DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/20/2010
"Coalition of the weak” and “lovely collection of rogues and cowards” are some of the pejoratives used for the countries that rejected this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Weak, rogues, and cowards… huh? Seriously?
Among the 18 or so countries that joined the boycott, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia are countries that have stood up to the foremost imperialist in modern times. The United States of America, for everyone’s information, maintains 800 military bases in 130 countries and continues to trigger wars in smaller countries on all continents of the globe (except Australia).
Cuba, meanwhile, has withstood US economic blockade since 1960; Vietnam defeated the US in 1975; Venezuela has defied Uncle Sam to the benefit of Venezuelans and nationalized the oil industry which the US once controlled; while Russia has gone tit-for-tat with the US in arms control, missile defense, South Ossetian independence, and a lot more since Putin restored Russian sovereignty.
It would be more correct to describe the detractors of the Peace Prize boycott as a gaggle of weak minds for wittingly or unwittingly missing such obvious facts.
This gaggle among the local crop of naysayers should not surprise anyone anymore. The Philippine intelligentsia is still a colonial vestige that survives and thrives on the handouts of the imperial power. From the nurturing of their journalistic careers (with grants, scholarships, and visas), to the multi-national advertising money poured in for their media organizations, to funding for “human rights journalism” and recruitment to US academe, not to mention prestigious awards and prizes, this intelligentsia merely sucks from the great imperialist’s bosom.
Francisco Tatad, for instance, tells a story of this writer he saw decades ago in Washington DC. As he saw the latter tugging his luggage and making his way to State Department offices at the Watergate complex, the writer (now one of the most vitriolic in the Philippine Star on the Peace Prize issue) said, “Pera-pera lang ito,” revealing his role as a US hack.
The real surprise is that among the countries that boycotted the Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan and Colombia are both under US control. Were the leaders of these countries instructed to join or was it their way of nudging their American masters for more “aid” as it seems to be their habit?
The boycott from Ukraine is no longer surprising as it is under the new pro-Russia president Victor Yanukovych. Sudan, another country fighting off Western attempts to split it into two — the North whose President Bashir is persecuted by the International Criminal Court for “genocide,” a charge no African country believes, and the oil-rich South that has pro-US rebel forces — also joined the boycott. Iran, as we know, has defied the West’s nuclear apartheid for quite some time, so its boycott came as no surprise.
Other boycotting countries include Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Serbia (which has real issues against the West, such as the separation of Kosovo, later placed under the leadership of a Mafioso and organ smuggler), Pakistan (which has given the West the best runaround on its nuclear arsenal), Egypt , Morocco… and then the Philippines.
As I have said before, even if the Philippine boycott was for mistaken reasons, it was the “right” mistake, which may be a first step in wriggling a toe away from the US straight jacket. Hopefully it won’t go the direction of Gloria Arroyo who got one toe out in the Iraq pull-out but soon learned that the US will still give her free rein if only for corruption, subservience, and personal convenience — but never for political independence.
About the Nobel Peace Prize’s latest Trojan horse, Liu Xiaobo, few know that he rooted not only for the US attack on Iraq, but also praised the US-Nato-led Afghan War and campaigns for China to be fully westernized. For local intelligentsia such as the PEN writers who condemned China, westernization and colonial mind slavery are a ticket to more visas and Western literary awards or grants.
How can anyone with a right mind award a Peace Prize to a war monger, and worse, to one that seeks to erase Asian historical and cultural legacy? The mainstream of Philippine opposition to the Peace Prize boycott is conveniently weak, if not absent-minded. It likes to shoot from the hip while knowing very little about the Nobel laureate and hardly considers the recent turn for pro-war figures of the Peace Prize committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland, a Nato war hawk and concurrent chairman of the hawkish Council of Europe.
The Philippine anti-boycott voices reflect the prevailing colonial mentality of local intelligentsia. It explains why the Philippines is unable to break free from colonial exploitation and oppression, making the nation exceedingly poorer.
If the nation’s intelligentsia today were only half as proud and independent as those of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, or China, our nation would long have stayed at the forefront of Asian intellectual leadership as the revolutionary intellectual Rizal and company showed. As things stand, a Philippines that exists only under the shadow of the US will never grow intellectually, cultural, politically, and economically.
(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)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Supreme blunders?
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)
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
