| Philippine-US Relations
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on March 30, 2009 For the Standard Today, March 31 issue The Future of Philippine-American relations was the topic of a whole-day forum last week at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), organized by the Center for Philippine Futuristics Studies and Management, of which I am a trustee. I was asked to be a reactor to the papers read by Dr. Federico Macaranas, former undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and current professor of Geopolitics and Political Economy at the AIM; Dr. Sixto K. Roxas, chairman of the Maximo T. Kalaw Institute for Sustainable Development; and Dr. Gonzalo Jurado, professor of Economics at the Kalayaan University. Dr. Roxas looked at current Philippine-US relations and found them wanting because they are based on the maneuvers of large major entities: the governments and major corporate players. Dr. Roxas expressed his pet advocacy that for economic development to be sustainable in the long run, much of the decision making should be done at the local and community levels. And he took heart from the election to the US presidency of Barack Obama, who had started his public career as a community organizer in his native Chicago. And he believes that Philippine-American relations may now be more solidly based on this new foundation of local economic development, which he also found in the early phases of Mao Zedung�s Cultural Revolution when millions of households were encouraged to start their own backyard steel furnaces. I, however, took issue with Dr. Roxas� assertion that there was little difference between the Soviet and American models of development, both being based on large scale economic enterprises. I pointed out that there was a major difference, and this difference was the concept of profit. In the American model, profit was and is the major motivating principle. In the Soviet model, influenced by Karl Marx�s Theory of Surplus Value, profit-making was strictly forbidden because profit was considered the cause and measure of exploitation. In the Soviet Union, the state owned everything and everyone worked for the state, to prevent anyone from exploiting others. Thus even taxis, tobacco kiosks and shoe repair shops were owned by the state. Profit was the dirtiest word in the Soviet lexicon. The reasoning goes as follows: when a capitalist hires a worker to work for him, he does not pay that worker the full value of his labor. The uncompensated value, the surplus value, is the capitalist�s profit and is the measure of his exploitation of that worker. I pointed out that in my booklet A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Communism, written in 1985 or four years before the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and six years before the implosion of the Soviet Union, the Chinese under the pragmatic Deng Xiao-ping had unequivocally rejected Marx�s Theory of Surplus Value with his slogans Get Rich through Hard Work! To Get Rich is Glorious! and It does not matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice! . Deng had allowed Chinese entrepreneurs in the early 1980s to hire a maximum of seven workers each. This limit was later revised upward, to 50 workers each.. I predicted in A Funny Thing that in the future, all limits would be removed, capitalism would be fully restored, and the Chinese would overtake the Soviets or Russians in economic development. And this is exactly what happened. Legitimate profit-seeking spelled the difference. Dr. Gonzalo Jurado correctly pointed out that the current economic meltdown is directly traceable to the sub-prime mortgage downturn in the US and the unregulated profit-seeking that attended the repackaging and marketing of toxic assets. To reverse the recessionary trends, Dr. Jurado called for expansion in both fiscal policy, i.e. an increase in government spending even at the risk of budget deficits; and monetary policy, to stimulate private investments and generate jobs, through lower interest rates But I would have wanted to hear Dr. Jurado�s opinion on the rising trend towards protectionism. I pointed out that France last week announced the closure of a Peugeot plant in Slovenia and its transfer back to France, to provide jobs for laid-off French auto workers. Less than two months ago, workers in the oil industry in the UK went on a nation-wide strike to protest the hiring of 300 workers from Italy and Portugal to build a new oil refinery in Scotland. The striking workers demanded, rightfully, that the jobs should go to British workers, tens of thousands of whom had recently been laid off. During his watch, George W. Bush, premier advocate of Free Trade and Globalization, imposed numerical quotas on Canadian lumber to protect American forestry workers and producers; on Brazilian and South Korean steel to protect American steel workers and producers; on Vietnamese prawns and catfish to protect American workers and producers in the fisheries sector. The duty of each government is to protect its own workers and producers, not the workers and producers of other countries. If the governments of France, the UK and the USA resort to protectionism, as mentioned above, to protect their own workers and producers, when their national interests so dictate, the Philippine government should not be coy and embarrassed to do the same when our national interests so dictate. Adhering more closely to the assigned subject, Dr. Macaranas gave an overview of the current state of Philippine-American relations, saying correctly that these relations are triangulated with the relations of both countries with the People�s Republic of China. At the same time, he said that Philippine-American relations will weaken as the Philippines develops more ties with China. This has been evident in the increasing number of economic and business contracts that the Arroyo government has signed � about 32 so far � with the Chinese government or with corporations owned partly or wholly by the Chinese government, the most notorious of which was the aborted, scandal-tainted contract with the ZTE Corp for a national broadband network. The contract that set the pace for this development was the agreement with Beijing for joint oil exploration in the Spratly Islands, signed in October 2004. This, together with President Arroyo�s decision to withdraw the tiny Philippine contingent in Iraq in August convinced the neo-cons in Washington DC that President Arroyo was not a reliable ally and, in my reading, triggered moves to remove her from power, starting with the release of the Hello Garci tapes and the mass resignation of the Hyatt Ten, in July 2005. Dr. Macaranas also predicted that Chinese power will rise as US power declines. I mentioned a white paper which I received from someone in the Royal Canadian Navy more than 15 years ago which said that China was planning to acquire a blue water navy by the year 2025. Subsequent events have corroborated that prediction. The Chinese bought for scrap the HMAS Melbourne, the only aircraft carrier in the Royal Australian Navy. Before dismantling the ship, the Chinese supposedly redrew its structural diagrams, in preparation for building their own carriers. Previous to that, the Chinese had been training aircrews to take-off and land in confined spaces on dry land, marked out to approximate carrier decks. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Chinese bought � for $2 billion, if memory serves � a 65,000-ton aircraft carrier, the Varyag, under construction for the cash-short Soviet Navy in the Crimean port of Nikolaev. Two weeks ago, the Chinese officially announced their plans to build aircraft carriers. We knew that all along, didn�t we? In closing, Dr. Macaranas cautioned that the US must co-exist with China, not confront it. The US may have no other choice but to do so. More than a year ago, I mentioned in one of my columns that the Pentagon had complained that its computers in Washington DC had been hacked into by hackers in the People�s Liberation Army. So did the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin. Just the other day, a Canadian monitoring group announced that it had discovered that hackers, mostly in China, had hacked into 1,295 government and corporate computers in 103 countries, including the Philippines. Only 1,295? How do you say �spyware� and �malware� in Mandarin? ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in acabaya.blogspot.com. Tony on YouTube in www.tapatt.org. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Philippine-US Relations� More Reactions to �President Panlilio?� More Reactions to �Second-Round Vote� �Possible Areas of Electronic Cheating� On Revolutionary Government Tony: A fruitful discussion, I think. Real politics demands that we do our own situational analysis. We should not rely on Uncle Sam or the Chinese, to protect our interests. The good aspect of Sino-Philippine relations. They will hesitate to attack if they have bigger invesrments in the Philippines. Resource-poor China will have to rely on Australian and AFRICAN mineral resources. Remember Don Claro Recto's and Renato Constantino's complaint is our over-reliance on Uncle Sam, to the detriment of Philippine national interests. Extended further the axiom, THERE ARE NO PERMANENT FRIENDS ONLY PERMANENT INTERESTS. The Chinese have to practice Machiavellian politics, and WE SHOULD, TOO. MORE POWER. Max Fabella, (by email), Florida, April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: One observable fact is that during the past decade, Philippine-US relations have been on a downward trajectory, while Philippine-Sino relations have gone on an upward momentum. Part of the deterioration in Philippine-US relations is the diminished strategic importance of the Philippines as far as the US is concerned. It is only natural that that deterioration should lead Filipino leaders to gravitate to China. China is already a major trading partner of the Philippines--and this trend will continue far into the future. On the other hand, trade with the United States will tend to go the other way, which is toward progressive diminution. One reason for this is that China is now able to produce a very wide range of products which the Philippines needs, and which China is able to sell at highly competitive prices and terms. China's proximity to the Philippines works to China's advantage as far as trade is concerned. The United States' geopolitical agenda is now focused on winding down the war in Iraq. President Obama is determined to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. The drawdown will start of September this year. President Obama is alternatively giving more attention and resources to the "war on terror" in Afghanistan which, as that recent National Intelligence Estimate put it, was in a "downward spiral." Afghanistan is now Mr. Obama's war. President Obama is likewise determined to engage in direct dialogues with the Iranian and Russian leadership. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is convening a multinational meeting soon in Afghanistan. It is significant that Iran has accepted her invitation to attend. Only recently he sent Russian president Dmitry Medvedev a letter which, in effect, was an unprecedented offer by an American president of friendship. Mr. Medvedev today published an op-ed in the Washington Post which, also in effect, sounded conciliatory and constructive. Presently, however, President Obama and his brain trust's overarching concern is how to stop the severe economic crisis dead in its tracks which has metastasized like an aggressive and malignant cancer to Europe and to Asia, and which has the potential to morph into "The Great Depression of 2008." Farther afield, Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for 2009 seeks to lay the foundation for the U.S.'s continued growth, progress and prosperity--in particular in the critical areas of health care, energy, and education. Given these critical and urgent domestic and geopolitical concerns, it is unrealistic if not native to think that the United States will have either the time or the resources to devote to Philippine-US relations. I would not at all be surprised if Mr. Obama would be more concerned about those Somalian pirates than about the Abu Sayyaf in Mindanao. Note that recently, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton went on a tour of Asia--to Japan, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Studiously, she avoided including the Philippines in her tour. That should give Filipinos an idea of how Philippine-US relations stand now. Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers, NY, April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The American economy is in shambles and saddled with enormous debts that more likely be unable to service thus becomes a bankrupt state. They only entity that is propping up America is its enormous military might, but this will wane too as money runs out. What America can do and is doing is to sell more military hardware overseas, but this also is against competition from a number of countries e.g. Russia, some members of the EU, China, and the illegal arms trade particularly from rogue states in Africa. There is no question that China in the next decade will claim sole power in the world; economic and military. But the Americans will continue to challenge this. Obama came at the right moment but on the wrong side of his country's history. Tony, how different is a superpower China to a once superpower America? Cheers, Rev. Bert Dellosa, (by email), Melbourne, Australia, April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I wish to comment on your article on Philippine-American relations. Americans have sacred traditions of freedom and democracy - no one should be deprived of life, liberty or equality. But the Americans apply these concepts only to their citizens. These same inherent rights are deliberately denied to those whom they can easily subdue or lead by the nose. Gauging from the VFA and Smith case, Americans continue to treat Filipinos like they were during Aguinaldo's time - "Play Aguinaldo for a sucker! String him along until Manila is captured - and then 'don't do a thing to him, but get out the Gatling guns." Macario A. Capili, (by email), Para�aque City, April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Lessons From The New China Zheng Bijian, former vice chair of the Central Party School, confidant of the current Communist Party leadership, and author of �China�s Peaceful Rise Doctrine� reconfigures China�s role in a post-American world, not as a hegemonic superpower but as a superior civilization. For him, the distinction is important to the new China. First, it is important to the new China because it rejects the maximization of power through conflict and domination. Second, it is important to the new China because it reasserts the principle of non-universalistic Confucianism. Third, it is important to the new China because it abandons the universalistic imposition of the Western grand theories of America�s universal human rights and democracy as well as Marxist universal laws of development. Fourth, it is important to the new China because it appropriates a geo-civilizational paradigm (that is, the integration of civilizations through harmonious coexistence, as opposed to the conquest of territory or ideological space) rather than a geopolitical paradigm (which pushes people to scramble for space and indulge in MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction) as a societal goal. Fifth, it is important to the new China because it pursues a pragmatic approach to development exemplified by Deng Xiaoping�s wisdom to �seek truth from facts� and, step by step, like feeling one�s way across a shallow river, �constructing socialism� in tune with local characteristics and rising in peaceful development. Finally, it is important to the new China because it preoccupies herself with the millennial timeframe of longevity and tangibility. As Prof. Tan Chung aptly puts it: �In the Western Hemisphere, all the brilliant ancient civilizations like Babylonia, Egypt, Greece and Rome have become ruins without being handed down.� Granting that we are aware of these dramatic changes and paradigm shifts, how do we situate ourselves as a country in the larger canvas of political landscape? How are we dealing with these eventualities as a people? Where are we going? Personally, I am pessimistic where we�re going. First, the current reach of our political horizon is too small to deal with the big issues and too big to deal with small issues. Central to this observation is the insidious replaying of traditional politicking that is so petty and going nowhere! Pagnanalo si Noli bilang presidente o pag may Con Ass or Con Con, what is there to hope for? Second, the current state of our mental horizon is still fetish to a democratic subculture that is dysfunctional with no palpable record of success to show. I understand that there is a growing movement in the country to continue our democratic subculture with a moral (sometimes defined as religious) leader. I believe such moral or religious integrity is important to the health of our political psyche. However, I do not believe that the moral or religious requirement will necessarily result in political recovery. What I learned from the new China Project is the realization that political recovery requires something different. What we need is not only a moral or religious leader but a pragmatic leader with an impeccable intellect and dramatic vision for the country. Unfortunately, no one has shown that kind of pragmatism, intellect, and vision in my mind. What will the country look like for that leader, let�s say five years or seven years from now? I still believe that the best option for us right now is a revolutionary transition. Efren N. Padilla, (by email), Hayward, CA, April 02, 2009 Professor of Sociology and Urban Planning, California State University at East Bay wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww China time and again has shown its strengths in copying and refining anything foreign that can be sold to Asian countries that demand lesser price for a product that is of "almost the same" quality which later on changes the taste standards of Asians. While profit is their motive like any capitalist (while they remain staunchly communist) their lesser than ethical business behaviour (on western standards that protect property rights) do help a lot in the improvement of quality of life of the average or less than minimum wage earning Asian. Consider for instance DVD movies and sound systems , kitchen appliances, digital items, in even the squatter areas around Manila . China does not sincerely respect intellectual or property rights. While drug companies for instance spend billions in research for new cure,s the Chinese wait by the sides, copy an approved generic - or soon-to-be-released - and fire away with their "search on research" speciality. Now you see "viagra" (or some look alike blue diamond scored pill) in 1000mg potencies.It takes western and European countries decades to get a new product into the market, ones that are the results of serious, lengthy, expensive research. It takes the Chinese 10% of that time to race against the originals and grab market shares - try visiting Tutuban, 168 mall or any Greenhills type of a mall and you will get a sample of that ingenuity. My point is this : whether communist or democratic, any country with a people's resolve to uplift life and economics, through hard work and concerted focused energies to rise above other countries (not to remain subservient, dependent, or be in some state of colonial mentality) can equalize with America. The Chinese worked hard to survive, then grow. They probably didn't think of being America's partner in the current level they are rising faster from. They are getting much more than they have ever wanted. They need not shift away from communism. They find the system fit for them, their culture. which is what I would like to drive at - that our country should fix the system to fit not exactly what Americans set as standards but what our people's temperament require -- not necessarily what people want but what the people need to be guided and controlled with so that we can at least rise as fast and as good as China did. Our country has always set directions based on the western science, culture, their teachings. and so we get to enforce ways that do not apply -- ways of too much freedom where crooks, corrupt, greedy and inept , unprincipled or simply rotten in character, become the rulers - quite a bad term in a democracy yet that is what they become in practice though labelled in more palatable titles like director, commissioner, congressman, head, and even "president" . Communism , the soviet model at least, will never work well. Democracy does seem to offer a better quality of life. But a more stern system that could be plucked from either and from some other systems around the globe could be a beginning of a right fit for the Philippines - where something is wrong and/or bad in wherever you turn to. Only when we have that adapted or modified system can we truly benefit in a massive change (even another Edsa). Otherwise, it will always be one crocodile into a bigger crocodile. Victor Ma�alac, (by email), April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir, With such a large proportion of its population depending on work abroad, should not the Philippines of all nations be a little circumspect about advocating protectionism? As a country whose main export is its own citizens, the Philippines benefits from Globalization to the tune of some $15 billion p.a., which would be in danger if protectionism became a widespread habit. International Trade, whether in imported luxury cars or exported labor, only works as a two-way street. If you unilaterally declare your right to drive one way while denying your partners the right to drive the other you will soon find the traffic at a standstill. Is the Philippines ready for the sudden return of all those nurses, carers, accountants and welders? Not to mention those in more humble employment. Rather than saying 'If the French and British can do it, so can we' (If others can behave like xenophobic idiots we should follow their example) the Philippines should surely seek to discourage such behavior. Especially as it is almost always acccompanied by a nasty racism that could turn against its overseas workers. As for those who seem to regard ever-closer ties with China as a counter-balance to the power and interference of the US, they should consider the old saying that those who sup with the Devil should use a very long spoon. Regards, Tom Hewitt, (by email), United Kingdom, April 02, 2009 (Advocating protectionism does not necessarily mean halting all or most imports from other countries. It just means limiting imports to those products that do not disadvantage domestic producers and workers. As any idiot knows, protectionism was how the richest countries in the world now became rich, before they became richer, e.g. the US, Japan, France, Germany, South Korea. (Re the export of Filipino labor, this should be considered a temporary aberration caused precisely by the Philippines� failure to develop a wide manufacturing base because of a na�ve premature embrace of free trade and globalization starting in the 1990s. If the Philippines had practiced protectionism simultaneous with industrialization � as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc did and do � there would have been little or no surplus labor to export. (About 65 percent of OCWs are deployed in the oil-rich but sparsely populated countries of the Persian Gulf. OCWs are being laid off from these countries, not as retaliation to the Philippines stopping or significantly reducing its oil imports from them � to protect Philippine oil producers - but because their mammoth real estate and construction projects have ground to a halt as a direct result of the global financial crisis. Nothing to do with protectionism. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Thank you for sending me the reprints of your three articles, two on communism and one on the Cory regime. I am enclosing a copy of the longer version of my Philippine-US Relations paper. I hope from it you will appreciate the deeper implications of the current financial and economic crisis which when combined with the planetary threat of global warming requires a thorough reexamination of the economic paradigm which you seem to persist in advocating. I was glad for the chance to catch up with you a little bit at the Futuristic Society meeting. Warm regards, Ting/Dr. Sixto K. Roxas, (by email), Quezon City, April 02, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Very interesting indeed and I agree with most of your inputs. My opinion is that there is more benefit strengthening our relations with China, although I am not of the opinion to abandon US. I don't know which is more exploitative in their foreign policy dealings, whether China or US, but I am for China. The Chinese economy will continue to prosper, yeah, all Chinese are embracing "To be rich is glorious" and their domestic market will continue to drive their economy forward. Consider the spillover of Chinese manufacturing industry, the Philippines should have capitalize on that but what happened was that Vietnam instead of us catches the spillover. Even when Chinese manufacturing cost started shooting up from 2007, investors went back to Indonesia. For all we know they wouldn't want to put all eggs in one basket, thus they have Vietnam and Indonesia. Why didn't Philippines look into that opportunity before? We have more skilled sewers than Vietnam and Indonesia do. We have machine operators who are graduates of engineering. We don't need to send all those labor out of the country. We could have just agreed with China that part of manufacturing operations be done here. In the case of regional security, the Philippines would not need visiting forces or inland military bases, the mere presence of supertanker spread over South China Sea and the Pacific will provide more than enough protection. It is just a matter of time that Euro will replace the dollar as the global currency. In the same way, expats in China also predict that Chinese will be the next dominant global language. Edelberto Anit, (by email), April 03, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Ka Tony: Thanks for sharing your latest on RP-US Relations under President Obama. Ito po kasing si Ka Pule2 ay may ibang mga pananaw hinggil sa relasyon ng US at RP, nitong malaon nang mga nakaraang panahon. Hindi po kasi mapawi sa isip ni Ka Pule2 ang patuloy na pagsasamantala ng Washington government sa bansang inagawan nito ng kalayaan nung Agosto 13, 1989; kahi't pa man ang kalayaang inagaw ay ibinalik na nung Hulyo 4, 1946. Matindi po sa isip ni Ka Pule2 ang mga sumusunod: ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE BANE OF PHILIPPINE ECONOMY AND CULTURAL LIFE It is highly probable that policy makers at Washington DC learned from a thorough reading of Dr. Jose Rial's novels; and particularly the Seventh Chapter of El Filibusterismo which served as a guide for them to draft a new imperialist policy. This thesis can be gleaned from the speech by Senator Albert J. Beveridge when the Treaty of Paris was under consideration for ratification in the US Senate. It can be said that America's consuming desire to retain our country as a territory was expressed by Senator Albert J. Beveridge when he spoke in the U.S. Senate on January 9, 1900. Said he: "But to hold it (the Philippines) will be no mistake. Our trade henceforth will be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean. More and more Europe will manufacture the most it consumes. Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. x x x The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East." What followed was the shiploads of American SOLDIER-TEACHERS, the so-called Thomasites because they were on board the US ss Thomas, who immediately taught all Filipino children of school age the English language, through memory work, parrot style, and forbade them from speaking our own languages within the school premises. The Washington policy makers were possibly and probably influenced by the thesis of Dr. Jose Rizal concerning language, as lucidly expounded in the Seventh Chapter of El Filibusterismo, as it had been tanslated from the original Spanish by Charles B. Derbyshire. There was the clue on how enslave the Filipino mind! Let it not be said that this piece is designed to foment hatred for America; for in truth, we never lacked friends in that great champion of democracy and liberty of men. Senator William Bate, on April 2, 1900, condemned the (1898) Treaty of Paris when he declared that therein was announced and ratified the "un-American doctrine that a whole people, 10 million (Filipinos) in number, could be bought for a money consideration, in total disregard of all those rights heretofore held by all American statesmen as inalienable. " But history has sadly shown that statesmanship, indeed, is too often overwhelmed by commercial greed! The problem. The use of English language in the administation of government and in the public educational system is a perpetuation of the destruction of our already damaged culture! Only the elitists, or the ilustrados and their foreign cohorts continue to rake the bountiful resources of our country, and the ordinary citizens, the masses, are rendered ignorant and uncomprehending of the laws and ordinances, especially of what transpires in the intricacies of national life, and are always the losers in their routine quest for justice, most especially in the courts of law. The relatively few who become fairly proficient in tolerable English mostly end up as menials in the employ of multinationals here and abroad. They are beguiled with the epiteth of "modern heroes," even as our womenfolk have become famously known as caregivers and domestic helpers. The herein proposition is also in line with the admonitions by our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, concerning language as vehemently expounded in the Seventh Chapter of El Filibusterismo. When the country's youth (even so the women of Malolos) were petitioning the Spanish colonial government to teach Spanish language in the schools, our hero wrote as follows: "x x x. You ask for equal rights, the Hispanization (Ameri-canization this time) of your customs, and you don't see that what you are begging for is suicide, the destruction of your nationality, the annihilation of your fatherland, the consecration of tyranny! What will you be in the future! A people without character, a nation without liberty... everything you have will be borrowed, even your very defects! xxx To what are you tending now, with your instruction in Castillan (English at present), a pretension that would be ridiculous were it not for its deplorable consequences! You wish to add one more language to the forty odd that are spoken in the islands, so that you may understand one another less and less. "X x x. You are letting yourselves be deceived by big words and never go to the bottom of things to examine the results in their final analysis... Spanish (English now) will never be the general language of the country, the people will never talk it, because the conception of their brains and the feelings of their hearts cannot be expessed in that language. ... each people has its own tongue, as it has its own way of thinking! What are you going to do with Castillan (English now), the few of you who will speak it? Kill off your originality, subordinate your thoughts to other brains, and instead of freeing yourselves, make yourselves slaves indeed! Nine-tenths of those of you who pretend to be enlightened are renegades to your country! He among you who talks that language neglects his own in such a way that he neither writes nor understands it, and how many have I not seen who pretended not to know a single word of it! X x x. While Russia enslaves Poland by focing the Russian language upon it, while Gemany prohibits French in the conquered provinces, your government strives to peserve yours, and you in return, a remarkable people under an incomprehensible government, you are tying to despoil yourselves of your own nationality! One and all you forget that while a people preserves his language, it preseves the marks of its liberty, as a man preserves his independence while he holds to his own way of thinking. Language is the thought of the peoples..." * (* From the English translation of the original Spanish by Charles B. Derbyshire.) Irineo Perez Goce, (by email), Lipa City, April 04, 2009 A.k.a. Ka Pule wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, All other factors considered, we need a strong and respected leader to have strong relations with the US and the rest of the world. The US needs to rethink its role as the policeman of the whole world. Its economy can no longer afford to have the same role. As expected China will rise as the US weakens. Thanks again and more power to you. Col.(Ret.) Hector Tarzan Tarrazona, (by email), April 06, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, It is also political will, isn't it? America has lost its political will because these crooked Republicans simply want to loot the treasury in the form of grossly overpriced defense contracts, and massive pork barrel projects. Big business in America no longer believes in free enterprise. They want the sure thing and that means dealing with the government. China has successfully disseminated the premise that the country must be aggressive to the extent of being predatory in order to survive. Japan was the same in the early 60's. Is it the people, leadership? The Chinese communist party has tacitly admitted that unless they can deliver, the people will express their dissatisfaction by booting them out. So whether this crisis is their fault or not, they have to do something. They are now all over Africa buying up sources of raw materials and where they cannot, are forming partnerships in technology sharing to guarantee access to those resources when the economy recovers. The corrupt carpet bagging Republican is only concerned with profit today. American capitalism has no social agenda. Else they should be out there also preparing for the turnaround. America has only survived this long because of the talented and industrious immigrants it is able to exploit for talent and money. Lynn Abad Santos, (by email), Washington DC, April 08, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �President Panlilio?� (March 24, 2006) Hi, Tony , There is nothing wrong with having a Catholic priest , like Governor-Father Panlilio , as President of the Philippines . If he can do it and he happens to be able and capable of running a country with an overflowing supply of crooks and criminals who are strategically-posted in every sector of Philippine society and government , then , so be it . Praise the Lord ! ! ! Let us all rejoice and be glad ! Let us have him ! But, Tony , the Philippines right now, needs an energetic, young-blood leader of uncompromising temperament , patriotic and of impeccable moral character , one who can literally go after these crooks and criminals without let-up and then prosecute and mete out the necessary punishment for them , whoever they are . . Soft-hearted but unforgiving when it comes to crime and punishment .. Can Father Panlilio handle this ? [email protected], April 11, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Good day, Tony, Our country needs a moral leadership and I think it is the right time for Among Ed Panlilio to give it a shot, it does not matter if he is a priest. A priest is more morally upright than a cheat, a philandering husband, a "wise" military man, a naive housewife, a dictator- to name a few leaders we've had who did nothing more than put our nation deeper into a quagmire of corruption and misery. I would love to see a better change come 2010. Joey C, Sarroza, (by email), April 11, 2009 Rebel Pilot in the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks, Tony. As a 1/2 Kapampangan and almost spending a lot of my time here in Pampanga, I have my serious reservations about Gov Panlilio's capabilities to govern. He is a product of mass media as can be seen from the reactions of your fans. Impressions about him in Manila-based newspapers are all from press releases and from biased Pampanga correspondents. No investigative reporting at all. Nobody goes to talk with the genuine heroes of the quarry collections - THE BALAS BOYS led by ex-seminarians who are now on their 7th month of picketing in front of the provincial capitol with 47 of them facing libel charges filed by a Catholic priest-governor and his controversial Provincial Administrator - Atty. Vivian Dabu. A Catholic bishop remarked, "Fr Panlilio is not praying the Lord's Prayer". Since the BALAS Boys were fired unceremoniously, quarry collections have dropped almost 35%. Somebody must be pocketing the proceeds. He labels people like us who are critical of his management style as either financed by jueteng money or the quarry syndicates who want to make a come back. He and his favorite provincial administrator are the only Campampangans who are honest, clean, righteous, etc. It is very difficult to know the truth about Panlilio, especially since he was declared Man of The Year by a broadsheet over Chief Justice Reynato Puno. I will send you clippings from local newspapers not controlled by "jueteng or quarry money". There are many issues against him that are not known to Manila readers. An issue that we Ateneans do not know and cannot understand is when he removed the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary from his office in the spirit of ecumenism. I will attach a copy of an article by an ex-seminarian, his kumpadre - Mr. Bong Lacson, a very well-read columnist. Enough of this "sumbongs". I hope you can help convince the Ateneo School of Government to stop using Among Ed as a model for good governance. Napapahiya naman masyado ang mga Atenista, especially since we are known to be devotees of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Remember the medals we used to wear during October? More power to your pen. Hope we can still invent a system to change our government and our attitudes without being violent. Willie Buyson Villarama, (by email), April 11, 2009 Former congressman from Bulacan wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �Second-Round Vote� (March 26, 2009) Dear Mr. Abaya: The City and County of San Francisco instituted "Rank choice Voting" two years ago. This system was devised to prevent the need for a run-off election. The ballot contains the first, second, and third choices of the voters; and if the top candidate does not get a simple majority of the votes ( 50% plus one vote), the second candidate gets it, and so forth. This system sounds somewhat complicated, but is actually simple and has been successful and saves the taxpayers a lot of money. Prior to the introduction of this system, the mayoral race was almost always subject to an expensive run-off election. For more information, check out www.sfgov.org/ Department of Elections. Kindly, Jose G. Caedo, (by email), San Francisco, CA, April 13, 2009 Member, Executive Board, California Democratic Party wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, How about promoting an "Anti-Dynasty" initiative which already also will solve this problem of "fractional" majority rule (which is less than the true majority of voters) so that automatically in the general elections, only two major parties shall be able to put up their candidates. Marlowe Camello, (by email), Homeland, CA, April 13, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, The idea of using a run-off vote of course makes sense. Two problems occur though, the first is that a great number of voters do not vote FOR a person but rather AGAINST the them by voting for their opponent. The second is cost. If my memory serves me correctly, Australia does not have a run-off vote, but uses a system called preferential voting. Here, instead of voting for one person on the list of candidates, one is required to place them in order of preference. Thus, one candidate who receives first preference is deemed to have one full vote. The candidate against who is given a second preference receives perhaps half a vote, and so on. Once totaled, the winner is legitimate because more are for their election than against. In these days of computerization, calculating the winner would be simple. The advantage would be that all can be done in one balloting, with no need for the second, an enormous saving in cost. Your comments against unicameral parliament are very valid in this country. However, I believe that the Senate should be strictly a �house of review� whose task would be to monitor and recommend change to legislation provided by congress. Because of this status, only half should be elected and the other half be appointed citizens of repute and experience, such as Ramos, Monsod, et al. �I may not agree with that which you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.� Alan C. Atkins, (by email), Para�aque City, April 13, 2009. British resident in Metro Manila wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww On Revolutionary Government Tony, I read Dan Jimenez � email to you and his statement that all graft and corruption should be punishable by death. My question is, Is there enough rope to hang them all? Enough electricity to electocute them all? Enought bullets to shoot them all? All though I don't agree with the death penalty I might make an exception in this case! Death may be too easy for what these people have done to the real people of the Philippines. Jay Brundage, (by email), Ridgefield, Connecticut, April 07, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww From the last RX I wrote and you reacted: Lastly, let us give the democratic process a chance. (But you did not give the �democratic process� a chance in 1986, when you and the RAM plotted against President Marcos. ACA) Two things: First, precisely because of the EDSA I lesson, I did not join the subsequent coup attempts or people power against the governments of Cory Aquino and Estrada. In fact, as the most senior officer left at Fernando Air Base in 1989 (just three years after the 1986 EDSA I), I stopped the rebel soldiers from joining the coup attempt that nearly toppled the government of Cory Aquino. Had the mentioned names of the proposed civilian-military junta succeeded in taking power, we could be another Myanmar now. I had many reasons to hate the Cory Aquino government, especially the release of Jose Maria Sison and the communists from detention without any conditions, but having a civilian-military junta as proposed could have been much worse for our country. Second, calling oneself a Protestant or Catholic does not make a person a true Christian. Our political leaders are mostly Christian but many do not fear God. They lie, steal, cheat, etc. Of course I know how Protestants and Catholics killed each other, especially in Ireland. It does not mean that they did the right thing. Keep yourself healthy so that we can have more of your ideas. Col. (Ret.) Hector Tarzan Tarrazona (Retired), April 14, 2009 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Possible Areas of Electronic Cheating 1. The Optical Mark Reader (OMR) uses a paper ballot that is printed on security paper. The ballot as it is printed contains marks that are invisible to the human eye, meaning that only an optical eye can read it. Since these marks are not visible to human eyes, it is possible for agents of the government to include invisible instructions as the ballots are being printed, in effect instructing the OMR to read only the shaded marks that are favorable to the government. Conversely, the invisible marks could instruct the OMR not to read the shaded marks that are not favorable to the government. 2. The OMR ballots will be printed either by the National Printing Office (NPO) or the winning supplier of the OMR machines. Either way, the managers of the printing facility could be pressured to print extra ballots using the same authentic security paper. These extra ballots could be �pre-shaded� with the marks of candidates that are aligned with the government. As far as the OMR machines are concerned, these are genuine ballots. 3. The OMR machines will not read ballots that are �damaged� in one way or the other. It is very easy to �damage� a ballot using water, moisture, powders, pencil marks, indentations, etc. It is possible for agents of the government to give �damaged� ballots to voters who are identified with the opposition. For that matter, agents of the government could give out fake ballots that look like the real thing, but are not readable by the OMR machines. 4. One of two possibilities could happen. Either the OMR machines will have Microsoft Windows as their operating systems (O/S) or the data from the OMR machines will be transferred to personal computers that are using Microsoft Windows as their O/S, for purposes of transmission from the precinct level to the next level (municipal). 5. If the OMR machines will have Windows O/S, it is possible to inject or embed malicious codes into the O/S or into the hard drive, codes that will instruct the OMR machines to alter the data as these are being tabulated or transmitted. 6. If the agents of the government will choose not to alter the data by using the OMR machines, they have the option to inject or embed malicious codes in the personal computers that will be used to transmit the data to the next level. 7. While it is possible that the encryption in the OMR machines or in the personal computers will protect the data from hostile hackers, it is also possible for agents of the government to obtain copies of the encryption or the source codes, in which case they do not even have to hack the data, they can just manipulate it as an �inside job�. 8. It is not certain whether the bidding for the OMR machines will include the provision for a data center that should house the servers or the �server farm� as the case may be. As of now, the COMELEC does not appear to have a data center that is capable of hosting large amounts of data, such as the incoming canvassing reports from all over. 9. It is possible that the COMELEC will sub-contract the hosting and operation of the data center to a third party that may not necessarily be the winning bidder of the OMR machines. The COMELEC could just keep this part of the process a secret, so that the agents of the government could easily manipulate the data at the national level. 10. While it is possible that the encryption in the servers will protect the data in data center, it is also possible that agents of the government could get hold of the �keys� that will open the encryption, in which case they will be able to manipulate the data. 11. Since the servers in the data center will be essentially �blind� as to where the incoming data will come from, it is possible for agents of the government to send �false data� or �fake data� to the servers by using their copy of the �keys�, thus supplanting or replacing the real data sent in from the legitimate sources. 12. The government can brag that the data could not be hacked, because it is encrypted. That is not the issue. The real issue is TRUST, because we have to be able to TRUST whoever is holding the �keys� to the encryption. The analogy is similar to a door that is secure because it is padlocked. No matter how secure the padlock is, it could be opened by anyone who has the keys to it. 13. The location of the data center is another issue. Whoever owns the building or the facility that houses the data center could give physical access to the agents of the government. In this connection, the political parties and/or the candidates should demand that the COMELEC should disclose the names of the owners of both the building and/or the data center as the case may be. 14. The COMELEC has been bragging that the software application is encrypted. However, they have not disclosed what O/S they will be using in the OMR machines, in the transmission machines and in the servers. If the O/S is not proprietary or if it is not also encrypted separately, it is still hack-able. In simple terms, an encrypted software application will be useless if the O/S is disabled. 15. The COMELEC has been bragging about encryption, but so far they have not said anything whether their data center or server farm is fire proof or bomb proof. Fire proofing is an important issue in their case, because they already have the sad track record of their old building getting burned. Bomb proofing is also an issue, because all the data and results could be destroyed by one bomb, thus creating a legal basis to declare a failure of election. 16. Following standard data security practices, the COMELEC should have more than one data center, meaning that they should MIRROR all their data in several other secure sites. In like manner, they should disclose where these MIRROR sites are, and who owns them. 17. By their own admission, the COMELEC was only able to capture about half of the biometric data of voters. In this connection, they have not disclosed how many percent of the voters already have Voter�s IDs. Given this reality, there is no way of checking how many OMR ballots they would actually issue. 18. Come Election Day, 40 million voters will be looking for new precincts, because the COMELEC �clustered� 200,000 precincts into 80,000 only. There would be lesser confusion if all the voters would have biometric data or Voter�s IDs, but that is not the case. This situation could be used by the government to fuel the confusion, so that a failure of election could be declared, thus giving the legal basis for the present elected officials to hold over. 19. Since the law requires the COMELEC to proclaim winners within 2 to 3 days, it is possible for the Palace to influence the Commission to proclaim the candidates of the government, regardless of the actual data that they will receive. It will be harder for �losing� candidates to protest, because by then, the data would have been altered. 20. If the political parties and/or the election watchdogs would really want to protect the ballot, they should demand that all the OMR machines, the transmission machines and the data centers will be watched not only by the COMELEC, but also by their representatives. This is necessary in order to prevent agents of the government from injecting malicious codes while these machines are in storage or are not being used. Ike Se�eres, [email protected], , March 26, 2009 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to [email protected]. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |