The Philippines’ failed nuclear experiment

Links: Have you ever played a Cambodian chess? Tips for trekking in Laos. Thailand’s bank notes. Internat game Miss Bimbo is popular in Brunei.

Southeast Asia: Alternative sources of energy, a roundup for Global Voices. Thanks Manolo for the link.

Nuclear power is not necessarily evil and dangerous. It currently provides 15 percent of the world’s electricity. Scientists have been working hard to reduce the usual risks associated with nuclear energy. Unless new sources of energy are discovered, the world should consider the nuclear option as one of the solutions to the energy woes of many countries.

Environmentalists remind us that the problem of nuclear waste disposal has not been solved. This is a valid warning. Scientists must find ways to eliminate the dangers posed by radioactive emissions.

Meanwhile, many countries which are burdened by rising oil prices are now studying the option of tapping nuclear power for their energy needs. For example, Malaysia has set up a nuclear monitoring laboratory to allow scientists to assess the safety of atomic energy. The government believes it will take about 15 years to build a nuclear plant.

Indonesia is planning to build four nuclear power plants in the next two decades. The first of these plants will start operation on 2016 in Central Java on the slopes of Mount Muria. A new law was approved in Vietnam which allows the use of nuclear energy. Construction of a four-turbine nuclear power plant will start in 2015 and be completed in 2025. By this time, nuclear power is expected to account for 10 percent of Vietnam’s total electricity supply.

Global warming is another reason why many governments are suddenly keen on using nuclear energy. Thailand justifies its proposal to build a nuclear plant by pointing out that 60 percent of the greenhouse gases generated by the country come from the energy sector. Nuclear energy is seen by some leaders as the most economic and environmentally friendly option in confronting climate change while addressing the energy requirements of developing countries.

It seems many governments in Southeast Asia are determined to use nuclear power in the near future. They are advised to review their plans carefully and learn from the experience of the Philippines, which constructed a nuclear plant 30 years ago but failed to generate electricity from that source.

During the first oil price shock in the early 1970s, the Philippine government decided to build a nuclear plant. The opposition claimed it was a knee-jerk reaction to the oil crisis. There were cheaper sources of energy at that time, like hydropower and geothermal energy. But others insisted the project proved the sincerity of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, who had earlier vowed to make the country an industrial hub in the region.

The nuclear plant was the costliest venture in the Philippines. More than US$2 billion worth of foreign loans were spent to build the plant but it didn’t generate a single watt of electricity. It remains the biggest white elephant in the country’s history. It has become a symbol of corruption and crony capitalism in the Philippines.

From the very beginning, the nuclear plant undertaking was politicized. Marcos awarded the project to a losing bidder. Marcos’ cronies bagged several subcontracts for the project. The cost of the plant was overpriced due to several commissions – read bribes – given to high-ranking Filipino politicians.

It usually takes six years to study the safety of a nuclear plant. In 1978 the Philippine nuclear plant was visited by one expert for two weeks. In 1992 the government sent a three-man panel to inspect the site for one week. In both instances, the experts concluded that the nuclear plant was safe to operate.

An independent inspection conducted by several technical experts disagreed with the findings of the government-commissioned reports. Filipino scientists discovered that the reactor had 200 defects. Safety issues were raised by the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission about the damaged containment structure, unshielded electric cables and faulty steam generator. In 1990 another independent study pointed out the structural weaknesses of the plant. The report mentioned the deficiencies in the component cooling system, quality assurance program, and emergency power system.

The design of the nuclear plant was also not applicable for the Philippines. The plant builder adopted Yugoslavia’s Krsko plant as the model for its project in the Philippines. But the two countries have different weather and geographical conditions. The same design for ventilation and cooling cannot be used for both sites.

The site of the Philippine nuclear plant was not chosen wisely. The location was only nine kilometers away from an active volcano. It was also within 25 miles of three geologic faults. The Philippines is located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, which means volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are common in the country.

When Marcos was ousted from power in 1986, the nuclear plant was not yet finished. The succeeding government mothballed the plant because of strong local opposition.

The failure of the Philippines in its attempt to use nuclear energy can be traced to corruption. The nuclear plant, if designed and constructed properly, could have been used to avert a power blackout in the 1980s. The power crisis not only plunged the whole country into darkness, it crippled the local economy, especially the manufacturing sector.

There is a proposal to revive the nuclear plant in light of skyrocketing oil prices. But environmentalists, activists, economists and even some scientists are opposing it. They believe it is too expensive and risky. It will take some time, perhaps a long time, before debates on the use of nuclear power can proceed without mentioning the Philippines’ painful experience to build a nuclear plant three decades ago.

Southeast Asian governments should not repeat the mistakes committed by the Philippine government. As much as possible, the role of elected politicians in overseeing the construction of energy infrastructure must be minimized. Public experts must strive to be more independent. The project must be transparent by involving people’s organizations in the process.

Related entries:

Oil alternatives
Remove Evat on oil
Transport strike

Eat your pork there*

Interesting link: Tweetwheel. I use Tweetscan when I’m searching for certain tweets in Twitter.

The House of Representatives has published a pamphlet entitled "Understanding the Pork Barrel," in order to make the people appreciate the pork barrel system. This move is reasonable since ordinary Filipinos are equating the pork barrel with corruption.

According to the website of the Lower House, the pamphlet will be distributed to various business organizations, non-government organizations, tri-media agencies and other sectors to help the public better understand the pork barrel. The pamphlet is also proposed as part of the required reading material in schools.

The primer is a good reference to learn the legal and historical basis of the pork barrel. But it will achieve little in making the people appreciate the controversial system.

The authors of the primer are Speaker Prospero C. Nograles and Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman. It is peculiar that they cited Wikipedia as one of the sources of the document. Is this unprecedented in Philippine legislative history?

The authors correctly mentioned that the pork barrel system was an original American legacy. Since the mid-1800s, American politicians have been dependent on the pork barrel. Like the Filipinos, Americans have a low regard for the pork barrel.

Nograles and Lagman forgot to cite any document defending the pork barrel system in the United States. But they mentioned several criticisms of the pork barrel. For example, they quoted Brian Kelly who wrote the book “Adventures in Porkland” in 1993: "Pork is the politics of self-interest, and – let’s be realistic about this – it’s human nature. Pork is a free lunch. It’s spending other people’s money. It’s check without balances, school without teachers, highways without traffic cops, law without prisons.”

The primer points out that the use of pork barrel funds in the Philippines dates back to the 1930s during the U.S. colonial occupation. The pork barrel system was continued even after the independence of the country in 1946. During Martial Law, pork barrel distribution was dictated by former President Ferdinand Marcos. Pork barrel became synonymous to cronyism.

After the EDSA revolution, Congress imposed “definitive parameters, equal apportionments, built-in accountability and clear transparency” to democratize the pork barrel system.

In 1989 the Mindanao Development Fund and Visayas Development Fund were created. But Senators and politicians from Luzon also clamored for a similar privilege. Thus, the Countrywide Development Fund was established in 1990. A decade later it was renamed as Priority Development Assistance Fund. For many people today, it is still simply known as pork barrel.

Today each member of the House of Representatives is entitled to P70 Million PDAF while senators are entitled to P200 Million PDAF allocation each. Lawmakers can choose between “soft” and “hard” projects.

Soft projects are basically “non-infrastructure projects like scholarship programs, medical assistance to indigent patients in government hospitals, livelihood support programs, the purchase of IT equipment and financial assistance to local governments for the latter’s priority projects and programs.”

The primer explains that the PDAF can also be used to fund small infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, footbridges, pathways, multipurpose buildings, school buildings, potable water systems, flood control, drainage systems, irrigation facilities and electrification projects.

According to Nograles and Lagman, there is nothing dishonest in the pork barrel system. They wrote that "Members of Congress neither handle the funds nor implement the projects. Their authority is limited to the identification of projects and designation of beneficiaries, subject to a specific menu. The implementation is undertaken by the appropriate government agency after an open public bidding."

Pork barrel projects are governed by “a requirement of utility and relevance, stringent procurement and public bidding procedures, accountable implementing agencies and mandatory post-audit review by the Commission on Audit.”

Nograles and Lagman stressed that the power of the purse is constitutionally vested in the House of Representatives. They added that even the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the pork barrel. The Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that:

“The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project.”

Nograles and Lagman exaggerated when they argued that “Scrapping these allocations would mean more indigent patients not getting free medical assistance, more students deprived of scholarships, more rural folk denied of livelihood support, more people without potable water and electricity, more farmers without irrigation facilities and more unemployed because of fewer infrastructure projects.” Does this mean that all government agencies are non-performing? Delivery of social and economic services is now the main duty of Congress?

Reacting to the aggressive image-enhancing measures of the Lower House, award-winning Naga Mayor Jesse Robredo said these “hardly scrape the bottom of the rot that goes in the implementation of most projects funded by the pork.”

He added: “It might have gone unnoticed. But it is not uncommon that a new District Engineer usually takes over after a new Congressman assumes his post. The District Engineer, who owes his appointment to the Congressman, is now of course hostage to the biddings of his real boss. What follows are rigged biddings, bloated estimates, favored contractors and a patronage laden payroll.”

He dared Speaker Nograles: “If he is truly interested in refurbishing the image of the House, he may want to consider doing more than just issuing press releases. He can do what no other Speaker has done. He will tell his colleagues in the House to lay off their hands in the implementation of their pork-funded public works projects.”

Abolishing the pork barrel has been proposed before. Ofcourse it was not seriously tackled by Congress. A few senators like Sen. Panfilo Lacson and Sen. Miriam Santiago are not using their pork barrel funds. The opposition clarifies that unused pork barrel funds are diverted to the national treasury which can be tapped by the Office of the President. Therefore, they said it is not wise to give more funds to the “corrupt president.”

Nograles and Lagman failed to highlight the key role of the president in distributing pork barrel funds. The president can always withhold the release of pork barrel funds of Congress. It is his/her most effective weapon to buy the loyalty of lawmakers.

The people will appreciate the pork barrel if they see tangible social and economic benefits from the use of these funds. Right now, lawmakers are using these funds to build waiting sheds, basketball courts, greeting streamers, street signs, and ofcourse, mansions, vacation houses and beach resorts.

There is nothing wrong with pork barrel. Robredo notes that “The fault lies not in the pork but in the manner that it is programmed, dispensed, and disbursed.”

Perhaps progressive partylist solons should release a primer to teach their colleagues about responsible, efficient and patriotic use of pork barrel funds.

*Heidegger’s “Mange ton Dasein!” – Eat your being there!

Related entries:

Queen of house
Interview with Solons
Sons and politicians
Sona and Ramos
Vanity politics

Reformist speaker?

BBC-Radio interviewed me about the food crisis and its impact on the Philippines. The interviewer said he is reading my blog. CNN’s Larry King Live emailed me about the articles I wrote on Cyclone Nargis. My reaction to the so-called Young Turks: Bright versus Spice. Tweet Clouds is amusing.

Speaker Prospero C. Nograles is an influential politician in Davao City. He gained national prominence (or notoriety?) when he served as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives in 2004. He made history when he became the first elected Speaker from Mindanao early this year.

His election as Speaker was very controversial. He had to “betray” his political patron, Rep. Jose de Venecia, in order to clinch the support of the ruling coalition. He was perceived to be a stooge of Malacanang. After his victory, critics condemned the continued subservience of the House to the personal agenda of President Gloria Arroyo.

Today Speaker Nograles is still known as a loyal ally of the president. The House is still regarded as a rubber stamp of Malacanang. But the efforts of Speaker Nograles to “reinvent” the House are recognized and appreciated by many groups and individuals. The Speaker’s proposed solutions to some of the country’s problems are innovative (corporate farming), bold (moratorium on land conversions) and sensible (Mindanao Railway System).

It is curious that among the initial acts of the new Speaker was to create a four-man "management team" to implement various image-building projects for the House of Representatives. The team is composed of Virgilio Bugaoisan, a veteran in election-related media campaigns; Reggie Velasco, Secretary-General of Kampi; Ed Malay, spokesman of former President Fidel V. Ramos and Bong Serrano, political officer of Lakas-CMD. It seems the Speaker really wants to overhaul the negative image of the House.

Speaker Nograles bared his program by criticizing the performance of the previous House leadership. Somehow he blamed De Venecia for the low public trust rating of the House. He said in a speech:

"The House leadership is taking steps so that the people may know what their representatives, and not just their Speaker, are doing for them – or to them. This will be a House with no secrets. No secrets payrolls, no secret deals, no secret votes. There will be no more discrimination in the House, whether a member is a member of the majority, or of the minority. The mandate of the new leadership is even clearer. The House wants to work even more and better than in the past. The House wants to work, looking exclusively to the national interest and without looking out for 2010. That is the big difference between the House today and the House before the leadership changed. A Speaker should be seen more often than heard. He is not around to impose his agenda but to move along the agenda of the House.”

Speaker Nograles also took steps to make the people understand the pork barrel system. He published a pamphlet about the legal basis and economic benefits of the pork barrel. This pamphlet will be distributed in schools and communities. The Speaker also mobilized House members to conduct public meetings “to openly explain where their pork barrel funds go.”

Speaker Nograles has also vowed to promote full transparency in the House and transform the institution into a "true house of the people." The Speaker announced that a new website will be created which will contain the details of every congressman’s countrywide development fund. Weekly public tour for students, local officials, and tourists in coordination with the Department of Tourism will be organized. The schedules of committee hearings will be also published in newspapers. The House Journal will be transcribed into readable form so that the public will be encouraged to contribute in the legislation process. The proposal for live television coverage of the plenary proceedings has been revived to discourage absenteeism among House members. Finally, nationwide regional consultations were conceived “to bring the House of Representatives directly to the people.”

The Speaker’s social reform agenda focuses on “protecting the environment, people’s cultural diversity, health, and promoting mobility to ensure a globally competitive and productive manpower.” The Speaker also wants to make Mindanao the new food basket of the Philippines. Among the priority social reform measures are the following:

1. Creation of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos;
2. Land Administration Reform;
3. Repeal of the Agri-Agra Law;
4. Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Management Act;
5. Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act;
6. Amendments to the GASTPE Law; and
7. Creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This summer period, the Speaker said the House will prioritize discussions on the Baselines Bill, Cheaper Medicines Act, tax exemption, agrarian reform extension, corporate farming and anti-hoarding, The Speaker also said the House plans to approve the following measures before June 30:

1. The omnibus proposals to strengthen the Political Parties;
2. The proposal to amend the EPIRA Law;
3. The proposed Access to Information Act
4. The proposed amendments to the Overseas Absentee Voting Act;
5. The amendments to the Cooperative Code of the Philippines;
6. The proposed Magna Carta for Agricultural Development Workers;
7. The proposal to establish the Career Executive System; and
8. The proposal to Establish Personal Equity and Retirement Account or PERA

Also on the agenda for approval are the following proposals:

1. The creation of the Department of Information and Communications Technology;
2. The Sustainable Forest Management Bill;
3. The proposal for Additional Retirement Benefits for the members of the Judiciary;
4. The proposal to grant Special Allowance to Judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Shariah Courts;
5. Compensation for Human Rights Victims;
6. The proposal to grant Old-Age pension for life for senior citizens; and
7. The transfer of Philippine Coast Guard to the Department of Transportation and Communications.

Despite the seemingly pro-people platform of the new House leadership, Speaker Nograles has not veered away from the legislative agenda of President Arroyo. Speaker Nograles remains a reliable ally of Malacanang. He praised the Supreme Court decision on the doctrine of executive privilege which clipped the oversight functions of Congress. He supported the Malacanang-backed proposal to hold public hearings on high power rates which was seen by many as an act of harassment against the Lopez family which owns Meralco and the highly critical ABS-CBN media group. The House is still the House of Gloria, not House of the People.

Speaker Nograles should continue the reform measures which he has already implemented. But he should remember that improving the image of the House is not a simple task. Websites, tours, brochures, grassroots consultations and image management teams are not enough. It is not difficult to explain the high public trust ratings of senators. The senate as an institution has shown its independence from Malacanang by investigating anomalies in the executive department.

If Speaker Nograles wants the people to appreciate the pork barrel, the best thing to do is to remind House members not to use public funds for personal enrichment. Speaker Nograles should punish lawmakers who use the pork barrel for illegal and unethical uses.

In short, there is nothing mysterious in reinventing the House. Follow the Constitution. Serve the people. Promote good governance. Strive to be independent from Malacanang.

The credibility of Speaker Nograles will be tested in the next few months. An impeachment case might be filed again against the president. Charter Change or the Federalism proposal will be tackled soon. Speaker Nograles should not derail the impeachment process. He should not endorse the ChaCha that will extend the term limits of incumbent elected politicians.

What will happen to the public hearings on high energy rates? Will there be a House investigation on corruption cases involving the president?

Related entries:

Brokeback politics
Con-ass
Interview with solons

Festivals and politics

To know more about Kadayawan and Panagbenga, visit Davao Today or Northern Dispatch.

The government has been promoting the Philippines as an exotic tourist destination by highlighting the numerous festivals celebrated in the provinces. There is nothing wrong with this approach. After all, tourism creates jobs and other livelihood opportunities. It can bring substantial investments in the countryside. But profit should not be the only goal of tourism. Respect of local traditions should be highlighted as well.

Over the past years, cultural festivals have been commercialized. Local traditions have been infused with a modern twist to attract and entertain more tourists. This is bastardization of culture. Bureaucrats are now more concerned with the marketability of festivals. Last month, the Department of Tourism conducted a seminar workshop on festival management in Region 8 in order to teach Samarenos the “correct way” of celebrating their own local traditions.

Merrymaking is overemphasized which prevents many people from appreciating the histories of festivals. For example, Flores de Mayo is celebrated every month of May. It is a procession honoring the Virgin Mary. The Santacruzan re-enacts the search of Queen Elena for the cross upon which Jesus Christ was crucified. Today it is reduced into a simple parade of beautiful ladies in many parts of the country.

The Obando Festival is popular among couples who want to bear children. Originally, it was a festival which involved different dance rituals honoring three patron saints: St. Paschal, St. Claire and Our Lady of Salambaw – the patroness of fishermen.

The Ati-Atihan and Dinagyang festivals are celebrated to honor the Infant Jesus. But showbiz stars are grabbing the limelight when they organize shows during these events.

The annual Kadayawan Festival celebrates the good harvest of crops, vegetables, fruits and orchids in Davao City. But Kadayawan used to showcase the Lumad culture of Mindanao. Tribal leaders are complaining that Kadayawan festivities “hardly depict the struggle of Mindanao’s indigenous peoples to pursue their unique way of life and retain control of their ancestral lands.” Even Davao City officials admit that Kadayawan had “lost track of its indigenous beginnings and has turned commercial and too tourist-oriented.”

The Baguio Flower Festival or Panagbenga is celebrated at the time of the year when plants start blossoming in the Cordillera region. Panagbenga was conceived in 1995 to symbolize Baguio’s comeback after the July 16, 1990 earthquake. But Cordillera activists note that over the years, the festival “has destroyed the real essence of the Cordillera peoples’ ethnic culture.” They added that Panagbenga has been reduced “as a profit-driven tourism event capitalizing on the culture of the Cordillera indigenous peoples.”

Even politicians have used the Panagbenga to campaign during elections. Remember the senatoriable who joined the parade by riding on a horse? How about the politician who performed a Cordillera dance ritual to the tune of Boom Tarat Tarat?

Many people have already forgotten the reasons why festivals are organized. The Concerned Artists of the Philippines said “Fiestas are originally celebrations for a good harvest and pleas for a bountiful next. These are community affairs that affirm and reinforce the spirit of bayanihan or collectivity.”

The Pahiyas Festival in Lucban and Sariaya, Quezon is a thanksgiving festival to San Isidro Labrador for the past year’s bountiful harvest. The event is popular for the hanging of fruits and vegetables in the houses of residents. The Tinagba Festival in Iloilo City is a harvest-offering activity for Our Lady of Lourdes. Farmers organize a parade using carabao-drawn carts filled with agricultural products while Agtas come down from the mountains to dance.

Festivals also remind us of our colorful past. Cotabato City commemorates the arrival of Shariff Kabunsuan and Islam to Mindanao every December. Binabayani Festival re-enacts the war between the Aetas and the Christians through dance in Olongapo. Sanduguan Festival recaps the first contact between the inhabitants of Mindoro and traders from China. Halaran pays tribute to the history and culture of Capizeños during pre-Hispanic times. Balanghai Festival in Butuan highlights the coming of the early migrants from Borneo and Celebes.

Festivals should showcase the richness of Filipino culture. They celebrate the yearning of Filipinos for a more prosperous living. They depict the people’s struggles to overcome the difficulties of life. Sadly, festivals today are celebrated to make the tourists happy. Profit comes first before culture. Festivities lose their cultural and social relevance as commercialization rears its ugly head. In short, festivals become “organized spectacles.”

Festivals are celebrated “with a sense of surface glitter and transitory participatory pleasure, of display and ephemerality.” They reflect what cultural theorist Fredric Jameson calls the “contrived depthlessness” of modern cultural production. In some way, the Pagoda Festival tragedy in Bocaue, Bulacan during the 1990s symbolically foretold the cultural decline in the Philippines.

Festivals are considered by the government as peaceful, politically-neutral and exotic tourist attractions. But festivals can also be “an essential aspect of a revolutionary movement.” Didn’t Lenin refer to the revolution as the “festival of people?”

Organizing festivals today can radicalize certain segments of the population. What if farmers realized there is no bountiful harvest to celebrate because of the bad agricultural policies of the government? What if the Bicol Food Festival in Naga encouraged the people to ask policymakers to do something about rising food prices? The Baguio Flower Festival could be used to highlight the insane policy of promoting cash crops instead of food production.

The rice and food crisis have provoked food riots in many countries. The government believes no such thing can ever happen in the Philippines. On the other hand, festival protests are distinct possibilities.

Related entries:

Month of May
Tudaya falls
ARMM and the Ampatuans
Politics is local

Population debate

Thanks Tharum and May for referring some of the blogs which I cited in this post – Southeast Asia: Food and Rice price crisis. Check out the new blogs and websites in the Mongster Links section.

The global food price crisis has revived the population debate in the Philippines. Analysts insist the high population growth rate of the Philippines is not sustainable. Food production may be increasing over the years but the number of Filipinos is increasing at a faster rate. Today, the Philippine population is around 90 million.

Policymakers are beginning to realize the importance of providing family planning supplies to poor Filipinos. The government has recently approved the release of additional funds for this purpose. As expected, the powerful Catholic Church is opposing this program. The church equates artificial family planning with abortion.

A Filipino economist notes there are three contending views in the population debate: the population pessimists, the population optimists, and the population revisionists.

The population pessimists do not want a high population growth. They assert that a high population growth rate adversely impacts all indicators of human development: health, education, food security, shelter, employment and environment. They also believe that a high fertility rate also impacts negatively on economic growth. High consumption of families retards savings and increases government expenditures. In short, rapid population growth aggravates and even abets inequality.

The population optimists think that population is the ultimate resource. They point out that high population growth brings tremendous possibilities for technical change since the rate of return in the economy is larger. There are more entrepreneurs, more creators, and more innovators in the economy. Industries benefit from the stable supply of young workers.

The population revisionists believe population growth may or may not be detrimental to economic and human development. High population generates different impact on societies. It depends on time, place and circumstances.

These contending views have influenced government policies over the years. But it is the church which has exercised the greatest power in manipulating the government’s population control program. Church intervention has distorted and weakened the capability of the government to manage the country’s population.

The government’s population policies are inadequate. They contain weak measures to deal with high fertility rates. The programs are couched in vague language in order not to provoke the opposition of the Catholic Bishops.

The Philippine Population Act was enacted in 1971. The Commission on Population was eventually established. A special committee recommended that fertility or family planning policies should be formulated within the context of the family welfare objective.

During the 1980s the right of couples to determine the number of children was emphasized and family planning was packaged as a health intervention. During the early 1990s the link between rapid population growth and poverty was recognized. The family planning function was devolved to local governments.

A decade ago population growth reduction focused on unmet family planning needs. The principle of contraceptive self-reliance was adopted. For the first time, the government allocated subsidies for the purchase of contraceptives.

The current administration recognizes family planning as a component of women’s health and as a means to achieve the fertility desires of couples. Four pillars of population policy were identified: responsible parenthood, respect for life, birth spacing and informed choice.

In the last three decades the church has succeeded in preventing the government from completely endorsing artificial family planning methods. The church has used its clout to dilute the government’s population programs.

During public hearings in Congress, officials of the Commission on Population rejected a population control bill, since according to them the government is only supporting the natural family planning method. Even Philippine President Gloria Arroyo has ordered the Department of Health to stop procuring artificial family planning commodities.

This has led to disastrous consequences. Condoms and pills were removed from many health centers. Poor women are washing used condoms since the free family planning supplies are no longer available.

An administration lawmaker is irked by the government’s insistence on relying solely on the natural family planning method. He said, "For so many poor and uneducated couples, learning the natural family planning method as the only means of family planning is too difficult, cumbersome and needs much discipline and spirituality. Many are not able to make it. The poor are already deprived of so many things. And to deprive them of lovemaking when they spontaneously feel like doing so is to make their lives even more miserable."

Perhaps sensing the futility of convincing lawmakers about the need to pass a national law on population control, some NGOs have directed their lobbying efforts toward local governments.

NGOs are reminding local officials about how population dynamics plays an important role in provincial income growth. They cite studies which show that provinces with a high proportion of young dependents have a high level of poverty.

The traditional thinking is that lower population growth can decrease the tax earnings of local governments. But this can be offset by higher per capita income. Provinces with lower population growth have a higher budget surplus. This means local governments can manage population growth and still be assured of benefits in terms of budget surpluses which can be plowed back into social and economic programs.

Meanwhile, the church and its allies are still exerting strong pressure to prevent national and local politicians from implementing artificial family planning programs. They are also gaining support in their persuasive argument that poverty in the Philippines is caused by corruption and not by overpopulation.

They are also accusing the West of undermining the sovereignty of poor countries by forcing governments to impose population control measures. This accusation is not without basis. According to an article written by Joseph Brewda for the Executive Intelligence Review, the U.S. National Security Council completed a classified study in 1974 which claimed that population growth in poor countries was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Brewda added that the study outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in poor countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine.

The study paid special attention to 13 countries in which the U.S. has a special political and strategic interest, namely: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

The population debate in the Philippines will continue to divide the country. Right now, the population optimists have the upper hand in the government. Things may change once the Philippine population reaches 100 million in the next few years.

Related entries:

Overpopulated Philippines
Church and politics
Sex and youth
Women agenda

Philippine human rights report inaccurate

Olympic torch relay in Southeast Asia, my blog roundup for Global Voices. Have you read this section of the Antonio Zumel Center for Press Freedom?

The Universal Periodic Review is an innovation established by the United Nations to assess the fulfillment of human rights obligations by all U.N. member states. Early this month, the Philippines participated in such a review.

The Philippine government claimed that members of the U.N. Human Rights Council applauded the report of the Philippines. But reviewing the proceedings of the UPR reveals that this boast is not entirely accurate. The official report of the Philippine government is also full of inconsistencies and unfounded assertions. In short the Philippine government lied to convince the international community that it is doing everything to improve the human rights situation in the country.

The Philippine government reported that it held two national consultations to draft the UPR report. But civil society groups are unaware of these meetings. Recommendations of NGOs were also not integrated into the report.

The head of the Philippine delegation to the UPR highlighted the five major points of the Philippine government’s current human rights policy:

1) The creation and strengthening of institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights;

2) The improvement of its human rights record, through strengthening institutions, mainstreaming human rights and improving human rights education;

3) The pursuit of good governance, in accordance with the principle of a rights-based approach to development;

4) Human rights advocacy and programs responding to the demands of vulnerable sectors; and

5) Human rights promotion and protection during the current peace processes.

These are motherhood statements. These policies should be compared to the actual achievements of the government. Human rights violations have persisted in the Philippines despite the official pronouncement of President Gloria Arroyo that her government is respecting the rights of the Filipino people.

Reacting to the presentation of the Philippine government, human rights advocates said they were "outraged by the unrepentant and self-delusional claims by the government of its human rights record before the international community." An activist lawmaker described the report as a "self-serving, selective and totally one-sided depiction of the Philippine human rights situation."

The government stressed that the Philippines is one of the first states to have ratified all of the seven core international human rights treaties. This is correct but not enough proof to assert that human rights are promoted and protected in the country. There may be enough laws, administrative orders and programs to prevent human rights abuses but most of these legal instruments are not implemented properly.

During the review process, the Philippine government argued that it has adopted several mechanisms to promote the welfare of street children, women, child soldiers, migrants, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable sectors of Philippine society. But most of these are token measures which are only good on paper.

For example, the rise in the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines provoked an international backlash in 2006. This forced the government to institute several special bodies to investigate and help reduce human rights violations. But the killings continued and high-ranking soldiers accused of committing the crimes were not prosecuted.

Technically speaking, the government did something to minimize human rights abuses. But it was not a sincere effort. It was only meant to ease international and domestic pressure against the government’s repressive policies.

The Philippine government told the local media that its UPR presentation was well-applauded. But activists who attended the UPR session insisted that the applause was initiated and came mostly from the rest of the Filipino bureaucrats who formed part of the Philippine government’s 40-member team.

Forty-one delegations from U.N. member countries made statements during the UPR. The Philippine government interpreted the "constructive dialogue" as praise for the Philippine report. A lawmaker who was able to observe the proceedings said, "The government failed to recognize that 16 countries expressed concern on the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and, in typical diplomatic language used in the U.N., practically told the Philippines it was not doing enough on the matter."

A journal of the U.N. Human Rights Council provides a fair overview of the reaction of different countries to the Philippine presentation. The journal notes that "Several U.N. bodies were concerned about the lack of appropriate measures to deal with crimes allegedly committed by state security forces and agents and the insecurity surrounding journalists, human rights activists, and the overly vague new Human Security Act."

Additional concerns were articulated with respect to labor rights, pollution, increased food insecurity, housing crises, the abortion prohibition and high maternal mortality ratio, health policy, and discrimination against indigenous peoples.

The Philippine government failed to address the inquiry of the Netherlands about the legislative proposal to criminalize torture. The Holy See did not get a satisfactory answer to its query on whether the abolition of the death penalty would extend to an abolition of torture.

Canada recommended "that awareness-raising measures be instituted in the security forces regarding their obligations to protect the population." Canada made this suggestion after France and Switzerland expressed concern that there had been few convictions regarding the issue of extrajudicial killings.

The Philippine government claimed that its UPR report was comprehensive and transparent. But why were many countries asking for more information, elaboration of details, and additional reports on key human rights issues like torture, poverty-reduction measures and killings? Other delegates were able to recognize that the Philippine government failed to give a balanced picture of the human rights situation in the Philippines.

The U.N. Human Rights Council will issue a final report in June. There is enough time for human rights advocates to lobby and pressure U.N. member states about the urgent need to protect, promote and respect human rights in the Philippines. The Philippine government should be made accountable for abetting human rights abuses against the Filipino people. The Philippine government is unworthy of a seat in the U.N. Human Rights Council.

PS: Galit talaga ako sa hinayupak na Ermita na yan. Sisihin ba naman ang mga bagyo kung bakit di daw tuluy-tuloy ang pag-unlad sa Pilipinas. May office of Ombudsman kaya ginagawa naman daw ang lahat upang sugpuin ang korupsiyon. Tama si Ka Teddy Casino, it is "chutzpah of the highest degree."

Related entries:

I see terrorists
defending human rights
Anti-terror law
Human rights and ASEAN

Marcos-Arroyo

Announcement: I started assuming a new role in the Global Voices network. I am now the regional editor of the Southeast Asian region. Thanks Preetam for recruiting me to write for Global Voices. For new readers, I started writing for Global Voices in 2006.

It is common nowadays to compare President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to former President Ferdinand Marcos. The opposition is fond of reminding the public about Arroyo’s marcosian traits to further malign the president. Indeed, the similarities between the two leaders are very striking.

Both are scholastic achievers. They topped the senate race. They were young when they assumed the presidency. They both have controversial spouses. They have children who are active in politics and they have daughters who are known for shying away from the political limelight. They also claimed that they were already rich even before joining the government. Marcos insisted he was the discoverer of some Japanese treasure loot while Arroyo is married to a scion of a very rich family. The Tuason-Arroyos were the landlords of the Marikina-Katipunan hacienda during the Spanish colonial era.

Unlike their predecessors, Marcos and Arroyo managed to get reelected. But they were accused of rigging the election results. They have very low public trust ratings.

Marcos and Arroyo undermined the independence of Congress. They neutralized the Church. They pampered the loyal generals. Marcos envisioned a New Society while Arroyo promised to build a Strong Republic. Marcos co-opted the Supreme Court Justices. Arroyo seems poised to accomplish this too.

Marcos was hounded by a sex scandal when an audio recording which featured him and American actress Dovie Beams was released to the public. Arroyo is alleged to be the frequent caller of an elections officer whose phone conversations were illegally recorded during the 2004 polls.

Marcos was the epitome of a corrupt head of state. He was accused of plundering the nation’s wealth. He owned secret bank accounts and real estate properties in different parts of the world. Arroyo is perceived to be as corrupt as Marcos. Her family is accused of being involved in numerous scandal-ridden contracts. Marcos and Arroyo have business friends who bagged money-making government projects.

Marcos and Arroyo inflamed the communist and moro insurgencies in the country. Human rights violations became rampant during their long rule. Rally dispersals were frequent. Critical journalists were harassed and censored. Political dissenters were detained. Marcos declared Martial Law while Arroyo proclaimed a State of National Emergency. Marcos was THE dictator while Arroyo is the “tin pot” dictator.

They both endorsed a labor-export policy which permanently altered the notion of a traditional Filipino family. They both became dependent on foreign borrowing to sustain the economy. Marcos disallowed the gathering of unemployment figures to deodorize the country’s economic data. Arroyo persuaded the Labor department to redefine unemployment to artificially reduce the number of unemployed persons in the country. Marcos and Arroyo claimed the national economy was improving but only few believed them. In fact, poverty worsened during their watch.

Marcos and Arroyo have weak foreign policies (read: puppets). Marcos sabotaged the Philippine claim to Sabah when the Jabidah Massacre was exposed. Did Arroyo commit treason when she allowed the Chinese government to explore the Kalayaan Island Group?

Marcos replaced the Constitution, appointed himself as Prime Minister and extended his stay in office. Can Arroyo repeat this infamous feat?

This is the usual narrative in highlighting the similarities of the two unpopular and strong-willed leaders. But recently, not a few media commentators have been advancing a revised version of history. They argue that during the early 1980s, the anti-Marcos political groups were too engrossed in the narrow goal of removing Marcos. This, according to them, prevented the public from appreciating the nationalist economic program of Marcos.

Their theory is interesting. Marcos was alleged to have declared independence from American financial institutions during the late 1970s. They said Marcos planned to develop an agro-industrial economy by reviving the country’s basic industries. Marcos wanted to replicate the economic strategies of neighboring Asian countries. But big western banks, in collusion with the old elite of the Philippines, conspired to unseat Marcos to restore the old reliable ruling order.

This theory is gaining ground especially if we note how Marcos’ successor miserably failed to implement a national industrialization strategy to improve the Philippine economy. Instead, the economic prescriptions of IMF-World Bank were blindly accepted. Marcos fans remind us that at least Marcos established power plants, highways, bridges and several infrastructures which benefited the countryside. What did Cory accomplish? Flyovers and 8-hour daily power interruptions?

This is an obvious attempt to resurrect the image of Marcos. The same line of thinking is adopted to manufacture Arroyo’s legacy to the country. They said Arroyo tried to assert a more independent Philippines by strengthening the country’s ties with China. This obviously angered the United States which triggered attempts to weaken the Arroyo presidency. Arroyo fans are proud of the super regions, new highways, airports, and the economic stimulus program. They said Arroyo is right to embark on an ambitious project to make the Philippines a first world nation in the next ten years. They remind us that at least Arroyo has a grand vision for the Philippines. What has the opposition accomplished so far?

The underlying message of this “tasteless defence” of Marcos and Arroyo is this: “True, Marcos and Arroyo committed human rights violations and imposed authoritarian policies, but we should not forget that they did good things like building convention centers and RoRo.”

To borrow some words from European philosopher Slavoj Zizek, comparing the martial law horrors to building roads is a displaced way of praising the human rights violations of Marcos. This is an even stronger defence of Marcos (and Arroyo) albeit in the form of criticism. This is a secret endorsement for the “obscene disavowed underside” (repressive measures, dictatorship) of the Public Law.

Thus, using again the arguments of Zizek, the real message runs this way: “True, Marcos and Arroyo did good things like committing human rights violations and imposing authoritarian policies, but we should not forget that they also did nasty things like building convention centers and RoRo.”

Behind the popular contempt against Marcos and Arroyo is a silent middle-class admiration for these two leaders. After all, Marcos (and Arroyo) embodies the qualifications of an ideal leader of the ruling establishment: educated, refined, conservative in outlook, charismatic and ruthless.

Related entries:

Marcos-Japan
Gloria-Cory
Conjugal dictators

The Spratlys and the Philippine claim

Thank you Frances for providing the relevant documents I used in writing this article….

Six Asian countries claim the Spratly Islands — China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Disputes among these six parties have led to various minor military skirmishes, the detention of fisherfolk and diplomatic rows in the past three decades.

Control of the Spratlys is important since the region is supposed to contain large deposits of oil, gas, hydrocarbon and mineral resources. The islands are also strategically located in the sea lanes for commerce and transport in the South China Sea.

The Spratlys consist of about 26 islands and islets and 7 groups of rocks in the South China Sea found approximately between the latitude of 4 degrees to 11 degrees 30’N. and longitude 109 degrees 30’E. They have a maritime area of 160,000 square kilometers and an insular area of about 170 hectares.

The Spratlys are popular among fishermen. However, they are considered dangerous for commercial navigation. Maps from the early part of the last century have advised seamen to avoid passing through them.

Japan explored the Spratlys for military reasons during World War II. The British Admiralty and U.S. Navy have also ordered some top secret missions there. But the U.S. Navy never released the new charts of the Spratlys to civilian authorities. Writer Francois-Xavier Bonnet wonders about the role of the Spratlys during the Vietnam War.

In 1933 Senator Isabelo delos Reyes protested the French annexation of the Spratlys. A parliamentary committee studied the issue but the U.S. government, which controlled the Philippines at that time, did not take an interest in the matter.

In 1946 Vice President Elpidio Quirino claimed the Spratlys on behalf of the Philippine government. A year later, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs declared that the "New Southern Islands" previously occupied by Japan during World War II were part of Philippine territory.

In 1955 the Philippine military reported that the Spratly island group was of "vital proximity" to the country. The following year, Filipino navigator and businessman Tomas Cloma issued a "proclamation to the whole world" claiming ownership and occupation of the Spratlys. Cloma sent six letters to the government about the need to settle the question of ownership of the islands.

The vice president of the Philippines replied in 1957, assuring Cloma that the government "does not regard with indifference the economic exploitation and settlement of these uninhabited and unoccupied islands by Philippine nationals."

According to Filipino law professor Haydee Yorac, the Cloma Proclamation was the first assertion of title to the Spratlys after Japan renounced its ownership of the islands in 1951 and 1952.

In 1978 President Ferdinand Marcos issued a proclamation declaring ownership of most of the islands in the Spratlys. The area was renamed the Kalayaan (Freedom) Island Group. The proclamation laid the following basis for the Philippine claim: "By virtue of their proximity and as part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago"; that "they do not legally belong to any state or nation, but by reason of history; indispensable need, and effective occupation and control established in accordance with international law"; and while other states have laid claims to some of these areas, their claims have lapsed by abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and equitable ground."

In 1995 President Fidel Ramos articulated the Philippine position regarding the Spratlys issue. He said "I would like to clarify that the Philippines does not only claim eight islands in the Spratlys but owns all islands and waters in the Spratlys as defined in the presidential decree issued by former President Marcos."

Militarization of the Spratlys started in the 1970s. The Philippines sent a military contingent to occupy some of the islands in 1971. After four years, the Philippines had already established a military presence in six islands. Today, the Philippines occupies eight islands in the area.

The Philippine military insists it is ready to protect and assert Philippine sovereignty in the Spratlys at all costs. However, in the mid-1980s Defense Secretary Rafael Ileto publicly recommended that the Philippines should give up its claim to the islands, since it had limited capacity to defend them.

Prospects are dim for international bodies like the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal on the Law and the U.N. Charter to resolve the issue of ownership in the Spratlys. A military solution should be avoided since it would threaten the stability of the region and the world. The best approach should be the forging of bilateral and multilateral agreements among claimants.

Retired Philippine Ambassador Rodolfo A. Arizala has proposed the following options to peacefully settle the Spratlys dispute: Antarctic type of treaty, joint administration and co-imperium or condominium.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 12 countries which agreed to "freeze" their claims on the Antarctic Territories for the duration of the treaty. In the meantime, the claimants vowed to work for the development of new international legal arrangements to settle the dispute and the launching of scientific and cooperative activities in the region.

Co-imperium or condominium refers to joint rights of administration. Condominium, in particular, covers the right to dispose of a territory.

In 2004 the Philippines, Vietnam and China signed the controversial "Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea." The agreement excluded other claimants in the region. The agreement also covered many islands in the Spratlys which are claimed only by the Philippines. Opposition politicians are accusing the Philippine president of having committed treason.

Is the "Joint Undertaking" the proper way to resolve the issue of ownership in the Spratlys? Dialogue among all parties should be continued. Cooperative activities should be pursued. But these approaches should all be done in a transparent manner.

Related entries:

Mao as educator
Velvet revolution
Asean and human rights

Marcos-Japan

How do we remember the past? Which events should be highlighted? Who are the real heroes and villains? Should we always accept the official version of history? Perceptions are changing. Every generation rewrites the story of the past. History is always re-interpreted to serve the needs of the present. Revisiting the past is a potent dose to cure a nation’s trauma. But can we really exorcise the demons of our collective consciousness?

For example, how do we analyze Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law regime? Japan’s invasion during the second world war? What should we tell our children about Marcos and Japan? Should we continue treating Marcos and Japan as the embodiment of excessive/evil governance?

Marcos was a strong leader who had the chance to reform Philippine society but ended up permanently disfiguring the political institutions of the country. He vowed to make the Philippines a great nation but after his long reign, the country had become the ‘sick man of Asia.’

Japan was a trading partner of the Philippines before the start of World War II. Japanese communities were thriving in the country especially in Davao and other parts of Mindanao. Japan’s real motive in coming to the country was revealed when it invaded the Philippines in 1941-45.

Marcos is the epitome of a ruthless dictator. He jailed his enemies, censored the press, terrorized the public and undermined democracy in the country. When critics of President Gloria Arroyo describe her as the “worst human rights violator since Marcos,” they are not only symbolically comparing Arroyo with Marcos. More significantly, they are affirming the popular notion that Marcos is still the most familiar personification of a tyrannical ruler.

Japan’s atrocities during the occupation are legendary. Towns and farm communities were ransacked, Churches were destroyed, women and children were abused, jewelries and other peoples’ possessions were taken away. Japan, despite its avowed benevolent intentions, became the symbolic figure of a despotic colonial power.

Filipinas who were raped by Japanese soldiers were known as “comfort women.” Some are still alive today. More than sixty-years after the crime was committed, the comfort women continue to seek justice. Will this be the same fate of human rights victims who are claimants to the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses? Are they doomed to fail in their agonizing quest for retribution and compensation?

The comfort women and human rights claimants are living proofs of the excesses committed by Japan and Marcos. They are the “ghosts of past generations”; the “undead” which continue to haunt the nation. They tellingly show our failure to heal the wounds of past traumas or to put closure on these issues. The absence of a decisive act which will punish the wrongdoers torments the public in many ways; chief of them is obscuring the other traumatic episodes in the country’s past.

But before I delve further on this matter, I want to discuss another unintended consequence of our failure to come into terms with the past. The comfort women and human rights victims evoke not only painful memories; their continuing existence has also made it possible for Japan and Marcos to positively influence public opinion to some extent.

Crimes were committed in the past. Criminals remain unpunished. The people are angry. But public rage is redirected mainly towards the issues raised by the comfort women and human rights claimants. Public sentiment seems to argue this point: “Respect the right of victims to seek redress but in the meantime, when a final judgment is still suspended, allow the people to renew ties with Japan and the Marcoses; past abuses can be settled amicably in the near future.”

And so we do not forget that Japan and Marcos committed grave abuses in the past. But this kind of remembering no longer stirs a hard resentment against Japan and Marcos. The sad plight of comfort women and human rights victims is recognized but it is relegated as a side issue which allowed us to acknowledge the other legacies of Japan and Marcos.

Isn’t Japan an economic powerhouse providing jobs and aid to poor Filipinos? Isn’t Japan an ideal destination for entertainers, caregivers and domestic helpers? Marcos was a dictator but didn’t he build roads, bridges, convention centers, hospitals and mass housing for the poor? Didn’t he revolutionize farm productivity? Didn’t he discipline Filipinos who do not obey traffic rules and laws?

The irony here is that while our opinion against Marcos and Japan has mellowed over the years, they have remained as the supreme symbols of repressive leadership. Marcos represents the vicious dictator while Japan is the oppressive colonial power. Our fixation over Marcos and Japan, partly made possible by the continuing existence of the comfort women and human rights victims, prevents us from addressing the other traumatic episodes in the past.

Japan invaded the country in less than four years. But Spain subjugated the Philippines for three centuries. The United States pacified the Filipinos during the first few decades of the last century by waging a genocidal war. Before Iraq and Vietnam, there was the Philippines. It is not only Japan which brutally murdered and abused our people. Spain converted us into brown Roman Catholics, the United States taught us to love apples, English and Hollywood, but they also employed indiscriminate violence to achieve their aims.

Marcos was a dictator but we should not assume that the country’s other presidents practiced democracy. Blaming Marcos for all the problems of the country is not correct. It absolves past governments of their accountability for the anti-poor policies they implemented. It hinders us from understanding the dominant political-economic system which is truly responsible for the country’s continuing destituteness.

Highlighting Japan’s invasion and Marcos’ dictatorial regime to explain the backward conditions in the country is necessary to preserve the status quo. The people should not be made to learn the roots of the problem. The people should be taught that the Philippines was a feudal paradise before the second world war and it was the second richest country in Asia during the 1950s-1960s. But Japan invaded and destroyed the Philippines while Marcos stole the country’s wealth. A good script, a useful myth, a very powerful excuse to justify the restoration of the old ruling order.

History should be learned and re-learned. But the more important question should be this: Whose viewpoint of history should we learn?

Related entries:

Aguinaldo-Imelda
Marcos as scapegoat
Conjugal dictators
Return the books
South Korean invasion

Students versus Arroyo

Students have been very active in expressing their disenchantment against the unabated corruption in government. Students are particularly incensed over the national broadband network mess. Many student groups are already calling for the president’s resignation.

There was indignation in 2005 after the release of the ‘Hello Garci’ recording. But protest activities in campuses during that time were not as frequent, big and loud like we are witnessing today.

Pro-government analysts may accuse the ‘naive’ students of being part of the hakot crowd of their teachers and school administrators. But students are thinking young adults. They can always refuse to participate in prayer rallies or noise barrages organized by school officials. Besides, most of the activities in the campaign for truth, accountability and reform are student initiatives. This is important since young people are learning to understand the importance of being politically engaged to improve governance in the country.

Why are students receptive to the campaign against the ‘morally-bankrupt’ Arroyo regime? Why is Arroyo unpopular among student leaders?

Today’s students have little recollection of Arroyo as a reformist politician of the country. Before 2005 Arroyo was perceived by many young people as the ‘people power’ president who is intellectually and morally superior to her predecessor. Arroyo was admired because of her family ties, work ethics, and academic achievements. In fact, she topped the 1995 senate race and was elected as vice president in 1998.

Before 2005 many students could still recall that Arroyo was once a promising and brilliant leader of the country. But today’s college students are too young to remember those days. Students are mostly familiar with Arroyo’s weaknesses as president. Unfortunately, Arroyo is recognized by students as the ‘Hello Garci’ president. Contributing to the unpopularity of Arroyo are the following issues: human rights violations, authoritarian leadership, charter change, deteriorating education, attack on press freedom, withholding the public right to information, undermining the work of Congress and of course corruption. Students are also aware of the extent of poverty and hunger in the country.

Arroyo is now viewed as a typical trapo who will compromise her principles in exchange for political survival. Can we blame students why they seem very interested in joining anti-Arroyo activities?

The youth is accused of being apathetic to social and political issues. Students are beginning to prove their critics wrong. Let them participate in the truth campaign, communal actions and ‘resign Arroyo’ movement. Students will inspire the development of a new brand of people power.

Ideal witness

Jun Lozada is not the first witness who testified against corruption in government. Before Lozada there were other brave individuals who exposed various anomalies in government involving the First Family. But why is Lozada more popular than the other whistleblowers? Why is the public willing to believe the testimony of the ‘probinsiyanong instsik’?

Lozada corroborated the claim of businessman Joey de Venecia that Chairman Ben Abalos was the broker of the broadband deal between the government and Chinese firm ZTE. But Lozada was careful not to implicate the president in the scandal. There is some truth in the assertion of government apologists that Lozada didn’t say anything about the actual role of the president in approving the controversial project.

Former senate witnesses have given more damning testimonies which further eroded the credibility of Arroyo. Some of these witnesses include Sandra Cam, Michaelangelo Zuce, Vidal Doble, Richard Garcia, Udong Mahusay, and Ador Mawanay. But why is Lozada enjoying a superhero status which eluded the ex-whistleblowers?

Perhaps Lozada’s instant stardom is a testament to the mighty power of TV to influence public opinion. Then Lozada’s dramatic appearance in public after he was abducted by state agents stirred public sentiment to his favor.

Lozada believes the truth is protecting him. But there may be another reason why Lozada has become a credible icon of truth-seekers and anti-corruption crusaders. Lozada embodies the ideals and aspirations of the middle class. He was a product of an elite Catholic school, he was a successful executive, he drives a BMW, he plays golf, his children are studying in the right schools, he is religious, he cares for his family and he is an admirer of Jose Rizal. In short, the middle forces and other opinion makers consider him to be “one of us.” Lozada’s personality and politics are acceptable to the moderate forces of society. He is the perfect witness.

No politicians

Many groups protested the appearance of former presidents Cory Aquino and Joseph Estrada at the stage of the big Ayala rally last February 29. According to these groups, the interfaith gathering should not be used as an opportunity for politicians to advance their personal interests. But why is nobody complaining about the attendance of Bro. Eddie Villanueva? He was a former presidentiable, he has a political party and he still has an ambition to be the president someday.

Star witness Jun Lozada does not want to be identified with politicians. His supporters are preventing politicians from sitting beside him during prayer assemblies. But why is Lozada comfortable sitting beside Aquino? Cory is a politician. To argue that she is not a politician is like asserting that Mike Arroyo is just a private citizen. Aquino was a former president, she was one of the pillars of People Power II, and she endorses candidates during elections. She is very much involved in partisan political activities.

Instead of outrightly banning politicians from anti-Arroyo rallies, why not organize a program which will not be dominated by politicians? These politicians, however repulsive their personalities, must be engaged to be part of the movement against corruption in the Arroyo government. Besides, what’s the use of banning the media-hungry politicians when some of the self-appointed civil society groups are behaving worse than the politicians themselves?

Related entries:

Gloria and Cory
Hecklers
Seven years