Billions of dollars lost, yet Napoles rules

Herman Tiu Laurel / DieHard III / The Daily Tribune / 09-04-2013 WED

The failure of BS Aquino III to develop good relations with the rising economic power in the region--and the world--will cost the Philippines billions of dollars in lost economic opportunities. Still, all that BS Aquino, his government, Pinoy "social media" operators, and their mainstream media cohorts are focused on is the Napoles scandal. If they were truly intent on doing better for this country, they would have promptly focused on the message sent by China to the Philippines--that the present attitude displayed by the leader of this country toward its Asian neighbor is unacceptable.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is alleging that China's snub of BS Aquino's trip to the 10th China and Asean Expo is due to unofficial conditions it imposed on the Philippines. These conditions were supposedly not to be publicized, namely, the Philippines' withdrawal of its case against China before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal and the pull-out of its military presence in Ayungin Shoal.

Analysts have noted that the Chinese conditions and the subsequent cancellation were made when the Philippines and the United States started talks on a new framework agreement and when Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin offered all Philippine military bases for US troops' "rotational" presence.

Vietnam, which has similar territorial disputes with China and had experienced more physical encounters with Chinese maritime and naval elements, did not receive such a snub. That should be a dead giveaway that the territorial dispute alone is no major reason for China's tiff with BS Aquino--neither should negotiations for increased presence of US troops in the Philippines be as the US has also had similar talks with Vietnam since 2009 (when former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lauded the "tremendous potential" of US ships again becoming a common sight at the deep-water port of Cam Ranh Bay).

In the months leading up to the September trade meet, BS Aquino had already publicly enthused about attending the expo in Nanning, capital of southern China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. And so, the unwelcome mat that China sprung late last month had a shock effect on almost all observers such as this writer, who could recognize the primordial significance of this act emanating from the Chinese side. For China to do so is indeed earthshaking, as it has not even acted this way with another Asean country with which it had drawn blood in the past. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, in fact, attended with over 100 Vietnamese businessmen.

To wit, three other prime ministers from the Asean (i.e. Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand) attended while Myanmar and Singapore sent their Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively. Although others such as Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia merely sent cabinet-level representatives, the Philippines' embarrassment emanated from its president announcing enthusiastically his attendance last August 28 and the DFA reversing this the day after on the 29th.

Ellen Tordesillas gives a good account of the timeline of the fiasco:

July 24: DFA Undersecretary Evan Garcia informed Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing that Aquino wants to visit China; subsequently Garcia and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin met to discuss Aquino's possible visit at the Nanning expo on September 3 and for Garcia to "feedback" the Chinese side on their talks. Reportedly, Garcia never communicated to Liu or to the Chinese Embassy in Manila.

August 23: Just a week before the event, the Chinese Foreign Ministry informed the Philippine Embassy in Beijing that since no formal preliminary meetings on the President's trip to Nanning transpired, China "can't guarantee that it would be fruitful," which apparently in diplomatese means "you're not welcome."

Tordesillas' account points to a failure of the DFA to coordinate the affairs on the Philippine side that could have resulted in the embarrassing situation. China expert Chito Sta. Romana also referred to this when we corresponded with one another about this incident. He, however, additionally pointed to the alleged Chinese conditions, wondering if these would be indicative of a "hardening in China's position and diplomatic tactics."

If true, I agreed that it may be an overreaction. But, at the same time, it sends a "crystal clear message," which should lead one to ask: Does this mean a "shut out" of Philippine trade efforts with China for as long as BS Aquino and his Cabinet's policies prevail?

Chinese tourists visiting the Asean region increased from 3.9 million in 2007 to 7.3 million in 2011. The Philippines got only around 150,000 of that.

Over the past 10 years, China-Asean two-way trade reached $400 billion, a six-fold increase, which now makes China the largest trading partner of the Asean bloc. Mutual investment is over $100 billion.

In the next five years, China's overseas direct investments will increase by $500 billion, while its imports will reach $10 trillion, with its outbound tourists jumping to over 400 million.

Therefore, we ask: Is the combination of increased US troop presence, together with BS Aquino and his Cabinet's incompetence, as well as the presence of US gofers in the elite, the bureaucracy, and media meant to sabotage Asean economic collaboration and progress for the Philippines?

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., this week on "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 09234095739)

BS Aquino, Obama exposed

Herman Tiu Laurel / DieHard III / The Daily Tribune / 09-02-2013 MON

They were both touted by their respective social elites as their hope for change. Barack Obama won a second term promising to carry "Forward" the change away from the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Instead, he has pursued more wars and now promises an imminent attack on Syria. BS Aquino campaigned on "Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap" but even a taxi driver, in noting Aquino's enigmatic behavior in his super-special treatment of fugitive Janet Lim-Napoles--personally receiving and escorting the pork plunder facilitator from "surrender" to "detention"--had to ask, "Is he taking care of Napoles to keep her silent on his pork secrets?"

The Napoles caper is actually the almost decade-old "Fertilizer Fund Scam" of the Gloria Arroyo regime where Napoles NGOs helped divert sow-lons' pork barrel funds to ghost fertilizer deliveries. The current case only resurfaced amid the scandal involving BS Aquino's sister Ballsy and her hubby Eldon Cruz in the alleged attempt to extort $30 million from Czech train company Inekon.

Around a month and a half ago, a major mainstream daily raised and sustained its headlines on the Napoles case, focusing on the alleged involvement of major opposition figures. Expectedly, some PR elements joined in through social media and came up with a "Million Man March" in tandem with the Catholic hierarchy.

All of mainstream media, controlled by Big Business oligarchs who for some weeks had also been on the hot seat over income tax issues, also started to zero in on Napoles while drumming up the protest marches that the Catholic Church was to have a big role in. Of course, it is no secret that many elements of the Church hierarchy, being bona fide Yellows, are promoters of the Ninoy and Cory Aquino "sainthood" legacy--which is why such moves smacked of efforts by the clerics to insulate BS Aquino from the Napoles pork scandal.

Now this inexplicable "tenderness" with which BS Aquino is treating the "criminal" Napoles, being accorded better treatment than presidential political prisoner Joseph Estrada over 10 years ago. Prisoner Estrada was treated like a common criminal while last week Napoles was treated like a VIP.

This has made the entire Filipino nation wonder what exactly BS Aquino sees in Napoles that she should be treated with such special care. Some headlines on the public's reaction reported, "Napoles surrender in Palace draws mixed views in Visayas," while another said, "Roxas defends Aquino's handling of Napoles' surrender." BS Aquino has thus come under suspicion himself.

Obama, on the other hand, found himself in dire straits late last week when the attack on Syria, announced for him by US State Secretary John Kerry, suddenly lost the support of longtime ally UK. Other countries also stepped back: Jordan announced it would not allow any staging of the attack from its territory while Iraq denied its airspace to any US war planes. The US Congress, too, had enough dissenting voices to finally compel Obama to take cognizance and promise to consult it. Even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) has held back, leading the Prison Planet Web site to sum it up as "Under Colossal Global Backlash, Obama Holds Off on Syria Strike," underscoring the world's realization that it has nothing to gain but has everything to lose from such an attack.

Nonetheless, nobody is to gain except one. That beneficiary is certainly neither the US nor Israel (as some would think) but the House of Saud, ensconced in its oil kingdom, fending off demands for an end to its ancient monarchy and for greater democratization and/or secularization as represented by the multiple threats from the populist Muslim Brotherhood (hence, the Saudi coup in Egypt) to Syria's secular government, as well as democratic-Shiite Iran.

A US attack on Syria invites retaliation via an attack on the US' key Middle East ally Israel, with Syrian allies Hezbollah and Iran promising to follow suit. This can then spill over into a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, threatening 80 percent of the world's oil supply.

The House of Saud is the ultimate intriguer in the current Syrian crisis. This has been highlighted by the recent Moscow visit of Prince Bandar a.k.a. Bandar Bush (as he is often called due to his closeness with "Dubya" Bush) where the following were offered for Russia to drop Syria--a $15-billion arms purchase and a promise to hold back the House of Saud's proxy, the Chechen fundamentalist terrorists, from threatening the multi-billion Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Just what did Bandar Bush offer the Obama officials to push this attack on Syria, despite many vigorous objections? This is Obama exposed.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., this week on "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 09234095739)

Picnic, protest, and social transformation: Change beyond the anti-corruption crusade

EVERYMAN / David Michael San Juan / Manila Standard Today / August 27, 2013

August 26th of the year 2013 was not an ordinary National Heroes' Day in the Philippines. Thousands of citizens voiced out their support and participated in the "MILLION PEOPLE MARCH TO LUNETA…" dubbed "PROTESTA ng BAYAN!!!" (People's Protest) by a Facebook page that purportedly sparked the good fire that engulfs the country now. The "massive pocket picnic" (as the Facebook page labels it) was primarily aimed at calling the government to "abolish pork barrel" and "demand transparency and accountability." The same page declared that no "group banners," "political colors, and "speeches" would be allowed in the gathering. Some self-styled organizers of the event claimed that is not about being leftist, rightist, or centrist, and angry anti-leftist posts in various news Web sites seem to suggest that the assembly would try its best to be apolitical (e.g. devoid of radical politics)— as if it were possible.

This explains why, initially, leftist activists were lukewarm to the idea of joining the assembly. Indeed, what's the point of protesting if there would be no banner and speeches to publicly explain what the people are protesting about? Nevertheless, the main leftist organizations under the umbrella group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) and its allied partylist organizations under the Makabayang Koalisyon ng mga Mamamayan (MAKABAYAN) finally decided to mobilize their organized forces to join the Luneta assembly from their convergence point at Liwasang Bonifacio. BAYAN and its allies marched towards Malacañan Palace after the Luneta assembly to emphasize that the Executive branch must be held accountable, too, for every cent it spends. Meanwhile, even church-affiliated groups such as De La Salle Philippines, Catholic schools such as Ateneo de Davao and Colegio de San Juan de Letran, and broad-based coalitions supported by church people such as Pagbabago People's Movement for Change also supported the gathering and mobilized their respective communities.

As half of the anti-pork barrel campaign has been already won with the president's declaration that the pork barrel system has been abolished, this article will instead focus on the socio-economic reforms that the citizens need to champion if they really want genuine social transformation beyond the anti-corruption crusade. This is a manifesto against fellow taxpayers and citizens who stupidly reject the Left and its agenda without even bothering to take a look at what it has to offer.

To ensure that the gains of the anti-pork barrel movement will not be reversed, the people need to clamor for the passage of the Anti-Dynasty Bill. This legislative measure aims to democratize the country's political system by empowering non-traditional politicians and grassroots parties primarily through breaking up the elite clans' monopoly on elective posts. Unknown to many anti-Left loudmouths, the biggest leftist partylist in Congress, Bayan Muna, has been filing its own Anti-Dynasty Bill since 2001 when it first joined the party-list election (which it topped). Aside from resolving corruption and bringing back power to the people, massive unemployment and poverty need to be tackled. Since the leftists first participated in elections in 1935 through a coalition of the Republican Party, the Socialist Party and groups affiliated with the old Communist Party, that supported the presidential candidacy of Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, they have been campaigning for the country's socio-economic emancipation through political independence, nationalization of key industries, and land reform. Essentially, today's leftists laudably maintain the same agenda for Philippine progress.

Undeniably, the call for political independence remains relevant, as we are still led by Cold War-era militarists who think the best way to defend the Philippines from Chinese incursions is to invite more American soldiers to stay in semi-permanent bases around the country. The Philippines' almost-always negative balance of trade further confirms its over-reliance on foreigners which the leftists have been criticizing since time immemorial. Decades under corporate capitalism has failed the Philippines, as evident in the lack of ample job opportunities here proven by the ever-growing billions of dollars of OFW remittances. Neo-liberal globalization wiped out most of our fledgling industries due to the premature lifting of tariffs and lack of safety nets for local firms. Hence, nationalization of key industries, and the call for industrialization, both emphasized by the Philippine Left, are commonsensical. Land reform, another leftist cause – partly a legacy of the Katipunan's egalitarian anti-hacienda policy – is of course vital to supply the needs of local industries, and to generate enough employment in the still underdeveloped, and relatively poorer rural areas.

Anti-Left kibitzers in the Philippines, when cornered into agreeing that the Left's vision for the Philippines is indeed correct and must be tried, resort to asking the question "Where do we get funds for such reforms?" Fortunately, leftists and even some moderates have a ready answer: debt renegotiation, debt repudiation and repeal of automatic debt payment appropriation, use of SSS and GSIS funds, and higher tax rates for top corporations. Such progressive reforms will not only provide funds to finance Philippine industries, land reform, and agricultural modernization, but will also enable the government to generate enough funds for free education at all levels, universal health care, and subsidized housing. All of these are egalitarian reforms will certainly erase the wide gap between the richest and poorest families in the long run.

As a taxpayer who pays more than what corporations shell out (in terms of tax as a percent of income), I entreat my fellow taxpayers to open their minds and consider the merits of the Philippine Left's vision for a free and prosperous country for everyone, beyond a mere end of the pork barrel regime. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend, for we are in a democratic country where leftists have the right to be heard and be listened at too, especially after more than a century of our country's decrepitude under non-leftist administrations.

(David Michael M. San Juan is an instructor at De La Salle University-Manila.)