a fraud.
The thing is, if history taught us anything: no small select group can ever handle people’s lives better than the people themselves. “We can’t predict what will happen. But one thing I do know -- history never truly had a ‘side.’ Instead, it is the story of action and reaction, and no outcome is inevitable.” (David French, “Brexit and the End of International Progressive Inevitability,” June 25 2016)
Finally, any parallel between “Brexit” and the secessionist movement in Mindanao is completely without basis. The former is about an independent sovereign State being demanded that it allow itself to be dictated upon by unelected foreigners.
Of the so-called “Bangsamoro” issue, simply stated, international law does not allow secession or self-determination rights for religious, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic groups within a sovereign State.
Progressives make it sound like “sovereignty” is a bad thing. But if they’re right, then efforts by the Philippines to protect our territory against China, reject hazardous wastes from Japan, or protest alleged political interference by the US are therefore -- all logically -- wrong.
As it is, the very Filipinos in social media and academe that previously screamed “freedom,” “democracy,” “vox populi, vox dei,” and “sovereignty” now urge -- in robotic conformity with the rest of the international progressive community -- that the British people’s vote to leave the European Union be disregarded.
Instead, it’s suggested -- and again this coming not only from supposedly cosmopolitan liberals but also their clones from the local academe and media -- that the sovereign British people follow unquestioningly the dictates of politicians, the elites, academics, and foreign bureaucrats.
To see how ridiculously odious that is, try imagining the Philippines being dictated upon -- on matters including taxation, immigration, and agricultural policy -- by Indonesian, Thai, Malaysian or Singaporean bureaucrats in ASEAN.
Stop claiming national sovereignty if you find that acceptable.
What progressives try to ignore (and any one who loves reason has to really relish this part) is that the British essentially spoke truth to power. Since the Left loves nothing more than “sticking it to the man,” the fact that they’re so bitter and angry at “Brexit’s” electoral success is bizarrely ironic. Probably because “the man” (i.e., the EU officials) are progressives themselves.
Indeed. “Brexit” revealed the authoritarian mindset of those in the academic or political class: thinking they’re better than others, quickly labeling anyone disagreeing with them as xenophobic, stupid, uninformed, shortsighted, selfish, or intolerant.
Hence why writers like Olivia Goldhill pontificate that “Brexiters” didn’t really understand the philosophy of freedom, forgetting all the while that the right definition of freedom is what conservatives have been encouraging liberals to understand during the debates on same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion.
So, as Ian Tuttle (“Liberal Cosmopolitans Lash Out at the Shattering of Their Worldview,” June 25 2016) points out, “both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other worldview than their own. The anti-‘Brexit’ crowd cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security -- that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly.”
But, “if ‘Brexit’ critics are right, the European Union should be glad to be rid of the United Kingdom.” Instead, the anger of EU anti-“Brexit” people is so thick you can spread it on bread like Marmite.
And it’s really hypocritical at how easy progressives feel about rejecting the democratic process, concluding it hijacked by “populists” or “demagogues,” and instead advocate for the rule of a small, thinking elite (i.e., themselves). Simply because they didn’t get their way.
Hence you have academics and commentators desperately suggesting that the British people’s vote be ignored, hold another plebiscite, another general election, or wait for something terrible to happen. Anything. Except admit that the British people have the right to chart their own destiny.
Michael Sandel is correct: Much of the energy animating the “Brexit” sentiment is born of the failure of elites to speak directly to people’s aspiration to feel they have some meaningful say in shaping the forces that govern their lives.
The fact is, despite their intellectual pretensions or “credentials,” the anti-“Brexits” just cheapened public discourse, making the opposing sides dig deeper into their positions.
Ivory tower academics make much of the idea that there should be no “others.” Which is naive. There will always be “another” to “others”. That is reality.
Rather than imposing the idea of peoples or countries having no separate identity or differences, acknowledgement instead should be made of that “otherness,” allowing us the space to embrace it and respect it.
Not forcing people (as self-proclaimed “real experts” want) to make our individual existences uniform and, thus, inconsequential and meaningless.
The favorite game now, of course, for progressives is predicting Britain’s doom. But no political scientist or commentator can foretell how “Brexit” will play out. Anyone doing that is a fraud.
The thing is, if history taught us anything: no small select group can ever handle people’s lives better than the people themselves. “We can’t predict what will happen. But one thing I do know -- history never truly had a ‘side.’ Instead, it is the story of action and reaction, and no outcome is inevitable.” (David French, “Brexit and the End of International Progressive Inevitability,” June 25 2016)
Finally, any parallel between “Brexit” and the secessionist movement in Mindanao is completely without basis. The former is about an independent sovereign State being demanded that it allow itself to be dictated upon by unelected foreigners.
Of the so-called “Bangsamoro” issue, simply stated, international law does not allow secession or self-determination rights for religious, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic groups within a sovereign State.
12.9.16
Go south, grow Mindanao
my Trade Tripper column in this 26-27 June 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
If ever there’s a set of numbers Filipinos should know it’s this: Mindanao -- blessed with so many resources that it provides 60% of our agricultural exports, not to mention minerals and fisheries -- has a land area of 135,627 km2 Singapore has only 719.1 km2, with practically no natural resource whatsoever. And yet, the latter beats the former on a GDP per capita basis of around 60:1.
Ironic, really.
Set aside agriculture, Mindanao also represents the Philippines’ biggest reserves in gold, copper, iron, and aluminum. Yet to be verified is Wikileaks claim of Mindanao’s untapped $1 trillion oil and mineral reserve.
There is also Mindanao’s strategic position, businesswise: unlike Luzon (separated from the Asian mainland by huge amounts of sea), Mindanao is practically next door neighbors with Indonesia and Timor-Leste, with Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand just further down, then New Guinea.
Which should therefore make every Filipino scandalized that 11 of the Philippines’ 20 poorest provinces are in Mindanao.
One reason is the woeful neglect in infrastructure, with Mindanao’s near daily power interruptions symptomatic of that.
But Mindanao should be the obvious choice for a marine transport system, what with trade and tourism opportunities that a fully functioning Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) and Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) could bring.
That, on top of the vaunted 600 million market population of ASEAN integration.
The island also proved, so long as it can keep its peace and order situation to a reasonable minimum, its export growth rate capabilities could be double of the country’s.
As it stands, the World Bank declared Mindanao presently needing a continuous P350-billion inflow annually in investments, particularly for agriculture, infrastructure, health, and education.
Of infrastructure (aside from roads, irrigation, potable water, power generation, ports, and airports), focus should be on constructing more police stations and judicial offices.
Again, this should not be treated as a hurdle.
According to a McKinsey report, most infrastructure spending has been down particularly for developing countries. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal commentary on the report says: “Governments don’t have to be the only source of new money for projects, the report found. Worldwide, banks and institutional investors such as pension funds and university endowments have about $120 trillion in assets that could be invested in infrastructure. Making it easier to connect that money with projects could close the gap, Mr. Jan Mischke [a senior fellow at the McKinsey Global Institute and one of the report’s authors] said. ‘It’s really a fundamentally quite solvable problem.’”
Another opportunity area would be on international trade.
Interestingly, most of Mindanao’s current top trading partners are not its geographical neighbors: the US, Japan, China, Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Germany.
Here, the development of small and medium enterprises -- bolstered by easy credit and effective contract/property protection, as well as marginalizing the Armalite happy -- would be a big help.
According to the WTO: “Globally, SMEs make up over 95% of all firms, account for approximately 50% of value added and 60% of total employment. Micro enterprises, the smallest component of the SME sector, are increasingly the largest sources of employment in many developing countries, especially for women and youth.”
Unfortunately, SME’s are very much affected by trade barriers; hence the importance of arrangements like BIMP-EAGA, IMT-GT, and ASEAN.
Agriculture, while an obvious source of Mindanao’s pride, is actually illustrative of its present shortcoming.
Or its great potential.
The reason is that despite its stature, relatively speaking in terms of overall Philippine export trade, Mindanao agriculture is -- to exaggerate for effect -- actually quite pathetic.
This can be seen from Mindanao’s contribution to the country’s GDP: just meagerly above 14%, while desperately needing 12.7% of the nation’s budget (P380.9 billion) for its maintenance.
According to the World Bank, only 11% of its farmers can be considered producing for a marketable surplus, with 89% classifiable as “subsistence” (or “near subsistence”) farming.
Another is that most of Mindanao’s agriculture exports are in “raw” form. Which leaves the potential for value adding or processing, thus opening the possibility of greater income for its farmers.
“The value of farm products can be increased in endless ways: by cleaning and cooling, packaging, processing, distributing, cooking, combining, churning, culturing, grinding, hulling, extracting, drying, smoking, handcrafting, spinning, weaving, labeling, or packaging.” Accordingly, “value-added products can open new markets, create recognition for a farm, expand the market season.” (ATTRA, Adding Value To Farm Products, 2006).
Finally, there is taxation: there is no constitutional reason why Congress can’t make an income and corporate tax system allowing for special and differential treatment for Mindanao.
This should encourage more investments in the area and de-clog Luzon’s population of 50 million plus (in an area of just around 12,000 square kilometers more than Mindanao) vis-à-vis the latter’s 25 million.
Ultimately, whatever change comes to Mindanao could, should, and must be for the country’s unified good.
If ever there’s a set of numbers Filipinos should know it’s this: Mindanao -- blessed with so many resources that it provides 60% of our agricultural exports, not to mention minerals and fisheries -- has a land area of 135,627 km2 Singapore has only 719.1 km2, with practically no natural resource whatsoever. And yet, the latter beats the former on a GDP per capita basis of around 60:1.
Ironic, really.
Set aside agriculture, Mindanao also represents the Philippines’ biggest reserves in gold, copper, iron, and aluminum. Yet to be verified is Wikileaks claim of Mindanao’s untapped $1 trillion oil and mineral reserve.
There is also Mindanao’s strategic position, businesswise: unlike Luzon (separated from the Asian mainland by huge amounts of sea), Mindanao is practically next door neighbors with Indonesia and Timor-Leste, with Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand just further down, then New Guinea.
Which should therefore make every Filipino scandalized that 11 of the Philippines’ 20 poorest provinces are in Mindanao.
One reason is the woeful neglect in infrastructure, with Mindanao’s near daily power interruptions symptomatic of that.
But Mindanao should be the obvious choice for a marine transport system, what with trade and tourism opportunities that a fully functioning Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) and Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) could bring.
That, on top of the vaunted 600 million market population of ASEAN integration.
The island also proved, so long as it can keep its peace and order situation to a reasonable minimum, its export growth rate capabilities could be double of the country’s.
As it stands, the World Bank declared Mindanao presently needing a continuous P350-billion inflow annually in investments, particularly for agriculture, infrastructure, health, and education.
Of infrastructure (aside from roads, irrigation, potable water, power generation, ports, and airports), focus should be on constructing more police stations and judicial offices.
Again, this should not be treated as a hurdle.
According to a McKinsey report, most infrastructure spending has been down particularly for developing countries. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal commentary on the report says: “Governments don’t have to be the only source of new money for projects, the report found. Worldwide, banks and institutional investors such as pension funds and university endowments have about $120 trillion in assets that could be invested in infrastructure. Making it easier to connect that money with projects could close the gap, Mr. Jan Mischke [a senior fellow at the McKinsey Global Institute and one of the report’s authors] said. ‘It’s really a fundamentally quite solvable problem.’”
Another opportunity area would be on international trade.
Interestingly, most of Mindanao’s current top trading partners are not its geographical neighbors: the US, Japan, China, Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Germany.
Here, the development of small and medium enterprises -- bolstered by easy credit and effective contract/property protection, as well as marginalizing the Armalite happy -- would be a big help.
According to the WTO: “Globally, SMEs make up over 95% of all firms, account for approximately 50% of value added and 60% of total employment. Micro enterprises, the smallest component of the SME sector, are increasingly the largest sources of employment in many developing countries, especially for women and youth.”
Unfortunately, SME’s are very much affected by trade barriers; hence the importance of arrangements like BIMP-EAGA, IMT-GT, and ASEAN.
Agriculture, while an obvious source of Mindanao’s pride, is actually illustrative of its present shortcoming.
Or its great potential.
The reason is that despite its stature, relatively speaking in terms of overall Philippine export trade, Mindanao agriculture is -- to exaggerate for effect -- actually quite pathetic.
This can be seen from Mindanao’s contribution to the country’s GDP: just meagerly above 14%, while desperately needing 12.7% of the nation’s budget (P380.9 billion) for its maintenance.
According to the World Bank, only 11% of its farmers can be considered producing for a marketable surplus, with 89% classifiable as “subsistence” (or “near subsistence”) farming.
Another is that most of Mindanao’s agriculture exports are in “raw” form. Which leaves the potential for value adding or processing, thus opening the possibility of greater income for its farmers.
“The value of farm products can be increased in endless ways: by cleaning and cooling, packaging, processing, distributing, cooking, combining, churning, culturing, grinding, hulling, extracting, drying, smoking, handcrafting, spinning, weaving, labeling, or packaging.” Accordingly, “value-added products can open new markets, create recognition for a farm, expand the market season.” (ATTRA, Adding Value To Farm Products, 2006).
Finally, there is taxation: there is no constitutional reason why Congress can’t make an income and corporate tax system allowing for special and differential treatment for Mindanao.
This should encourage more investments in the area and de-clog Luzon’s population of 50 million plus (in an area of just around 12,000 square kilometers more than Mindanao) vis-à-vis the latter’s 25 million.
Ultimately, whatever change comes to Mindanao could, should, and must be for the country’s unified good.
12.4.16
No tango in Belgium and lessons for the Philippines
was my Trade Tripper column in the 1-2 April 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
Perhaps what’s really tragic about the recent slaughter in Brussels is the fleeting idea that it could have been avoided. That the Belgian police could have previously arrested one of the suicide bombers, that they were aware of the terrorism records of the other two. That there should have been no 35 deaths to mourn, and more than 300 injured to console. But that is, indubitably, all hindsight.
For the Philippines, blithely shuffling its way to being a terrorist hotbed, there are lessons shrieking to be learned. For one, it is the importance of having the determination to deny the demands of one group if such contradicts the fundamental values and principles of the country.
And, like Belgium, a significant factor is territory.
As discussed by Jeff Jacoby (“Why there are Muslim ghettos in Belgium, but not in the US”, March 2016), “Last November’s horrific slaughter in Paris was masterminded by a Belgian radical, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, and at least four of the men who carried out those attacks were from the Brussels district of Molenbeek.”
Indeed, “for Islamist imams and terrorist ringleaders, such neighborhoods -- heavily Muslim, densely populated, with high unemployment and crime rates -- have proved fertile territory for recruiting violent jihadists.”
“Molenbeek”, according to Feargus O’Sullivan (“How a Brussels Neighborhood Became a Breeding Ground for Terror”, November 2015), “may be a new name for the international media, but the inner-city neighborhood has been linked to a string of terror attacks dating back years.”
Put another way: radical Islam’s internal logic, which is to wage war against and eliminate a democratic way of life founded on individual freedoms, directs isolation for its adherents rather than opportunities for assimilation.
This should commonsensically lead us to questioning the propriety of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, of which last Easter was the second anniversary of its signing.
As this column kept pointing out: for two years now, with the tacit agreement of this government, we have in de facto existence another State carved out of a territory of the Philippines. And an entity that surely could pose serious security problems for the country.
Yes, as Jacoby is quick to clarify, it is true that “Muslim communities are not inherently predisposed to violence” and that there is a far larger -- and peaceful -- Muslim community in the United States.
But the US has been quite successful in assimilating not only Muslims but most other migrants into mainstream society. Again, Jacoby: “There are no Muslim ghettoes here like those in Molenbeek or the Paris suburbs, where authorities turn a blind eye to antisocial behavior and aggressive incitement by radicals preaching jihad.” Instead, US Muslims’ participation “in various everyday American activities -- from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV -- are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car.”
In short, political correctness (so far) has not undermined the equal application of the rule of law in the US.
And the traditional values (not the vices) exhibited by mainstream Americans have proven attractive enough for other migrants to generally feel welcome and join freely.
The difference in policy and attitude -- and hence, results -- between the US and the Philippines could not be more obvious. Our country bizarrely adopted a “historical baggage” mentality that resulted in a guilt-ridden, appeasement policy direction for the Philippines. This must stop.
Finally, we must re-visit the efficacy of our security apparatus.
Or, to be precise, we should stop the inane (and expensively futile) delusion of matching militarily whatever hostile State there may be and instead -- for now -- focus on eliminating threats of an internal or asymmetric nature.
We must set aside progressive political correctness, confidently assert our sovereignty, and better equip our intelligence services in securing our borders from smuggled goods or individuals. The government itself admitted that there are more than a million undocumented or illegal aliens freely lurking around the country.
We must also have an effective surveillance program on communities that potentially serve as breeding grounds or shelter for Islamic terrorists.
Such security measures are not only constitutionally proper. It is actually the constitutional duty of government to do so.
But inevitably and unfortunately, one suspects the capability of our intelligence services when the intelligence fund of the Office of the President (P500 million) is ridiculously far bigger than that of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (in 2015, somewhere around P21 million).
In fact, the OP’s intelligence fund is bigger even than of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (P270 million) or the Philippine National Police (a little over P300 million).
Why would the President need such humongous intelligence funds? Why does he even have intelligence funds? Can’t he rely on the information provided by intelligence professionals doing their lawful duty?
Because, ultimately, the lesson of Belgium is this: politics should never get in the way of combatting terror.
Perhaps what’s really tragic about the recent slaughter in Brussels is the fleeting idea that it could have been avoided. That the Belgian police could have previously arrested one of the suicide bombers, that they were aware of the terrorism records of the other two. That there should have been no 35 deaths to mourn, and more than 300 injured to console. But that is, indubitably, all hindsight.
For the Philippines, blithely shuffling its way to being a terrorist hotbed, there are lessons shrieking to be learned. For one, it is the importance of having the determination to deny the demands of one group if such contradicts the fundamental values and principles of the country.
And, like Belgium, a significant factor is territory.
As discussed by Jeff Jacoby (“Why there are Muslim ghettos in Belgium, but not in the US”, March 2016), “Last November’s horrific slaughter in Paris was masterminded by a Belgian radical, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, and at least four of the men who carried out those attacks were from the Brussels district of Molenbeek.”
Indeed, “for Islamist imams and terrorist ringleaders, such neighborhoods -- heavily Muslim, densely populated, with high unemployment and crime rates -- have proved fertile territory for recruiting violent jihadists.”
“Molenbeek”, according to Feargus O’Sullivan (“How a Brussels Neighborhood Became a Breeding Ground for Terror”, November 2015), “may be a new name for the international media, but the inner-city neighborhood has been linked to a string of terror attacks dating back years.”
Put another way: radical Islam’s internal logic, which is to wage war against and eliminate a democratic way of life founded on individual freedoms, directs isolation for its adherents rather than opportunities for assimilation.
This should commonsensically lead us to questioning the propriety of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, of which last Easter was the second anniversary of its signing.
As this column kept pointing out: for two years now, with the tacit agreement of this government, we have in de facto existence another State carved out of a territory of the Philippines. And an entity that surely could pose serious security problems for the country.
Yes, as Jacoby is quick to clarify, it is true that “Muslim communities are not inherently predisposed to violence” and that there is a far larger -- and peaceful -- Muslim community in the United States.
But the US has been quite successful in assimilating not only Muslims but most other migrants into mainstream society. Again, Jacoby: “There are no Muslim ghettoes here like those in Molenbeek or the Paris suburbs, where authorities turn a blind eye to antisocial behavior and aggressive incitement by radicals preaching jihad.” Instead, US Muslims’ participation “in various everyday American activities -- from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV -- are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car.”
In short, political correctness (so far) has not undermined the equal application of the rule of law in the US.
And the traditional values (not the vices) exhibited by mainstream Americans have proven attractive enough for other migrants to generally feel welcome and join freely.
The difference in policy and attitude -- and hence, results -- between the US and the Philippines could not be more obvious. Our country bizarrely adopted a “historical baggage” mentality that resulted in a guilt-ridden, appeasement policy direction for the Philippines. This must stop.
Finally, we must re-visit the efficacy of our security apparatus.
Or, to be precise, we should stop the inane (and expensively futile) delusion of matching militarily whatever hostile State there may be and instead -- for now -- focus on eliminating threats of an internal or asymmetric nature.
We must set aside progressive political correctness, confidently assert our sovereignty, and better equip our intelligence services in securing our borders from smuggled goods or individuals. The government itself admitted that there are more than a million undocumented or illegal aliens freely lurking around the country.
We must also have an effective surveillance program on communities that potentially serve as breeding grounds or shelter for Islamic terrorists.
Such security measures are not only constitutionally proper. It is actually the constitutional duty of government to do so.
But inevitably and unfortunately, one suspects the capability of our intelligence services when the intelligence fund of the Office of the President (P500 million) is ridiculously far bigger than that of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (in 2015, somewhere around P21 million).
In fact, the OP’s intelligence fund is bigger even than of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (P270 million) or the Philippine National Police (a little over P300 million).
Why would the President need such humongous intelligence funds? Why does he even have intelligence funds? Can’t he rely on the information provided by intelligence professionals doing their lawful duty?
Because, ultimately, the lesson of Belgium is this: politics should never get in the way of combatting terror.
11.4.16
War is what we make of it
my Trade Tripper column in the 4-5 March 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
Something that needs to be said repeatedly, hoping the next president of the Republic takes it to heart: “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.” Simply put, to defend the State is his main job. If he fails in that, nothing else matters. Any talk of social justice is useless if the Philippines can’t protect and keep its people and territory from both internal and external threats.
Unfortunately, defense has been woefully neglected the past few years. The 2015 budget’s 4.4% for the military is scandalous. This all the more when one considers the territorial dangers, conventional and asymmetrical, faced by the country. And while the 2016 budget’s P117.521 billion is an improvement, in relative terms it still falls behind in priority compared to Education, Public Works, Local Government, and Health. Defense and education spending should always be at the top.
The next administration is strongly encouraged to commit thoroughly to reviving the Self-Reliant Defense Posture of the Marcos years (as well as Ramos’), implemented through Presidential Decree 415, amended by PD 1081.
The SRDP program, “initiated in 1974, took the development of a domestic defense industry as its objective. Defense officials contracted SRDP projects with the government arsenal and local manufacturers, encouraging the use of indigenous raw materials and production capacity. Projects included domestic production of small arms, radios, and assorted ammunition. One of the most significant SRDP operations was the manufacture of the M-16A1 rifle under license from Colt Industries, an American company. According to a 1988 statement by the Philippine armed forces chief of staff, the SRDP not only increased Philippine self-reliance, but also cut costs, provided jobs, and saved much-needed foreign-exchange funds.” (see photius.com, citing the Library of Congress Country Studies and CIA World Factbook)
The policy is practically a neglected tradition for the country. Danilo Lazo and Juanita Mercader (“The AFP Self-Reliant Defense Posture (SRDP) Program: Leading The Nation Towards A New Direction”; Asian Studies, 1989) point to traces of the self-reliant defense posture in “Commonwealth Act No. 138, otherwise known as the Flag Law,” requiring preference for locally manufactured items in government procurement.
Furthermore, considering the much talked about Filipino talent in computer programming, then the same should be harnessed for the country’s defense. Interestingly enough, Filipino hackers have been reportedly retaliating, with some degree of effectiveness, against countries hostile to the Philippines. Defense planning from now on should include creating an actual contingent within the AFP whose sole purpose is to defend the country from cyber attacks.
The foregoing has to be coupled with upgrading our reserve corps, including the revival of compulsory military service by making such a requirement for all graduating college students. With 70% of the population under 30 years of age, this would definitely help in our national development. Note that under the Constitution, “citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.”
Finally, we must develop a comprehensive national defense strategy. Because, believe it or not, we don’t have one.
That fact also probably explains our somewhat puzzling recent buying pattern of foreign military hardware. The purchase of sophisticated aircraft is actually futile because warfare essentially boils down to mathematics, i.e., who has more of what. And as far as external threats go, that is a contest we can’t win. The only people benefiting from our recent spending habits are Western defense companies able to offload their products to poor countries like us.
No. If we do buy weaponry from abroad, then the same should be done solely with the focus of neutralizing efficiently any internal threat at hand (including being able to guard against smuggling and fisheries poaching). For such purposes, hi-tech (thus expensive) weaponry is not necessary. Functioning workhorse type aircraft, speedboats, and land-armored vehicles should be enough.
For external threats, it is simply non-sensical to even try matching the military resources of those countries challenging the Philippines.
But what the Philippines does have are thousands of islands, an abundance of forests, caves, and miles and miles of confusing streets.
At this stage of our country’s development we can’t fight a war hoping to beat the other country. This includes not making our defense strategy hinge on the assistance of allies. We shouldn’t waste spending and the developing of our plans on such thinking.
What we can do is build our national defense strategy around the idea of attrition and guerilla warfare: to make going to war against the Philippines an island per island matter, complicated, never-ending, so costly in terms of human and material resources that it would practically outweigh any benefit -- that any country would have to think twice if it’s worth attacking us at all.
In the end, diplomacy is always the best option for everyone. And our national defense strategy should be built around the idea that countries are better off talking to us rather than shooting us.
Something that needs to be said repeatedly, hoping the next president of the Republic takes it to heart: “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.” Simply put, to defend the State is his main job. If he fails in that, nothing else matters. Any talk of social justice is useless if the Philippines can’t protect and keep its people and territory from both internal and external threats.
Unfortunately, defense has been woefully neglected the past few years. The 2015 budget’s 4.4% for the military is scandalous. This all the more when one considers the territorial dangers, conventional and asymmetrical, faced by the country. And while the 2016 budget’s P117.521 billion is an improvement, in relative terms it still falls behind in priority compared to Education, Public Works, Local Government, and Health. Defense and education spending should always be at the top.
The next administration is strongly encouraged to commit thoroughly to reviving the Self-Reliant Defense Posture of the Marcos years (as well as Ramos’), implemented through Presidential Decree 415, amended by PD 1081.
The SRDP program, “initiated in 1974, took the development of a domestic defense industry as its objective. Defense officials contracted SRDP projects with the government arsenal and local manufacturers, encouraging the use of indigenous raw materials and production capacity. Projects included domestic production of small arms, radios, and assorted ammunition. One of the most significant SRDP operations was the manufacture of the M-16A1 rifle under license from Colt Industries, an American company. According to a 1988 statement by the Philippine armed forces chief of staff, the SRDP not only increased Philippine self-reliance, but also cut costs, provided jobs, and saved much-needed foreign-exchange funds.” (see photius.com, citing the Library of Congress Country Studies and CIA World Factbook)
The policy is practically a neglected tradition for the country. Danilo Lazo and Juanita Mercader (“The AFP Self-Reliant Defense Posture (SRDP) Program: Leading The Nation Towards A New Direction”; Asian Studies, 1989) point to traces of the self-reliant defense posture in “Commonwealth Act No. 138, otherwise known as the Flag Law,” requiring preference for locally manufactured items in government procurement.
Furthermore, considering the much talked about Filipino talent in computer programming, then the same should be harnessed for the country’s defense. Interestingly enough, Filipino hackers have been reportedly retaliating, with some degree of effectiveness, against countries hostile to the Philippines. Defense planning from now on should include creating an actual contingent within the AFP whose sole purpose is to defend the country from cyber attacks.
The foregoing has to be coupled with upgrading our reserve corps, including the revival of compulsory military service by making such a requirement for all graduating college students. With 70% of the population under 30 years of age, this would definitely help in our national development. Note that under the Constitution, “citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.”
Finally, we must develop a comprehensive national defense strategy. Because, believe it or not, we don’t have one.
That fact also probably explains our somewhat puzzling recent buying pattern of foreign military hardware. The purchase of sophisticated aircraft is actually futile because warfare essentially boils down to mathematics, i.e., who has more of what. And as far as external threats go, that is a contest we can’t win. The only people benefiting from our recent spending habits are Western defense companies able to offload their products to poor countries like us.
No. If we do buy weaponry from abroad, then the same should be done solely with the focus of neutralizing efficiently any internal threat at hand (including being able to guard against smuggling and fisheries poaching). For such purposes, hi-tech (thus expensive) weaponry is not necessary. Functioning workhorse type aircraft, speedboats, and land-armored vehicles should be enough.
For external threats, it is simply non-sensical to even try matching the military resources of those countries challenging the Philippines.
But what the Philippines does have are thousands of islands, an abundance of forests, caves, and miles and miles of confusing streets.
At this stage of our country’s development we can’t fight a war hoping to beat the other country. This includes not making our defense strategy hinge on the assistance of allies. We shouldn’t waste spending and the developing of our plans on such thinking.
What we can do is build our national defense strategy around the idea of attrition and guerilla warfare: to make going to war against the Philippines an island per island matter, complicated, never-ending, so costly in terms of human and material resources that it would practically outweigh any benefit -- that any country would have to think twice if it’s worth attacking us at all.
In the end, diplomacy is always the best option for everyone. And our national defense strategy should be built around the idea that countries are better off talking to us rather than shooting us.
26.11.15
Radical Islam and the war of world views
my Trade Tripper column in the 20-21 November 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
The 13th of November, of course, was the day radical Islamic terrorists attacked Paris. It was also an anniversary of sorts, it being the day, almost a hundred years earlier, when Western troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this is what’s certain: Islamic terrorists specifically targeted in Paris a football game between France and Germany, a heavy metal rock concert (where the US band Eagles of Death Metal was playing), a hip upscale Cambodian restaurant, and three bars.
This was an attack not simply on Paris but against a way of life. Which is the same kind recognized by most in this globalized world. Of which the Philippines is a part.
Anybody who says those barbaric acts are solvable with better understanding and tolerance of other’s viewpoints to achieve peaceful coexistence is in cuckoo land.
There is no compromise or inane “don’t judge” position available in this case.
Accept it or not, the moment you ask for tolerance and plea for coexistence you make a stand. A stand peculiarly Judeo-Christian Enlightenment in view regarding human right, freedom, and reason. And which is precisely diametrically opposed to and clashes with the radical Islamic belief that everyone must think and do as they do.
If you don’t believe that, try asking for gender equality and religious freedom in radical Islam controlled areas.
Indeed. What these radical Islamic terrorists want is for us to change our way of life or lose it.
Realistic coexistence is unobtainable. Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century Egyptian Islamic theorist) influentially equated modernity and nonbelief in Islam to jahiliyya (ignorance of divine guidance), and declared that “Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyya. Either Islam will remain or jahiliyya. The mixing and co-existence of truth and falsehood is impossible.”
Or, if you like, take the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden’s rant against Western culture, demanding we “reject homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings, and trading with interest... drugs... art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom,” and further demanding that people be ruled by the “Sharia of Allah.”
And it goes on and on. Hating our freedoms: the fact that women are free to be educated or work, for homosexuals to be treated as people, for anyone to be free to join any religion, and to have a constitutional system that espouses the separation of Church and State.
Thus, more than foreign intervention or economics, what radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on is our world view: their unenlightened totalitarian version of existence against our twin pillars of faith and reason that created democracy and religious tolerance.
And they absolutely abhor the fact that we celebrate our freedom and that such influences their youth: from Manchester United to the trashy Kardashians, the sublimity of Bach, to reading Shakespeare and watching animé.
And that is why radical Islam prefers isolation rather than assimilating with other societies. In France alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of so-called “no-go zones” that Fox News was forced to apologize for even though it actually exists.
These autonomous areas are not officially recognized but are parts of the country dominated by Muslims and largely exclude non-Muslim people or culture. Civil authorities have abdicated control for fear of violence and secular laws are supplanted by Shariah.
Unfortunately, these areas have been taken advantage by radical Muslim clerics to preach their hateful ideology, resulting in the brainwashing of future terrorists and provide safe havens for present ones.
And thus the unfortunate and ironic statistic (taken last year) where 27% of 18- to 24-year-old French citizens support the Islamic State (IS; 16% for the whole population).
Due to the social media environment we live in, this quite blindingly obvious caveat is made: I am not against Muslims or the Islamic faith. I am not against any religion or race. What I am against are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others by violence.
So what do we do?
First is to value our way of life. We defend it rather than apologize for it. And aggressively, completely reject the littlest notion that real or imagined oppression or minority status will ever justify the slaughter of innocent people.
Another is to call these terrorists for what they are: radical Islam. Because that’s what they call themselves. Because you don’t see Catholic nuns blowing up restaurants. Because these terrorists wreak havoc to make the world ruled by an Islamic Caliphate.
We must also strongly call on the US to finally lead: restrictively guarded measures on refugees and putting boots on the ground.
While France (along with others in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) took the admirable step of committing to obliterating IS, they just cannot do it without US strength and resources. And President Obama’s incredibly incompetent “leading from behind” presidency is utterly making matters worse.
Finally, we must also act with this realization: foreign policy is but an extension of our domestic policy. By which I emphasize: our policy in relation to Philippine territory.
The 13th of November, of course, was the day radical Islamic terrorists attacked Paris. It was also an anniversary of sorts, it being the day, almost a hundred years earlier, when Western troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this is what’s certain: Islamic terrorists specifically targeted in Paris a football game between France and Germany, a heavy metal rock concert (where the US band Eagles of Death Metal was playing), a hip upscale Cambodian restaurant, and three bars.
This was an attack not simply on Paris but against a way of life. Which is the same kind recognized by most in this globalized world. Of which the Philippines is a part.
Anybody who says those barbaric acts are solvable with better understanding and tolerance of other’s viewpoints to achieve peaceful coexistence is in cuckoo land.
There is no compromise or inane “don’t judge” position available in this case.
Accept it or not, the moment you ask for tolerance and plea for coexistence you make a stand. A stand peculiarly Judeo-Christian Enlightenment in view regarding human right, freedom, and reason. And which is precisely diametrically opposed to and clashes with the radical Islamic belief that everyone must think and do as they do.
If you don’t believe that, try asking for gender equality and religious freedom in radical Islam controlled areas.
Indeed. What these radical Islamic terrorists want is for us to change our way of life or lose it.
Realistic coexistence is unobtainable. Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century Egyptian Islamic theorist) influentially equated modernity and nonbelief in Islam to jahiliyya (ignorance of divine guidance), and declared that “Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyya. Either Islam will remain or jahiliyya. The mixing and co-existence of truth and falsehood is impossible.”
Or, if you like, take the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden’s rant against Western culture, demanding we “reject homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings, and trading with interest... drugs... art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom,” and further demanding that people be ruled by the “Sharia of Allah.”
And it goes on and on. Hating our freedoms: the fact that women are free to be educated or work, for homosexuals to be treated as people, for anyone to be free to join any religion, and to have a constitutional system that espouses the separation of Church and State.
Thus, more than foreign intervention or economics, what radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on is our world view: their unenlightened totalitarian version of existence against our twin pillars of faith and reason that created democracy and religious tolerance.
And they absolutely abhor the fact that we celebrate our freedom and that such influences their youth: from Manchester United to the trashy Kardashians, the sublimity of Bach, to reading Shakespeare and watching animé.
And that is why radical Islam prefers isolation rather than assimilating with other societies. In France alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of so-called “no-go zones” that Fox News was forced to apologize for even though it actually exists.
These autonomous areas are not officially recognized but are parts of the country dominated by Muslims and largely exclude non-Muslim people or culture. Civil authorities have abdicated control for fear of violence and secular laws are supplanted by Shariah.
Unfortunately, these areas have been taken advantage by radical Muslim clerics to preach their hateful ideology, resulting in the brainwashing of future terrorists and provide safe havens for present ones.
And thus the unfortunate and ironic statistic (taken last year) where 27% of 18- to 24-year-old French citizens support the Islamic State (IS; 16% for the whole population).
Due to the social media environment we live in, this quite blindingly obvious caveat is made: I am not against Muslims or the Islamic faith. I am not against any religion or race. What I am against are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others by violence.
So what do we do?
First is to value our way of life. We defend it rather than apologize for it. And aggressively, completely reject the littlest notion that real or imagined oppression or minority status will ever justify the slaughter of innocent people.
Another is to call these terrorists for what they are: radical Islam. Because that’s what they call themselves. Because you don’t see Catholic nuns blowing up restaurants. Because these terrorists wreak havoc to make the world ruled by an Islamic Caliphate.
We must also strongly call on the US to finally lead: restrictively guarded measures on refugees and putting boots on the ground.
While France (along with others in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) took the admirable step of committing to obliterating IS, they just cannot do it without US strength and resources. And President Obama’s incredibly incompetent “leading from behind” presidency is utterly making matters worse.
Finally, we must also act with this realization: foreign policy is but an extension of our domestic policy. By which I emphasize: our policy in relation to Philippine territory.
12.10.15
Paying for the Philippines' new normal
my Trade Tripper column in the 9-10 October 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
The problem is disconnect. The disconnect between what our current government leaders say (and swear to) and what they actually do. Like that presidential candidate who dismisses taking an oath renouncing Philippine citizenship as a mere scrap of paper. And this resulted in the Republic lurching from one reactive policy to another, the government imposing measures that are far detached from the people’s will or the national interest.
One symptom of the disconnect is the present Administration trying to (or at least acts like it wants to) direct people to the good life. But experience shows how unhinged this is from reality. And under our constitutional system, that shouldn’t even be government’s primary focus. Thus, the principles of “common good” (the individual’s right to human flourishing) and “subsidiarity” (the people deciding for themselves how to attain that common good), embodied in our Constitution, but which the ruling political class keeps ignoring.
Instead, our Constitution declares that our government really has one job to do: “to serve and protect the people.”
Thus, essential are the maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Our government is not mandated to directly run the country, its economy, educate the youth, and develop society. That is properly the people’s responsibility. As far as those are concerned, including attaining a just social order and social justice, the government merely “recognizes,” “promotes,” and “develops” -- serving as an assist to the work primarily carried out by the Filipino people.
In short, the government is actually supposed to keep its efforts to the minimum, limited to fostering an environment where the people are free to properly do their thing. After that, the government should just keep out of the people’s way.
If you think the foregoing is a mere academic concern better confined to the classroom, think again. This Administration has expanded the reach of government to areas that should primarily be left to the people.
By doing so, insisting in interfering with business and education through more regulations, weakening institutions like the family and the Church, and acting like the “padrone” through billions spent on the Conditional Cash Transfer, this Administration now feels entitled to increase taxes to expand its powers even more.
So now, we have a proposed 2016 budget of P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006.
The government’s “underspending” 2014 budget deficit (which meant that, despite all the underspending for necessary infrastructure, our government still spent more than it earned) is P73.1 billion.
The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino paying among the highest income tax in Asia but with the lowest wage rates in the world for work hours deemed among the longest globally.
And this is not counting the fact that Metro Manila workers suffer the longest commutes due to the now internationally recognized as the world’s worst traffic.
And with all that money being taken from ordinary taxpaying Filipino citizens (aside from an external debt of P2.042 trillion and domestic debt of P3.856 trillion, resulting in an outstanding debt of P5.898 trillion as of August 2015), what does this Administration have to show for it?
One of the world’s worst airports, the world’s worst traffic, slowest internet speed; 23.2% unemployment (80% of which belong to the 18-34 age group), around 7% student drop out rates, nearly 26% poverty incidence; water shortage (amidst floods), huge backlog in issuances of drivers licenses and car plates and passports; and a deteriorating educational system.
In the end, the “just-let-the-government-take-care-of-you” cash dole-outs, the considerable unemployment/underemployment rates, and legislation like the Kasambahay Law (that demands a professional’s pay but without the need to work professionally), all provide a clear disincentive to work and fosters an entitlement culture that could only lead to this country’s social and fiscal bankruptcy.
Yes, we seem to have improved competitiveness. But even that proves my point: an examination of this year’s and the last Global Competitiveness Index reveals the uptick attributable to private sector efforts and held back by bureaucratic red tape.
And there are still the areas of special concern remaining unaddressed: Yolanda rehabilitation and the inability to give justice to the Special Action Forces 44.
And yet, quite insanely, on the one job this government is supposed to do -- to protect our people and territory -- it bafflingly waffles between apathy, incompetence, or the downright treasonous.
Thus our country bears increased incidence of crime, increased smuggling, unchecked rise of illegal aliens (estimated at 1.3 million, posing a threat to national security, as well as stealing employment), the confused legal/diplomatic “defense” of our territory vis-a-vis China, and the almost giving away of Mindanao to a supposed “Bangsamoro”. All messes clearly intended to be left to the following administration to clean up.
Hopefully, our next set of government leaders has had a better read of our Constitution. And respect the fact that words (and oaths) do matter.
23.8.15
18.5.15
Compilation of articles on the Bangsamoro issue
For easy reference, I am listing here some selected articles I wrote for BusinessWorld on the Bangsamoro issue.
However, to start, here is my Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee of the House of Representatives on the Bangsamoro issue.
The BusinessWorld articles (selected) are as follows:
- CAB and BBL: The two towers of secession
- The Bangsamoro's international law gambit
- Bangsamoro and the myth of historical baggage
- Of constitutional interpretation and Bangsamoro Basic Law
- Bangsamoro: a question of consistency and constitutionality
- Bangsamoro: an Islamic State
A TV interview I gave on the issue can be found here.
A compilation of articles I wrote on the MOA-AD can be found here.
However, to start, here is my Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee of the House of Representatives on the Bangsamoro issue.
The BusinessWorld articles (selected) are as follows:
- CAB and BBL: The two towers of secession
- The Bangsamoro's international law gambit
- Bangsamoro and the myth of historical baggage
- Of constitutional interpretation and Bangsamoro Basic Law
- Bangsamoro: a question of consistency and constitutionality
- Bangsamoro: an Islamic State
A TV interview I gave on the issue can be found here.
A compilation of articles I wrote on the MOA-AD can be found here.
23.4.15
7.4.15
The Bangsamoro's international law gambit
my Trade Tripper column in the 13-14 March issue of BusinessWorld:
It has long been my position that whatever draft Bangsamoro Basic Law is passed by Congress, it would ultimately be inutile for the reason that there exists the quite unconstitutional Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (which, along with the Framework Agreement and other related agreements, shall hereafter be referred to as the CAB). Or put another way: the debate about the Basic Law’s constitutionality is a false flag, a distraction.
To repeat: our government, by agreeing to terms in the CAB like “armed conflict,” “self-governance,” “combatants,” the “justness” and “legitimacy” of the “cause of the Bangsamoro,” “internal waters,” “core territories,” and the unwitting use of the term “self-determination” (which under international law is essentially “secession”), contributed to elevating the CAB to arguably an international agreement.
Also, allowing Malaysia’s “witnessing” of the CAB is definitely eccentric. Aside from bolstering the internationalization of the CAB argument, it also raises questions of prudence: Malaysia, after all, is contesting our ownership of Sabah.
Then there is the Department of Foreign Affairs’ leading role in this issue. Autonomous local governments have always been under the Department of the Interior and Local Governments. This is so even for other countries: Native American issues were placed under the United States Department of the Interior; for a time, the Northern Ireland issue was under the United Kingdom’s Home Office. There was no reason why the same thing could not have been done relative to the Bangsamoro. This is not a mere administrative question. The consequence is the public signal that our government sees the Bangsamoro as a “foreign affairs” issue.
And it does not help that a number of Constitutional Commission members to the 1987 Constitution issued a January 2015 statement expressing support for the “creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region” and that it “can become part of international law” upon “its acceptance by the community of nations.” Why should such a “region” need acceptance by other countries? This is a purely internal matter about and between Filipinos.
But then, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) clearly viewed the CAB as an international agreement. Reacting to a statement of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago that the CAB needs Senate approval, MILF Vice-Chairman Ghazali Jaafar disagreed, saying in a phone interview with GMA News that the nature of the agreement that the MILF signed with the government is an “executive agreement.”
Now the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty is that the latter requires Senate approval (executive agreements do not). But this must be emphasized: under both international law and Philippine law, an “executive agreement” is an international agreement.
What is the significance of this? Huge.
It renders any effort on the part of Congress to “fix” the Basic Law futile. Because it is in the nature of international agreements that they are not to be thwarted by local laws and institutions (including the Constitution).
So even if Congress does produce a Basic Law that conforms to the Constitution, the MILF can disregard that by saying that such a Basic Law does not comply with a binding international agreement that is the CAB.
This also reduces any eventual pronouncement by the Supreme Court as irrelevant. Because any ruling the Supreme Court has is only applicable within the territory and jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Besides, the MILF can also argue (by logical extension) that it has international personality and not within the coverage of Philippine jurisdiction.
As to a possible counter-argument that the MILF agreed for the CAB to go through Philippine constitutional processes before it becomes effective, it must be remembered that the MILF’s stated position is that it understood “it was negotiating with the totality of the Philippine government or ‘whole government,’ especially since, among other reasons, the commander-in-chief powers of the President allow him to bind the whole of government, including its different branches.” (See the Dec. 29, 2014, letter of MILF Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim to the House ad hoc committee on the Basic Law.)
In other words, the MILF has taken the position that it acted upon our government representation that the Executive speaks for the other two branches, and thus the contra-constitutional CAB is effective upon signing.
Thus, this: if the Basic Law doesn’t conform to the contra-constitutional CAB, the MILF now has the diplomatic and international law cover to seek foreign assistance (whether it be international organizations or tribunals or countries) in “correcting” the Philippines’ alleged violation of an international obligation.
All these explain why the Constitution is barely mentioned in the CAB (just once, and only to bizarrely say that the Constitution should be amended to conform to the CAB).
Interestingly, the Basic Law (if passed as currently drafted) will be the only Philippine law ever that is subject not only to the Constitution but also to “international law,” “system of life prescribed by [Muslim] faith,” and “harmony with our customary laws, cultures, traditions.”
To be charitable, the CAB doesn’t seem well thought through.
It has long been my position that whatever draft Bangsamoro Basic Law is passed by Congress, it would ultimately be inutile for the reason that there exists the quite unconstitutional Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (which, along with the Framework Agreement and other related agreements, shall hereafter be referred to as the CAB). Or put another way: the debate about the Basic Law’s constitutionality is a false flag, a distraction.
To repeat: our government, by agreeing to terms in the CAB like “armed conflict,” “self-governance,” “combatants,” the “justness” and “legitimacy” of the “cause of the Bangsamoro,” “internal waters,” “core territories,” and the unwitting use of the term “self-determination” (which under international law is essentially “secession”), contributed to elevating the CAB to arguably an international agreement.
Also, allowing Malaysia’s “witnessing” of the CAB is definitely eccentric. Aside from bolstering the internationalization of the CAB argument, it also raises questions of prudence: Malaysia, after all, is contesting our ownership of Sabah.
Then there is the Department of Foreign Affairs’ leading role in this issue. Autonomous local governments have always been under the Department of the Interior and Local Governments. This is so even for other countries: Native American issues were placed under the United States Department of the Interior; for a time, the Northern Ireland issue was under the United Kingdom’s Home Office. There was no reason why the same thing could not have been done relative to the Bangsamoro. This is not a mere administrative question. The consequence is the public signal that our government sees the Bangsamoro as a “foreign affairs” issue.
And it does not help that a number of Constitutional Commission members to the 1987 Constitution issued a January 2015 statement expressing support for the “creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region” and that it “can become part of international law” upon “its acceptance by the community of nations.” Why should such a “region” need acceptance by other countries? This is a purely internal matter about and between Filipinos.
But then, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) clearly viewed the CAB as an international agreement. Reacting to a statement of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago that the CAB needs Senate approval, MILF Vice-Chairman Ghazali Jaafar disagreed, saying in a phone interview with GMA News that the nature of the agreement that the MILF signed with the government is an “executive agreement.”
Now the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty is that the latter requires Senate approval (executive agreements do not). But this must be emphasized: under both international law and Philippine law, an “executive agreement” is an international agreement.
What is the significance of this? Huge.
It renders any effort on the part of Congress to “fix” the Basic Law futile. Because it is in the nature of international agreements that they are not to be thwarted by local laws and institutions (including the Constitution).
So even if Congress does produce a Basic Law that conforms to the Constitution, the MILF can disregard that by saying that such a Basic Law does not comply with a binding international agreement that is the CAB.
This also reduces any eventual pronouncement by the Supreme Court as irrelevant. Because any ruling the Supreme Court has is only applicable within the territory and jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Besides, the MILF can also argue (by logical extension) that it has international personality and not within the coverage of Philippine jurisdiction.
As to a possible counter-argument that the MILF agreed for the CAB to go through Philippine constitutional processes before it becomes effective, it must be remembered that the MILF’s stated position is that it understood “it was negotiating with the totality of the Philippine government or ‘whole government,’ especially since, among other reasons, the commander-in-chief powers of the President allow him to bind the whole of government, including its different branches.” (See the Dec. 29, 2014, letter of MILF Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim to the House ad hoc committee on the Basic Law.)
In other words, the MILF has taken the position that it acted upon our government representation that the Executive speaks for the other two branches, and thus the contra-constitutional CAB is effective upon signing.
Thus, this: if the Basic Law doesn’t conform to the contra-constitutional CAB, the MILF now has the diplomatic and international law cover to seek foreign assistance (whether it be international organizations or tribunals or countries) in “correcting” the Philippines’ alleged violation of an international obligation.
All these explain why the Constitution is barely mentioned in the CAB (just once, and only to bizarrely say that the Constitution should be amended to conform to the CAB).
Interestingly, the Basic Law (if passed as currently drafted) will be the only Philippine law ever that is subject not only to the Constitution but also to “international law,” “system of life prescribed by [Muslim] faith,” and “harmony with our customary laws, cultures, traditions.”
To be charitable, the CAB doesn’t seem well thought through.
22.2.15
Attack of the killer Catholic Church!
was my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
It finally happened. Two weeks ago, the respected international news magazine The Week That Wasn’t Really ran a cartoon showing Pope Francis allegedly killing a gay pigeon. How the pigeon was considered gay was not brought up, but it angered many Catholics as another example of the media’s obsession to portray the Church as villainous and intolerant.
The day after the cartoon was published, Catholic militants attacked the TWTWR office and massacred the entire staff. Reacting to the news, Salesian priest Fr. Chito Dizon urged all not to immediately label the attackers as Catholics. “So what if they shouted ‘Totus Tuus’ and then took time off during the middle of the attack to pray the Angelus at noon? That doesn’t make them necessarily Catholic. They could be Hindus. Or Rastafarian. It’s possible they merely used the name of the Church in committing the atrocity.”
Nevertheless, Fr. Bobby Magsino, a Vatican spokesman and member of the shadowy and controversial Opus Dei [Sorry, I forgot to mention “ultra-conservative” -- JG] justified the attack, describing “the encounter” as that of “freedom fighters acting in self-defense” compelled by years of “historical baggage” in the form of “media and academic oppression suffered by the Catholic Church.”
Nevertheless, Fr. Magsino urged all to instead move forward and forget the deaths ever happened. “Peace is what’s important,” he said.
Meanwhile, interviewed by EWTN, Lito Deyvid of Pro-Life Philippines denounced those asking for justice for the TWTWR victims, calling it as “grandstanding” against Catholics. They are “anti-religion and against peace,” he said. Furthermore, “those asking for total war have not lived in the poor parishes and can’t comprehend the daily insults and attacks the faithful have been subjected to.”
Arwin Hilario, congressman from McBayan partylist, was even more earnest: “Forget the killings. Criminal laws, like sovereignty or gender, are mere social constructs. The real problem is the oligarchy that imposes their non-developmental agenda. The rich know nothing about ordinary religious folk, who perform apostolate work under conditions of poverty. It’s very difficult and complicated. Also, it’s obviously Gloria Arroyo’s fault.”
“I support those Catholic militants,” added Mr. Hilario, "they spoke truth to power". When told that the TWTWR victims were ordinary poor working people, with children, he replied: “But let’s also remember that many Catholics were killed by Queen Elizabeth I. The Buddhists killed many Catholics too. The Romans fed Catholics to lions. So context, people!”
This was supported by Trina Montes, a comparative women’s rights professor from the University of the Philippines, saying that we should not be too quick to condemn the killing by the Catholics. “The Hittites, for example, were also committing massacres 3,000 years ago.”
In fact, “they were the first to use germ warfare,” she added.
Ironically, the TWTWR incident was followed by a mauling that Catholics gave to a group of Mormons last Sunday. It appears that Catholics suddenly started occupying (without permission) a portion of the Mormon Temple along White Plains. When the members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (as Mormons are officially called) started to enter their Temple last Sunday, the Catholics roving around the compound started beating them up, forcing the Mormons to go somewhere else to worship.
Ms. Haidi Dulong, chief negotiator for the Mormons, blamed the Mormons for what happened: “So what if the Catholics were squatting? The Mormons should have followed protocol and coordinated with the squatters first before entering our own compound. The Catholics were surprised. Wouldn’t you? Read my books first before you speak to me on this issue.”
When told that the Catholics still continued to beat up the Mormons for several hours even after the latter identified themselves as being there to do Sunday worship, Ms. Dulong replied: “Let’s wait for the results of the Catholic investigation. Besides, the enemy... este, Mormons were also at fault. Several Catholics suffered hurt feelings.”
Jesuit scholar Fr. Joachim Tambori predictably articulated erudition: “I wouldn’t say the Catholic Church is right on this issue. In fact, I don’t know of any issue where the Catholic Church has ever been right. There are many things to consider. We should always put ourselves in others’ shoes because people have the international human right to shoes.” Rappler readers immediately declared this made them feel happy and intelligent.
Finally, one of the Catholic militants, Erwin Richard Perez, issued a statement: “You grieve for the TWTWR dead. But many have tried to subjugate the Church, yet we’re still here. You can wage war against us but we will just baptize more babies who will grow up to continue the Crusades. So give us the peace that we demand or there’ll be violence of biblical proportions (i.e., dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria).”
“However,” the Catholic militant was quick to add, “always remember that Christianity is the religion of peace. Anybody who disagrees with that will have the jeebus excommunicated out of him.”
[And ... I ran out of crap to write.]
[And ... I ran out of crap to write.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)