My column for today is It’s how you play the game. You can refer to the following related stories: SC justice admits playing golf with Neri, but won’t inhibit self, and SC justice won’t inhibit from NBN case, and Drilon urges Corona to inhibit from Neri case, and 5 named to list for Supreme Court justice. as well as New SC justice could be swing vote for Arroyo in Neri case.
In response to Solita Monsod’s selective use of the transcripts, Atty. Edwin Lacierda wrote a response, published today as Lozada counsel takes exception to Monsod’s column.
Incidentally, the debate over what Lozada said, brings up the difficulty of accessing information, including records -and that means, transcripts, too- paid for with taxpayer money and which ought to be freely-accessible. Please read the Team RP Petition for a Freedom of Access to Information Law and sign up if you agree with their advocacy. For example, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, it is easier to figure out who was what in previous administrations, as well as surveying presidential activities and official documents, than it is under the present or recent dispensations.
Another case in point is that the transcripts of Senate hearings are only available on paper, for a fee, and I’ve heard it suggested that this is done so as to provide an income stream to government clerks. The result is that besides having to pay for hard copy, any group or individual that wants to refer to the testimony has to encode the transcripts, which can only compound whatever errors already exist, and which serves as a deterrent to the widespread discussion and study of the conduct and contents of those hearings.
I have appended the exchange at the end of this entry.
In other news, RP draws from regional emergency rice reserve.
Overseas, two interesting stories in the Asia Sentinel website. First, Malaysia’s Political Earthquake: The ruling national coalition takes its biggest beating since independence , with this interesting description of recent political dynamics:
Although Abdullah Badawi took office in 2002 as a reformer succeeding Mahathir, he has yet to deliver on the promise of change to the extent that voters wanted. Although the stock market is up 60 percent since he took office and to some extent cronyism has been discouraged and some of Mahathir’s more grandiose projects have been put on hold, there has been widespread disgust over surging crime rates, increasingly tense race relations, spiralling inflation and a perception of corruption, particularly at the top of UMNO, due to a long series of highly public scandals.
The coalition sought to counter public anger by offering a wide range of official projects to win voters, from scholarships for rural and poor families to increased infrastructure spending to an offer to train thousand of new policemen. Nonetheless, the coalition’s ability to mobilize voters by using the levers of power didn’t work. The MCA in particular was riven with factionalism, with the party reeling over a sex scandal that drove Chua Soi Lek, one of Malaysia’s most powerful Chinese politicians, from office in January. Publication of a videotape of the episode was widely believed to have been made by rivals within the party. UMNO also suffered from infighting as Abdullah Badawi dropped several old party members from the election rolls only to have them fight back against newer, cleaner figures.
(Check out Malaysian blogger-turned-MP Jeff Ooi’s blog, Screenshots, for an interesting snapshot in how he and fellow oppositionists are preparing for the political transition in the state they won).
And second, Singapore Reels over a Missing Fugitive: The Island Republic’s fugitive terrorist runs circles around authorities, which has been an ongoing story of a city-state unused to failure and worse, criticism:
But the most common sentiment appears to be not that lives are in danger because a dangerous terrorist has escaped and may yet manage to blow up Singaporean buildings. It is growing derision at the sheer apparent incompetence of authorities usually so keen to praise their own efficiency, particularly in matters of security…
Whatever else can be said about Singapore, its government has long regarded itself as the most grimly efficient and accomplished in Asia, and it does not brook any nonsense. Kastari’s escape and the subsequent inability of authorities to find him have called that into question.
Singapore’s most prized asset is competence and the willingness to pay for it with taxpayer funds. Ministers and civil servants, already by far the highest-paid public servants in the world, received a round of pay raises starting on January 1 ranging from 4 percent to 21 percent, driving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s salary to S$3.7 million (US$2.55 million), more than six times that of US President George W. Bush. Cabinet ministers, including Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, apologizing while under intense fire for Kastari’s escape, receive S$1.9 million (US$1.37 million).
Its civil servants are among the highest paid in the world. The government has long taken the stance that public officials should receive pay commensurate with the top of the country’s business elite, both to attract top talent and to forestall any temptation toward corruption.
Thus the ability of a crippled ethnic Malay to walk away from the most securely guarded prison on an island of only 700 square kilometers, and to remain on the loose since February 27, has not only generated a huge amount of controversy, but a growing amount of ridicule of the government, which is being recycled endlessly in cyberspace, often in the form of jokes. This is not something a government as humorless as Singapore’s is finding funny.
Incidentally, the article ends by saying the escape is a Black Swan Event, a concept developed in a book I’m currently reading (and enjoying!), “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable” (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
Also, in relation to the story on Malaysia, see this news item: RP warned FDIs shunning it. The article says,
Michael Clancy, chairman of the Philippine Business Leaders’ Forum, said the Philippines is no longer attracting foreign direct investments due to a wide range of corruption and Manila’s overdependence on “bad” loans from China….
In an internal survey of the members of the PBLF composed of 40 companies from Europe, United States and Australia, there was a shared belief that at least 50 percent of the project costs in doing business goes to “commissions” and only 10 per cent of the total investment is being used for facilitation, and the remainder for implementation.
Among the 40 companies surveyed, nobody aired plans to pour in additional investments.
“Those who invested here already, they’re committed to staying and not pulling out. But in terms of asset management mode, they’re not looking to expand because it’s too hard… everywhere you turn [in the government system] somebody got his hand [on] money, everybody wants something under the table,” Clancy lamented.
He said foreign companies that have invested in China are seeking back-up investments in the region “but they are not looking at the Philippines as they would prefer Malaysia, Thailand and Australia.”…
…Meanwhile, he stressed that Manila’s overdependence on China also sends wrong signal to Western investors.
“We were involved in European investment delegation here two years ago to look at investment prospects, but government officials [whom we’ve met] told us, ‘we don’t need your money anymore, we have China now, we can get all money we need from China,'” said Clancy.
Yesterday’s Inquirer editorial, Most corrupt, points out the limitations, but still serious implications, of yet another survey of foreign businessmen in the region. But it points to impressions that affect business, as also indicated by the article quoted above.
But even as Arroyo ‘thrilled’ for passing US firm’s anti-corruption test, there are those who disagree. In Ex-Cabinet members: GMA ‘at the center’ of corruption in NBN-ZTE deal and Former gov’t finance officials: Economy ‘not gaining momentum’ , you can read about the views of former government officials who contest the present government’s policies:
1. There is growing concern among experts about glaring and unprecedented inconsistencies in official statistics on growth, income and poverty that raise doubts about the reliability of the economic growth data.
2. Even recent official poverty statistics affirm that whatever economic growth was achieved in the past five years has benefited only a few.
3. This “growth” had even swelled the ranks of the poor by almost four million additional Filipinos. Poverty has risen not only in absolute numbers, but in relative terms as well, with the proportion of poor families rising from 24 percent to 27 percent between 2003 and 2006.
“Our economy cannot gain momentum when its actual growth is much lower than its reported numbers, when whatever growth occurred benefited only a few, when more Filipinos slide into poverty despite this growth,” they said.
Here’s their statement: fighting_corruption.pdf which you can compare to the ADB report, critical-dev-constraints.pdf” title=”critical-dev-constraints.pdf”>critical-dev-constraints.pdf
See: The world’s 50 most powerful blogs.
Here is the unexpurgated transcript of the controversial exchange between Senator Joker Arroyo and Jun Lozada:Lozada-Senate Transcript.pdf (I have italicized the portions Solita Monsod chose to quote, in the overall extract below; you can also compare her account of the TV interview with this one in Alaverde 33, of course Monsod does not mention Abaya’s story changing)
***
May I now recognize Senator arroyo.
SEN. ARROYO, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My preliminary statement should not be deducted from my time because here is the crux of my thesis. Mr. Lozada, your family filed a petition for Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court and a petition for a Writ of Amparo before the Supreme Court. That case would be heard by direction of the Supreme Court which I inquired this morning will be heard by the Court of Appeals on February 14, Thursday.
Now, I would address this now to the Committee. The same questions which we discussed for 7 hours will be the same issue that will be discussed in the Supreme Court — in the Court of Appeals. So, I ask the question addressed to the Committee, not to the resource persons. Since this is a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Writ of Amparo, the decision will come in very fast. It’s a lighting decision. Supposing the decision of the Court of Appeals which was directed by the Supreme Court is different from our findings, what do we do?
You have here a case of the same subject matter, the same parties; Cusi, Lina, Atutubo, Razon, all of them are also respondents in the court. Now, that’s what’s going to be heard by the Court of Appeals, so we spent time here discussing what will be heard in the Court of Appeals. So what do we do ?
So I ask now this question. Mr. Lozada, you filed the Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus at 1 o’clock on Wednesday when you were already free, you were no longer under restraint. And the Petition for the Writ of Amparo at 4 o’clock on Wednesday, February 6. Now, I ask you, why did you not sign the petitions when you could have signed it and instead asked your wife to sign the petition and Arthur Lozada who is your brother, to sign the petition. Now, why is it like that? Meaning, when you ask for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo, well, you are the petitioner, why you asked your wife, you asked your brother. Why did you have to do that? I don’t mean to ask you because you’re not a lawyer but if Atty. Bautista can answer for you as an honest lawyer for him, fine.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A.). Well, sir, if you want the lawyers to answer, I think the lawyers who filed the cases are behind you.
SEN. ARROYO. Yes. I think that the Ateneo Human Rights Center must be required by the Committee to answer that because he was already free. He could sign it but he still asked Mrs. Lozada. So, the other one is the one for Arthur Lozada, the brother of Mr. Lozada had a different set of lawyers so we can ask Mr. Lozada and for him to require to sign, because this is forum shopping which is condemned by the Supreme Court. You cannot go to — the same subject matter, the same issue, you go to two different forums? Supposing that the decisions of the two forums, the Senate and the Supreme Court would be different, what do we do? So I raised that question as an administrative matter, Mr. Chairman.
Second, I want to ask Mr. Lozada, your ticket when you went abroad, how were you ticketed? What’s the itinerary?
MR. LOZADA, Hanggang Hong Kong lamang po.
SEN. ARROYO. Your travel order was supposed to be to London to attend a conference yet you got a ticket yourself — somebody here said it was a credit card, I don’t know who. Now, if you were going to London because you were going to attend an environmental conference, and that was the travel authority that you solicited from the head of office, that is Secretary Atienza, does that not smack of bad faith that you never really intended to go to London as you represented, but only up to Hong Kong? I mean, these are the matters. I am putting this all for you, you can answer me later because I don’t want to lose sight of this.
Now the other one is this. I noticed in the previous testimony that when you departed, I don’t know what date, ABS-CBN asked permission to cover it. I mean, there is something here on testimony, I don’t know who. Now who knew about your departure, Mr. Lozada?
MR. LOZADA. Should I answer now?
SEN. ARROYO. Sure go ahead.
MR. LOZADA. Secretary Neri. A lot of people, sir, knew about my departure.
SEN. ARROYO. All right. So, in other words, never mind that ABS-CBN because — now the other one is that you mentioned about the North Rail. Are you aware of the fact that the Senate investigated the North Rail? This is a bigger issue than the ZTE. Or you’re not aware of that?
MR. LOZADA. Not, not…
SEN. ARROYO. But the Senate did not make a committee report. Investigated it but did not make a committee report. I want that on record.
MR. LOZADA. I did not know that.
SEN. ARROYO. Yes. My questions are brief because it’s really for the committee report.
I want to ask Secretary Mike. You mentioned Maritess Vitug whom I know, you know and many of us. Did you clear your statements with her?
MR. DEFENSOR. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ARROYO. You quoted her freely.
MR. DEFENSOR. Your Honor, noon pong unang lumabas ‘yong mga statements, hindi pa po ako nagsasalita. Then I called her up. Sabi ko, “Maritess, I’m asking clearance from you. Maaari bang pag nagsalita ako, particularly in the Senate, can you give me clearance?” Sabi n’ya, “Pertaining to What?” Sabi ko, “Pertaining to all the discussions we’ve had, kasi the timeline, I’m trying to fix it.” And sabi n’ya, “Sige, basta as long Mike, malinaw. I was asking you as a journalist and you were responding.” Sabi ko, “Yes, Maritess. In fact
SEN. ARROYO. In other words, she knew — and whatever you said — if she will be asked even in writing so that we don’t bother her, she will confirm it?
MR. DEFENSOR. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ARROYO. Now, Secretary Atienza, there was a naughty question of Senator Escudero about insinuations, which I really want to find out because …
Senator Lacson said that way back in December, he was already talking to you.
MR. LOZADA. Yes.
SEN. ARROYO. That’s what he said. I don’t know whether I was quoted wrong, but way back in December he was talking to you?
MR. ATIENZA. Sino po ba ang tinutukoy, Mr. Chairman, ako po ba o …?
SEN. ARROYO. Si Mr. Lozada. All right, Now if that is true that you were talking to Senator Lacson, now you have not talked to any one? Who were other senators that you were talking to way back in December?
MR..LOZADA. Wala pa pong iba nuong December.
SEN. ARROYO. Wala? Only Senator Lacson?
MR..LOZADA. Opo.
SEN. ARROYO. All right.
So Secretary Atienza, your insinuation that senators are involved here is not correct.
MR. ATIENZA. Ang sabi ko po kanina, isa sa mga nakagawa ng malaking intriga dito sa usaping ito’y parang maraming nakakaalam ng intensyon ni Mr. Lozada ay maraming nakakaalam ng movement n’ya at may nakakausap s’yang mga senator. Sapagkat akala ko all the time sa akin lang siya nakasandal kaya all out naman ang tulong ko sa kanya on matters of security.
SEN. ARROYO. I raised that question, Secretary Atienza, because the question of good faith, bad faith arises. That in the case of Mr. Lozada, I would have wished — in fact, I cannot be so hard on him because it turns out Bicolano pala ito. Taga-Ligao eh. All right, now, anyway.
So it’s much of bad faith because you’re talking to some but you are not talking to us. In fact, yesterday — or when was this when ABS-CBN came here and visited you and you were interviewed? What day was that, here in the Senate? Is that Saturday or Sunday?
MR. LOZADA. Sunday po ata ako pinuntahan.
SEN. ARROYO. No, no, no. Only the weekend.
MR. LOZADA. Saturday po si Carandang, tapos Sunday po ata si Korina.
SEN. ARROYO. All right, what I’m saying is this. Every time you discriminate on media is not fair. You favor one station, others aren’t.
Wait, wait, wait. You favor some Senators, you don’t favor others. I raised those points because this is a question of good faith. So having said that, now will you please answer my …
SEN. LACSON. Mr. Chairman, since my name was mentioned — Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A). Yes, Senator Lacson.
SEN. LACSON. Ang masasabi ko lang po eh, baka mas masipag ako kaysa doon sa iba.
MR. LOZADA. May I answer na ho, isa-isa?
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A). Okay, Mr. Lozada.
SEN. ARROYO. And don’t be afraid, just say what you think is the answer.
MR. LOZADA. Opo.
Number one po, yung mga writ-writ na ‘yon, hindi po ako kasama pa roon dahil po noong panahon na ‘yon ang umaabugado pa sa akin si Atty. Bautista. Hindi ako kasali pa roon.
SEN. ARROYO. You mean, you have been the lawyer, Atty. Bautista, since December?
MR. LOZADA. Hindi po, ‘yong writ. Eto, ‘yong writ of habeas corpus, ‘yong wala po akong kasali po roon. Kasi nga po inasaynan nila ako ng — basta dinala lng nila ako Atty. Bautista eh. So ‘yon pong panahon na ‘yon, siya pa ‘yong lumalabas na abugado ko.
SEN. ARROYO. Well, I ask him.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LOZADA. Puwede pong tapusin ko na? Puwede ko pong matapos?
SEN. ARROYO. Okey, go ahead.
MR. LOZADA. Tapos po hindi nga ako kasali roon. Noong Wednesday na ‘yon, kinuha nga po ako nina Colonel Mascariñas, dinala n’ya ako kina Atty. Bautista. Hindi ko alam kung saan ako dadalhin. Tinatanong ako ng asawa ko, “Saan ka dadalhin?” Sabi ko, “Hindi ko Alam.” So sila naman po para malalaman nila kung saan ako dinadala, siguro they decided with my brother, kasi ho I’m not free to ‘yong, sir, kanina, I was free to move — hindi ako free to move. Kinukuha nila ako sa La Salle…
SEN. ARROYO. What I’m trying to say is that, don’t tell me that Bro. Felipe would not allow you to sign a document when you had visitors, the family was with you. In fact, you had many visitors, the nuns and the sisters saw you.
MR. LOZADA. Pero po…
SEN. ARROYO. No, no, the question is, I’m talking about — because you are talking about human rights, and I have been involved in human rights.
MR. LOZADA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ARROYO. So those who were saying that you haven’t sacrificed human rights…
MR. LOZADA. Opo, So I will continue na po?
SEN. ARROYO. Now the point is this. You don’t trifle with the writ of habeas corpus and the writ of amparo because those are what you call the great writ of liberty, extraordinary remedies. Now we cannot misuse them because pag binastos natin ‘yan mawawalan nang value. That is the only reason why I’m very careful about this. Don’t cheapen it, that’s why I would just wondering why. You were deposited midnight of Tuesday, then Wednesday they filed it one o’clock, another four o’clock, two in a row. So how come?
MR. LOZADA, Iyong nga po, Mr. Senator. Number one po, hindi po ako aware noon. So, kasi po ang umaabugado pa ho sa akin noon si Atty. Bautista. At si Atty. Bautista nga po busy siya kape-prepare noong aking affidavit. So hindi po ako ‘yong nag-ano noon, hindi ako ‘yong gumawa noon. Ginawa ho ata nila ‘yon noong tinatanong nila ako na kinuha nga ako ni Colonel Mascariñas, “Saan ka nila dadalhin?” Sabi ko, “Hindi ko alam.” So independent po ‘yong aksyon na ‘yon sa akin. Noon po ay nasa — kinukuha — dinadala nila ako — kung nasaan ako. Ano po? So I was not free as you would like to — akala n’yo lang po puwede akong umalis kung kalian — hindi po ako puwedeng gumanoon-ganoon. Under po ako sa kustodiya nina Colonel Mascariñas. Sila ang nagsasabi kung saan nila ako dadalhin.
SEN. ARROYO. Okay, you have said your piece of mind. The only thing I want to say is this ‘no. That you don’t trifle with the writ of habeas corpus and amparo because those are the great writs of liberty.
Now, Atty. Bautista, it seems that — although your name does not appear in either of the two petitions…
MR.BAUTISTA. Your, Honor, Mr. Chairman, I asked him about this. What is this petition for habeas corpus, amparo or about …? He said, “Wala akong alam diyan. It is my brother, my wife.” Ganoon, ganoon. And that is Wednesday. And the odd thing about this, it’s Wednesday, 1 o’clock while we were having lunch I called up Atty. Quimbo. Sabi ko, “We will surrender Lozada.” In fact, that is why I went to La Salle, Wednesday night, to arrange for his surrender in the morning without drama. But I think he wanted to surrender with drama. That is what happened.
SEN. ARROYO. You are very permissive about the two writs.
MR. BAUTISTA. I did not know about them. He denied having to do with them.
SEN. ARROYO. Because what we have here I am sure the Court of Appeals will ask the transcription about the proceedings here to find out just what happened.
MR. BAUTISTA. Well yesterday, I met his lawyer Melencio Sta. Maria who filed the habeas corpus. He said, “You are making waves filing these things?”
Hindi na, moot na yan,” sabi niya. I do not know what he meant by that.
MR. LOZADA. So pwede na po akong…
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A). Yes, Mr. Lozada, please, We will not interrupt you.
MR. LOZADA. So, ‘yon nga po noong panahon na ‘yon it was very obvious na wala — hindi ko na-exercise ‘yong aking free will. Hindi ho ako malaya noong panahon na ‘yon. So, binigyan ako ng gobyerno ng abogado na ‘yong abogado ‘yong gumawa ng affidavit na sabi ko nga may reservation ako. Ang ginawa ng pamilya ko since hindi nila nalalaman kung saan ako dinadala nina Colonel Mascariñas siguro ho para maging malaya ang aking paggagalaw, nagfile na po sila. So, ‘yon po ang aking ano diyan. So, I have no intention of cheapening a very precious law. Wala po ako noon. I guess — tapos po ‘yong trip sa Hong Kong na ‘yon you said that it was smacks of bad faith on me. Hindi naman ho talaga ako pupuntang London. Sinabi ko naman po sa kanila ‘yon. Sabi nila, “Hindi, umalis ka na muna.”
SEN. ARROYO. Kanino mo sinabi ‘yon?
MR. LOZADA. Kina Manny po. Kina Atty. Gaite at saka kay Secretary Atienza.
SEN. ARROYO. You mean to say all of them are in conspiracy that a travel order was issued for London yet the destination is only Hong Kong. We want that clear.
MR. LOZADA. Sir, I am not — hindi ko alam ang — pasensiya na po kayo kung ano kasi puro kayo mga legal ano. Hindi ko alam kung ano ‘yong legal anong ng conspiracy. Ang sinasabi ko sa inyo, alam nila na hindi talaga ako pupunta ng London.
MR. ATIENZA. Mr. Chairman…
MR. LOZADA. So, pwede ko nang ituloy ko na po kasi po baka makalimutan ko na ‘yong mga tanong sa akin ni Senator Arroyo.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A). Let Mr. Lozada continue then Secretary Atienza. Okay.
MR. LOZADA. Tapos ho ‘yong pag-alis kong ‘yon sa — marami pong nakakaalam. Nagpaalam ako kay Secretary Neri. Marami akong pinagpaalaman. Kung paano po ako nakuha ng ABS-CBN hindi ko po alam. So, ‘yong pong sa North Rail na ‘yon hindi ko po rin alam ‘yon. Nabanggit ko lang ‘yon dahil nga ‘yong ZTE, ‘yong Instik pasensiya na kayo ‘yong Chinese ano, rep. noong ZTE…
SEN. ARROYO. You are not supposed to answer North Rail because you said you don’t know about North Rail. But I think Secretary Atienza he says that you…
MR. LOZASDA. Pwede ko na hong ituloy, Senator, para hindi ko makalimutan ‘yong ano ninyo. Tapos sabi ninyo po ‘yong good faith at saka bad faith na huwag akong maging selective sa mga kinakausap ko. ‘Yong ginawa ninyong example ‘yong ABS-CBN, si Mike Enriquez po kinausap ko rin noong Sabado, so patas lang po ‘yon. Tapos po kung and sabi ninyo na bad faith ‘yong kinausap ko si Senator Lacson, nakausap ko rin ‘yong asawa sa bahay ninyo. Dinala po ako doon ni Tony Abaya. So patas. Opo. Pinatawag ninyo po ako roon sa bahay ninyo.
SEN. ARROYO. Who called you?
MR. LOZADA, Ewan ko. Pina — Meet niya po ako sa asawa ninyo. Basta po doon sa inyo, pagpasok dito sa parang gate ng tao, kumaliwa kami nang kaunti, pasok po kami doon sa pintuan, mayroong maliit na parang hallway na ganoon pagpasok ninyo parang atrium type nandito ‘yong napakagandang library ninyo sa gilid. Pinag wine and cheese po ako roon.
SEN. ARROYO. I don’t want you to talk about my wife before I ask her.
MR. LOZADA. Opo, pasensiya na po kayo.
SEN. ARROYO. Because otherwise you have been besmirching the names of everyone. Don’t try — don’t mess around with my wife.
MR. LOZADA. Hindi po. Sabi pinupunto ko lang po ‘yong good faith, bad faith na hindi po ako selective sa kinakausap ko na on both sides po may mga taong gusto sa aking kumausap sino naman po ako para tumanggi. So, pasensiya na po kayo. Hindi ho ano. Eh, kasi po parang sabi ninyo sa akin…
SEN. ARROYO. At the rate you are going and at the rate you are implicating every Tom, Dick and Harry here, I mean, how is this?
MR. LOZADA. Paano po ang magagawa ko. Kayo po ang nagbring up na huwag akong – I was just — pinapakita ko lang po sabi ninyo na para hindi good faith, bad faith dapat hindi ako selective. Gusto ko lang pong ipaalam na kung kinakausap – ayaw ko kasing masali-sali sa pulitika. Kaya nga…
SEN. ARROYO. Mr. Chairman, can I have the answer of Secretary Atienza because.
SEN. LACSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Perhaps Nietzsche was right that power supersedes interpretation, and right now that power is in the hands of the government.
Please help me give that power back to the Filipino people.
Digressing,
I am interested in that move of the PMA alumni to remove the protector clause to prevent military intervention in politics.
Bernas,explained that the protector was only meant to be the oppposite of oppressor,no more no less,but to others it is an excuse for adventurism.
Personal opinion, So Reyes made that an excuse and many said Oakwood and the Pen was a result of that protector clause.
Fine remove it and let us see,how soon can it change the belief system of others. Belief systems are for only a limitted set of people, some people,and it may even depend on every individual; that is something you do not alter in a snap.
Now to that Jamby eksena.
According to my father, this nation has the most number of generals in the world,I still have to check,but for now I will take his word for it. The point is why have so many generals most of the others can do without. He even presented that it might eventually become a problem using the pension fund coffers running dry approach ,it will lead to more palakasan, but still nada,even being the most trusted adviser of the senate defense committeee chair could not make it happen,just take a look at Senator Biazon’s reaction to Madrigal’s move.
Well,that is life,we can’t always get what we want,maybe not right away anyways.
The suggestion of changing belief systems,may sound good but as they say, never attempt to convert the converted.
As DJB says,at least believe in something.
Another question,Benigs;change your belief system to what, another belief system?
So, Is it really that simple?
KG:
Removing the protector clause may (it’s debatable) stop military adventurism in future, but it’s not gonna do a damn thing to the generals who have been given the reins of civilian power.
Maybe not Medieval Europe, but perhaps Victorian England (but without the glorious empire)–highly stratified, with a strong moral code (even if it was observed generally on the surface only). The London of Dickens (“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”–an appropriate description of our current situation?) or Sherlock Holmes. Anyone agree?
Mike, England during Queen Victoria’s time was on its way towards industrialization. We’re not.
Over here, our Oligarchs are still into rent-seeking (via government awarded monopolies and/or oligopolies) and resource extraction. We are more medieval in the sense that our Oligarchs get their funding by extracting ‘tribute’ from the rest. We can see this from the fact that it will be the public that has to pay for any loans they contracted from China.
Tonio, the overhauling of the belief system was tried in China during the Cultural Revolution. As history shows, even after ten years, which includes re-education, such a Cultural revolution did not make China develop. What eventually allowed China to take off was the tangible reforms of Deng in 1978. He succeeded because his exhortations where accompanied by a real change in the system.
BenignO:”We need to purge ourselves of no-results traditions, belief systems, and mindsets to truly change…”
One sure way to turn the old morons into… well,…new morons.
Tonio,
I concurr, removing the protector clause willl not do a damn thing to solve that problematic situation.Maybe not even limiting the number of generals,like the thing I mention would solve the problem of the generals having been given the reigns of civilian power.
It really is tough,or it really is not that simple.
========================================================
Oligarchy, a government that is run by a few. This has always been interchanged with elitism.
being elite can also mean the best among the the rest.
Tama si benigno na matagal na nag mga problema natin,panahon pa ng middle ages, or some might say Victorian, parhong ibig sabihing matagal na.
Benign0, I don’t know if you noticed it, by espousing overhaul in belef systems and traditions you are espousing REVOLUTION.It may not be violent,but it still is revolution.
may i refer to reference.com from Columbia, encyclopedia:
revolution, in a political sense, fundamental and violent change in the values, political institutions, social structure, leadership, and policies of a society. The totality of change implicit in this definition distinguishes it from coups, rebellions, and wars of independence, which involve only partial change.
our history is replete with people who educated themselves. our panoply of heroes not only includes members of the intelligentsia like Rizal, but people like Bonifacio. Here’s a guy who’s had the “dice loaded against him†too. but did he sit in his bahay kubo lamenting his fate? he made a choice, right?
>> You assume that people who fail sat in their bahay kubos lamenting their fate. Have you ever seen our countrymen? Have you seen the kids in the province who walk 15 to 30 minutes to get to school, do their chores, help with the farm or the small family business? Do you honestly think that they have the same opportunity as a child who goes to school in Quezon City (whether public or private)? If he fails, its his fault? They don’t even have enough books in the public schools in the provinces. Crammed 40 – 60 to a classroom! And you tell me that they must blame themselves for the fact that many of them won’t be good or rich enough to enter UP, La Salle, Ateneo, UST???
do you blame the politicians and the oligarchy if people would rather watch Wowowee than keep themselves informed and educated?
How many people watch Wowowee? 5 million or 10 million? Sige sabihin na natin, tamad ang 10% ng population natin. Our poverty incidence is mugh higher. What about the other millions who don’t watch wowowee? are they poor because they watch marimar? or watch the PBA? I watched Eat Bulaga nearly every day until college. Is that a sign that I did not want to better myself?
the blame game, as mentioned elsewhere, gets you nowhere.
Do you drive a car? Nabangga ka na ba? Did you just walk away and say, I won’t blame anyone. You use blame to create a negative connotation for the word. What we do is point to the person who is responsible or liable for something, and then hold those people responsible to the extent that they are responsible. It’s a fair thing to do. So if the government does something that harms more than hurts people, shouldn’t we hold them responsible. That’s not blaming. That’s being fair.
i believe that your life is your responsibility, not anyone else’s.
Yes. But what if somebody does something that intrudes into my life, shouldn’t I hold them responsible if they are supposed to be responsible? For example, I drive my car when the light is green. Somebody breaks the red light and hits me. Was I the one responsible for the damage to my car?
in the afterlife, as is popularly described, you face your judgment alone. i don’t think pointing the fingers at your politician, or the corrupt society, or mass media, or anywhere else while help your case much.
It has nothing to do with the afterlife. Hindi ka naman papapagalitan at pananagutin pag wala kang ginawang masama o kasalanan. Pero ang sinasabi ko maraming tao wala namang ginagawang masama pero the conditions created by the people around them make it more difficult for them. For me that’s called an injustice.
KG wrote:
————–
Benign0, I don’t know if you noticed it, by espousing overhaul in belef systems and traditions you are espousing REVOLUTION.It may not be violent,but it still is revolution.
may i refer to reference.com from Columbia, encyclopedia:
revolution, in a political sense, fundamental and violent change in the values, political institutions, social structure, leadership, and policies of a society. The totality of change implicit in this definition distinguishes it from coups, rebellions, and wars of independence, which involve only partial change.
—————
KG, so do you think it’s time that we start demanding a revolutionary change in our country, not just of individual Filipinos but of the political systems, structure, leadership and policies? And not accept anything less? Is it possible for this to happen peacefully? Or does it need a threat from the people for the oligarchs and elites to listen?
Could very well be.
Here is a snippet of insight from one of the humblest of my readers which contains vastly more wisdom than the drivel churned out by some of the most be-credentialled and impeccably grammared people in the blogosphere:
when I was a kid (am now 40 [years old]) our elders never give us straight answer. one day while playing to my female friend, we were both taking a bath (nude and I was 5 [years old]) I shout “ay pepe” [and] my aunt scolded me for saying bad words.
another was, when I ask my aunt again how did I come out in this world. and without hesitation she said “galing ka sa puwet”.
there’s alot more lies and half truth i learn from my elders, when we went to US at my age of 10 [years old], I was so surprised how ordinary folks explain everything as if am talking to them as the same age as mine.
See the full letter here:
http://www.getrealphilippines.com/rant/rant00020.html
Kung baga, you need not really wonder why lies, half-truths, and hidden agendas are more the rule than the exception in Pinoy society.
Er, Mr. KG, next time check your facts first before you ad-hominate any further as you will note in this rather un-insignificant section of my website:
http://www.getrealphilippines.com/solution/
The trouble with too much detail though is that details become easy pickin’ for small minds who are pre-disposed to nitpicking. 😉
Here’s an example of a component of this belief system:
Elders are owed unconditional respect and deference.
No statement yet as to whether this is right or wrong or should be changed or retained. But I am highlighting it as a concept to be debated.
Simple enough for you now? 😉
Karl, in modern society it is not possible to be the “best among the rest“. You can be the best at what you do (e.g. singer, boxer, doctor, politician, lawyer) but that will always be limited to that area (or a couple of areas).
That idea that one could be the ‘best among the rest’ is the fundamental flaw in elitism and is precisely what makes it a pre-modern idea.
Duckvader (at 12:08pm), very well said. To me, there is no difference between the migrant from the provinces who goes to the city to seek a better life and the OFW who goes to another country to do the same. As blogger ‘Another Hundred Years Hence’ pointed out:
Yet, they are the object of prejudice from the middle and upper classes and are generally viewed as lazy. By contrast, the OFW’s are looked upon as hard working. In reality, both are hardworking (and ambitious) but the only difference is that the latter group has achieved a greater amount of financial success.
And the reason the latter has achieved greater financial success is because they were placed in a setting where they are able to harness their potential to be able help themselves.
The system we have back home is not conducive to harnessing that potential which is why the squatters are not as successful. Admittedly, the cities are better than the countryside because the influence of the warlords and oligarchs is lesser in the cities, but the national oligarchs’ influence is nevertheless pervasive enough to become a binding constraint to growth.
Last I heard, working HARD delivers jack squat.
Working SMART on the other hand… well, you do the maths.
– 😀
Here’s what the venerable Nick Joaquin had to say about this “hard work” that we keep patting ourselves on the back about:
(My boldface for emphasis) 😀
Some people in this blogthread may want to read about NLP – Neurolinguistic Programming. Somewhere in its extensive literature, one will find a description of 3 types of people:
– (1) the dreaming visionary who comes up with the idea.
– (2) the realist who balances the issues of time, money, resources and management to make the vision a reality.
– (3) the critic who questions whether the idea or goal being discussed or worked on is really worth it or can actually be accomplished
Benigno says:
Abroad, especially in the West, if you go out at seven in the morning you’re in a dead-town.
——————-
Really? I guess Nick Joaquin skipped San Francisco (especially at 6am) or New York City or London, where the subways and commuter lines are packed at 7am. I guess these New Yorkers and Londoners are as unproductive as Filipinos. Oh and so are those lazy Chinese in Hong Kong, who fill the streets at 7:30 in the morning. Damn unproductive.
Ceases at 5pm? Then tell me, why is the commuter metro out of New York packed at 6:30pm? And why are they delivering all those pizzas to the buildings after dinner, especially in the financial district? Janitors must love the pizza.
Oh and have you see those nastily unproductive Japanese who fill Tokyo station at 6:30 in the morning and then stay on until late at night? Ahh but they’re not the west, so they’re not productive since they work that much….
Benign0, working hard and working smart are not mutually exclusive. To propagate the idea that one can get by with working smart alone is a mischaracterization of what it takes to succeed. I’ve seen that type of attitude though in a corporate environment usually coming from a manager who prefers to leave the ‘detail work’ to others. He’s usually the same one who thinks that important truths can always be encapsulated within Powerpoint slides and anything more is useless nitpicking. You know the type.
Mr or Ms Benign0,
I read your links, as I have mentioned I downloaded your book and saved it pero nasira computer ko di pa ako tapos. I will try my very best to see things in your perspective and not nitpick.
CVj,point well taken, they do not belong in the modern society ok so you agree that we are stuck in the middle ages,then?
o sige tama nang pilosopo,pero pano mo sila tanggalin sa equation?
UPN,
I see what you mean, hindi ko nga alam kung saan ako 1,2 or 3 minsan all of the above.
Poverty is not the presence of need, but the absence of choice.
Stuctural inequalities must be eliminated.
maginoo:
how? tell me how structural inequalities can be eliminated, save by arming the populace and forcibly removing the inequality?
seeing as we’re operating from a medieval perspective apparently, then it’s time for the peasant revolts. armed mobs walking into malacañang and burning the First Family alive. an angry mob rushing into dasma and forbes burning down the mansions and flaying the inhabitants.
is this what is needed?
let’s mark it as the first to go. in a modern society, this is just plain stupid.
Karl, yes. No one appreciates this more than Randy David says who says that we are a society that is undergoing a transition to modernity. As he wrote in his column more than six months ago:
He uses the word ‘modernity’ not in the sense of having the latest technology, but specifically to mean the differentiation and division of functions across society’s subsystems (e.g. legal, political, economic). Modern society is organized differently from its predecessors.
cvj:
thing is, cvj… many people still think along the lines of people, not institutions. to wit: executive = gloria, judiciary = puno, senate = villar, truth = lozada (ahahah!)
Benign0 and Tonio, I too might have to agree,on the unconditional part pero nothing wrong with deference or respect.
Benign0, since you always caution me on ad hominems, isn’t it judging collectively the character of the Pinoys and sometimes the bloggers, the worst kind of ad hominem?Pag sabay sabay ba na tawaging morons ,or having incoherent grammar( na sa tingin ko ako lang naman ang madalas), di na ba ad hominem ito?O sige, style mo lang yun, na needing of unconditional deference and respect.
=======================================================
CVJ,
again,point taken.
Tonio, you are correct in saying that the person is distinct from the institution. However, you cannot separate the person from the Institution because even if they are separate, they still interact.
As per Niklas Luhman, the relationship between people and society (and its institutions) is one of structural coupling similar in many respects to the relationship between a tree and its environment (i.e. soil, air, water, sun). This means that people are the environment within which our institutions operate. Just as poor soil can stunt the growth of a tree, a corrupt and deceitful holder of the Presidency can stunt the growth of that Institution.
The relationship goes both ways in that Society (and its Institutions) make up the environment in which people operate. In a hostile environment that is the Oligarch-dominated Philippine society, the migrants from the provinces remain as squatters. In friendlier environments overseas, the same migrant labor (i.e. the OFW) thrives.
I didn’t say they were.
Working hard means adding more man-hours to a job.
When you work smart you produce more for EVERY man-hour you put in.
Simple. 😉
Unfortunately for the Philippines, this is one of the more deeply-entrenched mindsets.
Maiba ulit tayo,
I have read the concerning rice, that we are arranging for rice from our neighbors.
I saw in CNN that even Thailand and Vietnam are having problems with the supply of rice.
The U.N. itself which used to have enough rice for the poorest nations have no choice but to ration it.
It is a problem,we have to face headon, one way or the other.
We are losing this country to a stonewalling, corrupt, authoritarian-minded President.
No president has pushed the limits of executive power as this one.
Gloria was not elected to the office, she acquired it. Since that time her conduct has been extralegal.
The transparency inherent to democracy that would expose her is obscured through brute manipulation of Congress, the judiciary, the press and of course her stonewalling of all her seven deadly sins….
1)TREASON. The complete sell-out of the Philippines to China.(Spratly Islands, ZTE, SouthRail, NorthRail)
2)GREED The insatiable greed of the Pidal couple as evidenced by the litany of scandals since 2001.
3) THE MOCKERY OF THE ELCTORAL PROCESS.(Hello Garci, Comelec Chairman Abalos as BIG-TIME ZTE broker.)
4) THE DAMAGE TO DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS .We have a president whose psychological makeup inclines her to do as she pleases. Because the House has been bribed, and the Armed Forces roster of top generals stacked with loyalists, she has gotten away with it — so far.
5)COVER-UPS. Executive privilege has its place but it is not intended to cover a multitude of sins. It is not cover for illegal acts or a means to dodge accountability for mistakes made.
6)HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
7)BAD EXAMPLE TO THE YOUTH. This country cannot have a leader who cheats, lies and stonewalls.
We face 2 1/2 more years of this and I fear how much worse it will become in the coming months.
Gloria Arroyo is extremely dangerous particularly now that she is cornered.
Bad politicians are only dangerous to ignoramus people.
Those who have enough brains and the right attitude are able to prosper DESPITE an abundance of excuses to fail.
It’s simple, really. 😀
under moderation ito kanina kasi di ko nadaanan yung spam filter,na click ko submit twice,
for what it’s worth;icopy pate ko na lang.:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Benign0 and Tonio, I too might have to agree,on the unconditional part pero nothing wrong with deference or respect.
Benign0, since you always caution me on ad hominems, isn’t it judging collectively the character of the Pinoys and sometimes the bloggers, the worst kind of ad hominem?Pag sabay sabay ba na tawaging morons ,or having incoherent grammar( na sa tingin ko ako lang naman ang madalas), di na ba ad hominem ito?O sige, style mo lang yun, na needing of unconditional deference and respect.
=======================================================
CVJ,
again,point taken.
I have already said it before, Benign0 has gotten me bored already. It’s like teaching somebody 1 + 1, once you know it it’s always going to be the same so repeating it so many times is just plain boring.
yay. manolo’s blog is back to it’s old format.
no more squinting for me. tnx mlq3!
*read mode*
tell that to the americans, who, after having been graced by Bush Jr. now faces RECESSION. yay for prospering despite bad politicians.
@DuckVader, very forceful and very good arguments. you blew scalia and tonio’s arguments out of the water.
—
more on more, people are beginning to question the system. more and more, people are beginning to desire change.. revolution. but when they’ve asked enough questions, and found out all the answers, they will be faced with the horrible truth that: we are stuck in a vicious cycle.
how many then will agree with me that year-zero is the only way to extricate ourselves from this cycle?
we only need a leader strong enough to lead it but wise enough to know the corrupting effects of power. is there such a man? is there such a filipino? if he appears, i will be the first to declare my loyalty and slay the first oligarch i see in my way.
If I recall right, spending half a year leafing through a 3-inch thick calculus book wasn’t exactly one of my most exciting of life’s experiences.
But between that and a 1 cm thick Spider Man graphic novel, I’d say in hindsight that mastering the more boring topic served me a lot more productively than the latter.
Some food for thought, dude. 😀
I read the lips of Joker Arroyo murmuring the name “tony abaya.” Then in a pleading voice, he asked Jun, who called you?
At that precise moment, I almost fell on my chair laughing at the surprise of Joker Arroyo. A moment before, he was this guy bravely grilling Jun but when Jun surprise him about his wife, Joker was visibly shocked.
Sabi ko, beh buti nga sa yo, Joker. His harassing stance on Jun Lozada moments later was a way to save face.
Devils, it would help if you’d clarify any similarities and differences between Pol Pot’s own Year Zero.
“Really? I guess Nick Joaquin skipped San Francisco (especially at 6am) or New York City or London, where the subways and commuter lines are packed at 7am.”
========================================================
Still its very rare he to start working at 7 am start . School start t 8 Am Office and construction work usually start at 9 am. It is al very difficult to ask soem on for overtime aftr 5 pm.
You can do both of these things :
and
Duckvader pwedeng pass na lang sa question mo,daming namang proponents dito ng iba’t ibang klase ng revolution.
at least kung meron man revolution,we won’t ask or demand for it,it will just happen.
and between bloody and peaceful,sana peaceful naman.
sorry,duckvader pang miss universe ang sagot ko.
DevilsAdvc8:
“how many then will agree with me that year-zero is the only way to extricate ourselves from this cycle?”
—————–
You mean it’s starting to feel like the last act in a Clint Eastwood movie?
My friends and I used to sit around the Betamax (I’m that old) and everyone would fiddle around, and watch distractedly, until the last 30 minutes when everyone would gather around and say: “Barilan na.”
No, I disagree.
rego – it was done just to debunk the brilliant conclusion that Benign0 was trying to imply from Joaquin’s flawed anecdotal evidence. I even have a friend who’s from a farming town in Minnesota and he tells me his father was up 4:30 am to milk the cow. The point Benign0 was trying to make, but using a flawed observation of Joaquin’s (and ultimately belittles a whole range of other factors) is that productivity matters a lot. No one doubts that, but to make the point, he has to, of course, belittle Filipinos with a flawed observation.
But yes, people do come in at different times depending on circumstances, but these cities are not dead at 7 in the morning.
KG – no problem. siyempre blog board lang to so discuss at your own pace. Pero I don’t know if my anecdotes are flawed, pero I did sense when meeting with a large group of friends jsut a few weeks ago — and these are all people with post-graduate degrees and upper middle class — that there was a sense of a need for a systemic and disruptive change in our society.
As I said in one post: “Barilan na” ba?
to DevilsAdvc8… and even if your year-zero is PolPot style or Mugabe style or Fidel-Castro-style or Hitler-style or after you describe what you mean it to be, I disagree if you say that you know of the only way to extricate the country from this cycle.
Duckvader: Are you suggesting that benign0 is sometimes lacking in communications skills? 😉
Duck, I tend to agree with Nick Jaquoin or Benigno for that matter though. Weird, becuase I dont undertand exactly why. All I know is that I hate it when I have to work overtime or in the weekends for additional money when I can see these causcasian or other people not working hard as much but seems to be more fianancially prosperous. There are times too na nakapanlliliit sa sarili lalo na sa mga pag puti customer. Kaya lately I dont work overtime or during weeksned as much as possible . I do work overtime sa bahay doing drawing and office works but not in full view of other races as much as possible
BTW baka nman yung frine dng Kaibigan mong farmer eh gumising nga at 4:30pm then stop working at 2:30. That mean 8 hers work pa rin sya. I doubt if he will
and I believe too that working for 8 hours leads to a more balcne and productive life.