DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/17/2010
The 19-year tale of blunders and consequent injustice marks the track of Philippine society, from the staggering blunder of elite families allowing their children to be swallowed by the drug culture and involvement (without saying that they are guilty) in such a heinous crimes (such as the 1997 Chiong sisters rape-slay in Cebu by scions of powerful families) to the deadly Keystone Kops or rogue cops character, law enforcement agencies and officers, through the hoodlums in robes in the nation’s courts; and to top it all, the supreme blunder of the Supreme Court (SC) in allowing a minority of seven of the en banc to carry the final day of the almost 20-year-old Vizconde saga. According to Law professor Alan Paguia, the Constitution, jurisprudence and decided cases require the majority of eight concurrences of the en banc to decide a case; and consequently the prisoners’ release is illegal.
This is not a discussion of the merits of the Webb case. It is about the cavalier way Philippine society treats law and law enforcement that bring endless blunders and injustice upon our society. Our Global News Network show, aired live and as breaking news as the SC spokesman Midas Marquez’s statements were being replayed on air, Paguia discussed this salient point of the Constitution and the law with our other guest, former senator and whom I call senior statesman Eddie Ilarde: that the concurrence of the majority of no less than eight SC justice sitting en banc, as distinguished from a division of three or five, is required for the en banc decision to be effective. This means that the SC’s seven acquit, four sustain (for the lower court decisions) and four abstain or inhibition is actually sustaining the conviction. Vizconde should take note of this and not blunder on, though the defendants could still petition for reconsideration.
The hasty order from the SC to the prison officials to effect the release of the accused is another disconcerting error that has raised cries of “foul” from the Vizconde family sympathizers. The normal process would bring the order for release to the Department of Justice (DoJ) first and from thence to the prison officials, which would take at least a few days. The injudiciously hurried release ordered by the SC has raised charges of bribery from Vizconde supporters, believing the hastiness was compelled by other than legal considerations. I sought second opinions: four out of five lawyers said that Paguia’s questions “have merit,” two pointed out that the question however would be judged by the SC itself if brought up and would not prosper, and the hasty release was “highly irregular.” The rest of the country, even Vizconde, has accepted the SC decision to be gospel truth, thus we continue to be a “blundering society.”
The blundering media must not be let off the hook. One of the factors that got the “trial by publicity” of the accused all stoked up was the ABS-CBN’s once TV talk show host, the late Sen. Rene Cayetano, who played up the case to build up his own political stock. The Pasay judge in the Vizconde case showed a penchant to ham up to media which media lapped up with gusto, and colleagues of the judge congratulated her upon being assigned the celebrity case the media had built up and which she could bask in the glory of “hanging” the accused and gain her ticket to promotions as other “hanging judges” paved their way to prominence and other careers upon retirement. The media glare brings out many questionable values in human beings. Even today, the media show their propensity for idiocy, swallowing like the rest of society the announcement from the SC as if it were gospel truth and not raising the questions that should be raised.
The foibles of media in the aftermath of the Webb release continue, one columnist lamented “trial by publicity” when he and his newspaper have been the major “crucifier” by publicity as they did to President Joseph Estrada. The DoJ is reopening the Vizconde rape-slay case and the media should be raising the questions, such as: the role of the “drug Indians” and the NBI which allegedly illegally sprung them and which Sen. Freddie Webb was investigating, a second set of suspects who were then discounted, inexplicable lapses in the consideration and care of evidence by the court and the NBI, etc. It remains to be seen if this time the straight path to the facts and truth be taken; but after the Hong Thai-Mendoza hostage-taking and apparent cover-up are any indication, Philippine government and society will continue to blunder along — until revolutionary change imposes a strong moral and ethical culture replaces what we have today.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S. — “10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Friday, December 17, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
PeNoy to Pinoys: Eat lice
CONSUMERS DEMAND!
Mentong Laurel
12/13-19/2010
When PeNoy’s government raised the NFA wholesale price for rice from P23.50 to P25.00/kg and the retail price from P25.00 to P27.00/kg last December 7, it was literally telling poor Filipinos: “Go, eat lice.”
Hunger statistics of the past years already show that Filipino families who pass a day or more being absolutely without food, or experiencing “involuntary hunger” within a period of three months, comprise up to 25% of the population; while the “poor” as a percentage of the population can fluctuate between 50 to 75% depending on the price of rice and other foodstuff.
Every peso added to the cost of the people’s basic staple while wages and employment levels are at crisis levels translates to increasing hunger and poverty, and invariably greater social unrest and economic deterioration. The PeNoy government may argue that this price increase is for the good of the farmers who are among the very poor anyway, but this doesn’t sound plausible after the PeNoy Cabinet decided to cut the NFA budget at the onset of its administration.
Even more telling is the NFA’s official reason for the price increase, that is, to “ensure the viability of the agency.” Does this mean that it will mainly go to support the agency and not the farmers? One cannot conclude that what is good for the agency is automatically going to redound to the good of the farmers. The statement implies that the P2 price increase is not necessarily going to be passed on to the rice farmers as price support or a similar incentive. The highly sensitive statement, coming as it does from a superb wordsmith (having been a campaigner for PeNoy in the last election) who now heads the agency, couldn’t have been a mistake.
Frankly, I can’t blame the new NFA for scrounging around to raise funds for itself, especially with the way PeNoy’s Cabinet expressed its disdain for the agency by pulling out support for its clients--the rice farming sector--early on.
Still and all, there is a better way to go about the rice supply and pricing problem: Instead of P21 B for the CCT dole out program, the government can very well allocate just a third of this for farmers’ organizations. This will increase rice production by reviving moribund irrigation systems, supporting seed programs and organic fertilizer production, employing workers and farm hands, raising production and enriching the farmers a little. These will then redound to a stabilized rice supply situation and a lowered hunger and poverty incidence.
By the supply and price of rice do Philippine governments rise and fall, and this may just become the rice straw that breaks the camel’s back.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com)
Mentong Laurel
12/13-19/2010
When PeNoy’s government raised the NFA wholesale price for rice from P23.50 to P25.00/kg and the retail price from P25.00 to P27.00/kg last December 7, it was literally telling poor Filipinos: “Go, eat lice.”
Hunger statistics of the past years already show that Filipino families who pass a day or more being absolutely without food, or experiencing “involuntary hunger” within a period of three months, comprise up to 25% of the population; while the “poor” as a percentage of the population can fluctuate between 50 to 75% depending on the price of rice and other foodstuff.
Every peso added to the cost of the people’s basic staple while wages and employment levels are at crisis levels translates to increasing hunger and poverty, and invariably greater social unrest and economic deterioration. The PeNoy government may argue that this price increase is for the good of the farmers who are among the very poor anyway, but this doesn’t sound plausible after the PeNoy Cabinet decided to cut the NFA budget at the onset of its administration.
Even more telling is the NFA’s official reason for the price increase, that is, to “ensure the viability of the agency.” Does this mean that it will mainly go to support the agency and not the farmers? One cannot conclude that what is good for the agency is automatically going to redound to the good of the farmers. The statement implies that the P2 price increase is not necessarily going to be passed on to the rice farmers as price support or a similar incentive. The highly sensitive statement, coming as it does from a superb wordsmith (having been a campaigner for PeNoy in the last election) who now heads the agency, couldn’t have been a mistake.
Frankly, I can’t blame the new NFA for scrounging around to raise funds for itself, especially with the way PeNoy’s Cabinet expressed its disdain for the agency by pulling out support for its clients--the rice farming sector--early on.
Still and all, there is a better way to go about the rice supply and pricing problem: Instead of P21 B for the CCT dole out program, the government can very well allocate just a third of this for farmers’ organizations. This will increase rice production by reviving moribund irrigation systems, supporting seed programs and organic fertilizer production, employing workers and farm hands, raising production and enriching the farmers a little. These will then redound to a stabilized rice supply situation and a lowered hunger and poverty incidence.
By the supply and price of rice do Philippine governments rise and fall, and this may just become the rice straw that breaks the camel’s back.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Pell-mell Peace Nobel
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/13/2010
Pell-mell: jumbled, helter-skelter, confused; that’s what the Nobel Peace prize has become. A third party observer such as the India Daily perceived this so clearly when its correspondent filed a report in response to the nomination of Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize with the headline, “Beijing denounces Nobel for Liu Xiaobo, after Obama, Gore, isn’t the Nobel Prize a joke?”
One definitely couldn’t get such a clear assessment of the Peace Prize from Western societies and media. I was almost ready to add the West’s minion states like the Philippines among those with the view skewed toward the West until the PeNoy government surprised us for once by doing the right thing, by joining the boycott of the Nobel Peace award to the questionable Liu Xiaobo.
From another third party point of view, Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo, comes this objective summary of Liu Xiaobo’s history: “Liu Xiaobo’s personal link with Norway started during his days as a visiting scholar to the University of Oslo in 1988... Back in those dark days of the Cold War, there weren’t many Chinese in Scandinavia, so Liu was a rare commodity — a scholar from Beijing who loathed Beijing. Whether Liu became a Nato asset is a matter of top-secret classification. Oslo’s repeated inquiries about him through two decades, the Western media’s patronage, and the Nobel selection over other Chinese dissidents indicate some sort of special bond. Whatever the hidden details of his foreign involvements, Liu’s Peace Prize is serving as the bugle call for Nato’s global crusade against so-called “tyranny.”
“The fact that an open warmonger heads the Nobel Peace Committee has completely discredited what was once the world’s most prestigious Peace Prize. That honor is now just another weapon in the arsenal of the Great Powers mobilizing to reassert their authority over their former colonial domain. The goal of the West is not democracy and human rights; what its leaders really desire is domination and warfare. The intentions are clear. Thus we must each prepare, in our different ways, for the coming bloodshed.”
The Indian and Japanese media can be relied on to be more level-headed about the issues given their experiences with Western imperialism and persistent nationalist pride, unlike many in Philippine media and human rights NGOs who genuflect before the journalism and human rights foundations as well as foreign funding agencies for their scholarships and whatnot.
This dubious award of the Nobel Peace prize to Liu Xiaobo was preceded by two of the same equally dubious awards to Obama in 2009, when the newly-elected US president had just taken steps to expand the American and Nato war in Afghanistan; and before that in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore for their advocacy of the “man-made global warming” theory and restrictions on industrialization, which have subsequently been put under serious disrepute by IPCC’s own admissions of prediction errors, precipitated by an e-mail scandal unearthed by an IPCC scientist (not by WikiLeaks) revealing climate date manipulation to suit global warming theories. But these are not the only controversies.
The 1973 award to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the Vietnam peace talks compelled two Nobel Peace Prize panel members’ resignation; they could not agree on the nominees’ qualifications as men of peace. Kissinger is considered by many historians and students of the Vietnam War, and I among them, as a war criminal for the atrocities and murder of four million Vietnamese civilians committed by American forces under his policy direction.
A lesser known awardee in 2008 was former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari who executed the negotiations with Yugoslavia’s Milosevic that were so one-sided for the US and Nato that he was rewarded with a second assignment over Kosovo which ended with the latter’s declaration of independence. Gregory Elich of the Jasenovac Research Institute and adviser to the Korea Truth Commission says Ahtisaari’s Nobel was for services rendered.
In my political-economy classes at PUP up until 2005, I had always discussed the Nobel Peace Prize as a fraud and an instrument of cultural warfare to create icons favorable to Western purposes. I ask why, for example, the ultimate and historical paradigm of peace and peaceful struggle was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn’t Mahatma Gandhi the world’s undisputed premier exponent of peace? The Nobel Peace Prize had been given out nearly every year since 1901.
I explain to my students that Gandhi could never be a Nobel Peace laureate because he is an anti-imperialist icon. It’s about time all Filipinos learn this basic truth about the Nobel Peace Prize: It is intended mainly to promote the West’s ideal of the “peaceful” man who is on their side. Liu Xiaobo is on their side, yet there is more material on him on the Internet that the Peace Prize panel never touched on.
Whatever the real reason for the PeNoy government’s joining the boycott of the Liu peace award, even it was merely a right mistake taken to obfuscate a real rejection of US imposition on it, we anti-imperialist Filipinos welcome it. When I praised this apparently courageous act on my radio program last Friday night, a yellow butterfly (yes, this is true) fluttered from the window into the room where I was phone-patching. Was it a providential message that there is a hidden hope there somewhere? Wonders, accidents or not, may truly never cease.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S. – “10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/13/2010
Pell-mell: jumbled, helter-skelter, confused; that’s what the Nobel Peace prize has become. A third party observer such as the India Daily perceived this so clearly when its correspondent filed a report in response to the nomination of Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize with the headline, “Beijing denounces Nobel for Liu Xiaobo, after Obama, Gore, isn’t the Nobel Prize a joke?”
One definitely couldn’t get such a clear assessment of the Peace Prize from Western societies and media. I was almost ready to add the West’s minion states like the Philippines among those with the view skewed toward the West until the PeNoy government surprised us for once by doing the right thing, by joining the boycott of the Nobel Peace award to the questionable Liu Xiaobo.
From another third party point of view, Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo, comes this objective summary of Liu Xiaobo’s history: “Liu Xiaobo’s personal link with Norway started during his days as a visiting scholar to the University of Oslo in 1988... Back in those dark days of the Cold War, there weren’t many Chinese in Scandinavia, so Liu was a rare commodity — a scholar from Beijing who loathed Beijing. Whether Liu became a Nato asset is a matter of top-secret classification. Oslo’s repeated inquiries about him through two decades, the Western media’s patronage, and the Nobel selection over other Chinese dissidents indicate some sort of special bond. Whatever the hidden details of his foreign involvements, Liu’s Peace Prize is serving as the bugle call for Nato’s global crusade against so-called “tyranny.”
“The fact that an open warmonger heads the Nobel Peace Committee has completely discredited what was once the world’s most prestigious Peace Prize. That honor is now just another weapon in the arsenal of the Great Powers mobilizing to reassert their authority over their former colonial domain. The goal of the West is not democracy and human rights; what its leaders really desire is domination and warfare. The intentions are clear. Thus we must each prepare, in our different ways, for the coming bloodshed.”
The Indian and Japanese media can be relied on to be more level-headed about the issues given their experiences with Western imperialism and persistent nationalist pride, unlike many in Philippine media and human rights NGOs who genuflect before the journalism and human rights foundations as well as foreign funding agencies for their scholarships and whatnot.
This dubious award of the Nobel Peace prize to Liu Xiaobo was preceded by two of the same equally dubious awards to Obama in 2009, when the newly-elected US president had just taken steps to expand the American and Nato war in Afghanistan; and before that in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore for their advocacy of the “man-made global warming” theory and restrictions on industrialization, which have subsequently been put under serious disrepute by IPCC’s own admissions of prediction errors, precipitated by an e-mail scandal unearthed by an IPCC scientist (not by WikiLeaks) revealing climate date manipulation to suit global warming theories. But these are not the only controversies.
The 1973 award to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the Vietnam peace talks compelled two Nobel Peace Prize panel members’ resignation; they could not agree on the nominees’ qualifications as men of peace. Kissinger is considered by many historians and students of the Vietnam War, and I among them, as a war criminal for the atrocities and murder of four million Vietnamese civilians committed by American forces under his policy direction.
A lesser known awardee in 2008 was former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari who executed the negotiations with Yugoslavia’s Milosevic that were so one-sided for the US and Nato that he was rewarded with a second assignment over Kosovo which ended with the latter’s declaration of independence. Gregory Elich of the Jasenovac Research Institute and adviser to the Korea Truth Commission says Ahtisaari’s Nobel was for services rendered.
In my political-economy classes at PUP up until 2005, I had always discussed the Nobel Peace Prize as a fraud and an instrument of cultural warfare to create icons favorable to Western purposes. I ask why, for example, the ultimate and historical paradigm of peace and peaceful struggle was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn’t Mahatma Gandhi the world’s undisputed premier exponent of peace? The Nobel Peace Prize had been given out nearly every year since 1901.
I explain to my students that Gandhi could never be a Nobel Peace laureate because he is an anti-imperialist icon. It’s about time all Filipinos learn this basic truth about the Nobel Peace Prize: It is intended mainly to promote the West’s ideal of the “peaceful” man who is on their side. Liu Xiaobo is on their side, yet there is more material on him on the Internet that the Peace Prize panel never touched on.
Whatever the real reason for the PeNoy government’s joining the boycott of the Liu peace award, even it was merely a right mistake taken to obfuscate a real rejection of US imposition on it, we anti-imperialist Filipinos welcome it. When I praised this apparently courageous act on my radio program last Friday night, a yellow butterfly (yes, this is true) fluttered from the window into the room where I was phone-patching. Was it a providential message that there is a hidden hope there somewhere? Wonders, accidents or not, may truly never cease.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S. – “10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
