I’ve always thought it was woman who invented corruption. Chinese pala.
# 26 September 2007 at 12:55 pm
lacierda said:
M,
Pangilinan is correct. Only the President can invoke Executive Privilege. If she allowed Neri to appear before the Senate, then that means Neri must testify to all and sundry conversations with the President.
It must have been tactical for Neri to testify against Abalos but not GMA. But he will find no comfort in invoking executive privilege. Only the President and by extension and authority, the Executive Secretary can so invoke. And it cannot be invoked piece meal precisely because the President has given her approval for her to appear.
The approval itself is suspect but until MO 106 is disapproved, it stands. And having allowed Neri to testify despite the presence of MO 106, Neri could not invoke executive privilege.
# 26 September 2007 at 1:07 pm
tonio said:
so they called Neri in… Malacañang must be telling him to shut up already.
# 26 September 2007 at 1:12 pm
Diego Torres said:
From the gallery, we conclude:
Lawyers for the administration
Sen Miriam – threw squid ink and debased the proceedings and witnesses with her remarks.
Sen Arroyo – made Neri look like a NINCOMPOOP and NEDA, a mere agency that passes the buck to simply get the monkey off its back.But you miss the point , sir Joker, even if it were just 200 pesos offered by Abalos to Neri, that was still a bribery attempt. Whatever happened to you, sir?
The rest of the senators with the exception of just a couple, did not study their homeworks and preferred to shoot their questions – to sound bright -from the morning dailies they may have read.
But the saddest part is: the administration’s gargantuan and conspiratorial effort to lie and protect the liars and their loot. Wow, this is really the pits!
“Pangilinan is correct. Only the President can invoke Executive Privilege. If she allowed Neri to appear before the Senate, then that means Neri must testify to all and sundry conversations with the President.”
Based on this argument, the President shouldn’t allow the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense to ever appear before the Senate or the House? Imagine a stupid Senator or Congressman asking these people about State secrets.
# 26 September 2007 at 1:26 pm
tonio said:
this is the philippines. yun lang.
(i’ll stop now, lest i find benign0 agreeing with me. hahaha)
It is astounding that suppliers to government can meet with cabinet ministers who are after all ‘alter-egos’ of the President, privately to discuss their offers.
No matter what, Abalos is buried deep in shit in acting as fixer on behalf of a supplier and off course the still as unnamed people.
Government procurement in the Philippines is always about buying goods and services with non-transparent standards, shoddy workmanship and incomplete deliveries.
Approving a project without having a basis for comparative costs is a recipe for stealing. Yet NEDA approved the project based on what? The executive department approved a procurement contract without even knowing what the hell they were getting.
The Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary General of NEDA and the Commissioner of Elections Abalos met with suppliers to the government to discuss their proposed offer in private meetings.
We now know that the President of the Republic knew of these meetings.
If there was no JDV3 offer this deal would have gone through.
There is fundamentally a serious character flaw with these people who take an oath to serve the people in a constitutional framework. Maybe it is a cultural flaw. I do not know what to call it.
There really is no concept of the common good amongst the highest levels of men at the highest positions of government.
I am really stunned at the callousness of these men. I am totally dumbfounded as to why there was no alarm sounded by any of this men.
Neri always speaks of regulatory capture of government but there he was involved in a shady process of which he sees absolutely nothing wrong. He rationalizes his part in the food chain and disclaims responsibility for the rest of the chain.
I am reminded of Watergate. If Alexander Butterfield did not reveal the existence of the tapes Nixon would never have been forced to resign. John Deans testimony would not have been corroborated by Nixon himself.
The Supreme Court then struck down Nixons claim of executive privilege simply because he was accused of probably committing a felony.
Now it seems Neri is claiming executive privilege? But he is not the President and there is information that she is probably involved in a crime.
I’m thinking maybe Sec. Neri is waiting willingly to be cornered for the knockout question. Then he could say, “wala na akong magawa! nasabi ko tuloy ang totoo” We’re waiting for that question, Mr. Senators.
“There is fundamentally a serious character flaw with these people who take an oath to serve the people in a constitutional framework. Maybe it is a cultural flaw. I do not know what to call it.”
“I’m thinking maybe Sec. Neri is waiting willingly to be cornered”
I’m thinking everything’s scripted, including Miriam’s rant. I remember one middle aged guy complaining about the youth’s penchant for ranting. Well?
# 26 September 2007 at 2:02 pm
tonio said:
brian:
it’s a play on Romulo Neri’s name first of all…. and well, the Romulans were one sneaky, backstabbing bunch in the Star Trek series. their spacecraft had cloaking devices.
# 26 September 2007 at 2:11 pm
enid said:
I think it funny, ‘Attack of the Romulan’ hwehehehehehe.
# 26 September 2007 at 2:56 pm
tagabukid said:
Neri also said that on the advice of his lawyers, he mentioned Abalos’ offer to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in a phone conversation.
“Abalos offered me P200 million,†Neri recalled as telling the President.
“it’s a play on Romulo Neri’s name first of all…. and well, the Romulans were one sneaky, backstabbing bunch in the Star Trek series. their spacecraft had cloaking devices.”
Yeah, Neri does look like a Romulan. Slim like them too, without the pointy ears. But Romulans are the bad guys.
# 26 September 2007 at 3:13 pm
tagabukid said:
Gloria: “Hello, Neri?… yung pampataas? yung pampataas na 1M?”
# 26 September 2007 at 3:15 pm
Karl Garcia said:
attack of the Romulan,
Was it from Star Trek?
# 26 September 2007 at 3:17 pm
Karl Garcia said:
Sorry BrianB,
I did not scroll up.
Me sagot na pala.
# 26 September 2007 at 3:20 pm
Rego said:
Ewan ko lang, pero medyo na bore ako sa live blogging na to. There is really nothing much so far. Kaya tulog muna ako
Been reading blow by blow live blogging account by Quezon.
My initial comments:
As usual, this is first class reporting – can’t wait to read the rest.
Arroyo the senator seems to be the one who’s asked the more relevant questions.
Pity they didn’t continue the line of questioning: what abalos doing brokering for a deal with a line agency very much outside his turf.
Highly irregular.
Even if i can’t see Abalos’ body language, his replies point to being evasive, and much as one wants to give him benefit of doubt, the man is clearly lying.
He brokered, fixed the deal for ZTE.
To be able to go around Speaker Joe de Venecia in deals of this kind or that he’s shown interest in and seems to back (ok it’s his son’s), only another ‘bigger’, powerful official can do that at election time; easy to dedeuce that among protagonists present, only Abalos could do that. The next would have been president.
# 26 September 2007 at 4:19 pm
Willy said:
“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?”. The only surprising thing I got from the
liveblog was chairman Abalos himself quoting scripture! Nakaka pangilabot! We have to commend him at least for memorizing this verse, from Matthew 16:26. If he had only proceeded further to verse 17, it goes on “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and
WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.”
Let us look into Chairman Abalos history in the Comelec to have an idea of his DEEDS, all there for the public to take note of. Maybe, next time chairman Abalos quotes scriptures, someone please tell him to understand its full context first, and that it certainly applies to him too.
In Mlq3′s liveblog feed, Neri said or rather someone called Sales said that there were no other proposals so difficult to make comparisson – one senator quipped, NEDA didn’t do job properly – then insisted that this deal was based on tied loan.
Actually it’s line agency that didn’t do its job properly – how can they be so sure that other govts can’t propose better loan terms if they didn’t ask other govts. All they have to do is inform embassies in Manila soliciting proposals. Embassies would have done job for them contacting industries. DoTC didn’t even have to get off its backside and proposals would be “pouring in”.
Embassy economic post would have lobbied with their govt for back to back govt loans.
Only way to know if Chinese offer is good offer.
In other words, however they want to slice this as being tied to China govt loan, etc., this ZTE deals smacks of corruption, not only financially but morally.
At the very least, RP govt line agency has been very negligent and NEDA has not been up to their task. At that level, it’s RP chief exec who should be blamed. Am trying to be very objective here and do not wish to accuse her of anything at this point save for gross negligence. She has command responsiblity.
For one who is reputed to be micro management prone, she overlooked, and only god knows why, the flaws and gross negligence committed by her cabinet men in the performance of their tasks.
ZTE deal is purely commercial transaction even if backed by their own govt banks (Chinese) so it’s not as if this deal is a national security treaty matter involving China that president cannot question or compare it with other possible offers from other countries.
Any way you look at it, this deal is fishy.
# 26 September 2007 at 4:46 pm
Enrico Navea said:
Sen. Pangilinan is wrong. Sec. 2a of E.O. 464 is valid according to the decision of the Supreme Court. They cannot force Neri to tell them what was discussed between Neri and PGMA.
Be objective. You are all bias and already prejudged this issue.
# 26 September 2007 at 4:50 pm
Enrico Navea said:
Mr. Willy,
You are not God to judge a person.
# 26 September 2007 at 4:52 pm
Enrico Navea said:
Tagabukid,
Sa bukid ka na lang magtanim. You are not helping the Philippines. What you are saying are insults and speculations.
# 26 September 2007 at 4:54 pm
nash said:
So is Abalos being sacrificed now? He has no aces up his sleeve. He can’t get back at GMA by exposing the dirty tricks of the last elections because he’ll be in a deeper hole.
I must say, excellent tactics by GMA. This bitch is good.
Other words, Gloria is not yet off the hooks if it’s true she wants Abalos to serve as the fall guy.
# 26 September 2007 at 6:15 pm
Mike said:
Nash: I’m not sure what you mean. If Abalos is to be sacrificed, why can’t he threaten to bring down the whole house of cards?
Then again, I guess it depends on just how he will be sacrificed.
BrianB: It’s up to the Senators to prevent this from blowing over. This is, so far, the biggest stink that the administration has been associated with and it will not go away so easily.
# 26 September 2007 at 6:18 pm
tagabukid said:
For sure, these leeches will claim that there’s no harm done because the ZTE deal is now suspended and will eventually be canceled. Nobody benefited.
No harm no foul?! No Sir, this is what one may call: Frustrated Plunder!
# 26 September 2007 at 6:53 pm
nash said:
He can’t because as a fall guy he would have been exposed as a liar so he can’t say anything against gma that gma can’t easily wave off with her magic wand.
Unless of course he does a Chavit Singson, admit he’s a crook, then spill the beans.
Neri played up to Malacañan’s propaganda. He did EVERYTHING to protect Gloria & Mike. I was so disappointed at him. I agree with Sen Lacson when he said Neri missed the opportunity for his defying moment. Arrogantly, Neri said he will be the judge of that.
Notwithstanding I suspect that Abalos is a crook, but after listening to the manner of how Neri was answering the queries of the Senators, I’m beginning to doubt about the 200 that was offered to him by Abalos. I wouldn’t be surprised if Neri said that if only to deflect the public’s focus on FG & Gloria.
A few hours after listening to the hearing, I got the feeling that Abalos was going to be the fall guy of FG & Gloria. What the public got was the supposedly tell-all of a whimpy Neri. Impressed ? Not !
Neri confirms bribe alright but if he cannot be more specific, i.e., by refusing to reveal his conversations with Gloria following his squealing to her of the bribe attempt, then Abalos goes scot free and in addition, Gloria can say once more… let’s move on.
Not at all the results I expected from this Senate hearing today. Not at all…
Up to the Senators to dig more intelligently.
# 26 September 2007 at 7:43 pm
dakoykoy said:
too many events where abalos’ names appears to be considered just a mere coincindence.
neri is telling half-truths…covering for someone…can’t blame the guy(neri), PNP already posted in front of house…sure sign of intimidation!
senate inquiry too technical questions…what happened to common sense and plain and simply truth?
there were “advances” already made. that itself makes sure “somebody” benefited.
Enrico, AFAICS Willy was not judging. He was pointing out that Abalos’ deeds are all there for everyone to see. and btw, as public officials, men like Abalos cannot just claim citizens are not Gods, so they shouldn’t judge him. public officials will always be subject to criticisms. and tha tby itself is a form of judgment.
so we aren’t Gods huh? tell that to the justices who renders judgments on persons and cases.
In conscience and deep in your heart, could you say in your capacity as a respected technocrat (economist or whatever his/Neri’s title or profession is), that this contract or whatever it’s called, not disadvantageous to govt if only to refer to fact that from 262 million dollars, bloated to 330 million in a few months…
Answer yes it is disadvantageous or no it’s not disadvantageous and explain why or why not.
# 26 September 2007 at 8:10 pm
dakoykoy said:
read between the lines…neri says he doesn’t approve the contract but merely recommends it…who signed the contract in china( GMA was there!)…GMA had prior knowledge of the bribe attempt as neri said…neri might not be saying it loudly but, he is saying it clearly!
let the pieces fall where there are supposed to.
Senators MUST ASK QUESTIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THE GUY SPEAK AT LENGTH, TO EXPLAIN…
I get the impression reading Quezon’s live feed that they cut him off and only ask stupid quesitions so they can in turn show off to the gallery!!! Dumb thing to do if they want to get Neri to expose what he knows, then they are not doing it properly.
The guy is a technocrat so let him explain his side of the story by making him lecture if need be – and that’s when you pounce on what he said if it’s clear he’s hiding something.
And if he falters, Senator should merely say, “Go on… you were a professor (or still a professor of something), so please feel free to lecture us on why you think it’s disadvantageous or not disadvantageous to govt…â€Â
which is why the senators are doing it wrong. if they’d just let these people speak at length, they’ll eventually stick their foot in their mouth. lying and hiding the truth can be very confusing. you’d have to be alert all the time jz to catch yourself from contradicting things you’ve said. no person can ever keep this up at all times!
and senators shouldn’t be allowed to interrupt and “coach” when witnesses are beginning to crumble. in fact, i wonder where these senator’s manners are when they keep on interrupting people speaking. i’ve never been like that. if i want to interpellate or back people into a corner (when i was still in the debating team) i note things they said, and when they’re finish putting their foot in their mouth, i point it out: sirs and madames, how does ur foot taste?
on the issue of neri’s invocation of executive privilege on behalf of the president with respect to certain questions asked of him, i agree with sen. enrile’s view that it doesn’t make sense, legal, logical or practical, to compel neri to answer right then and there. every lawyer worth his law diploma knows that, in the context of an oral examination, the issue of privilege only comes into play after the question is asked, not before (unless the witness is a mind reader). and since, under the ermita sc decision, only the president herself and the executive secretary (who are not physically present) can claim the privilege, how can they do so without first being made aware of the question being asked? and how can neri know right then and there that either the president or the executive secretary would want to invoke the privilege with reespect to that particular question?
contrary to ordinary layman’s belief, eo 464 was not totally invalidated by the sc. in fact, it upheld executive privilege within certain parameters. but i don’t believe sc made its exercise a virtual impossibility.
pete m, no. Neri chose his family over everything else. even I would choose the safety of my family over 80m strangers whose only claim to my goodness of heart is that they’re my countrymen. and some don’t even deserve to be fought for.
# 26 September 2007 at 9:05 pm
pete m. said:
mbw, dadvocate,
observed that too, senators should just let them talk,
villar is best, spoke least
gordon, msantiago, enrile, arroyo – gma tutas
abalos will psycho breakdown, gma and fg defensible
long-term problem is chinese invasion via cheap moneys, investments,
# 26 September 2007 at 9:07 pm
Karl Garcia said:
I agree with MLQ3 that the senate has a baranggay desk clerk attitude in its line of questioning.
Tapos yung random thinking aloud,hindi na mawala.
Si enrile,kinwestyon kung bakit nagtatanong si mar roxas on behalf of trillanes,sya daw hindi nagka chance nung nakulong sya.
Beh,buti nga,malas mo.
# 26 September 2007 at 9:13 pm
pete m. said:
davocate,
can’t separate good for family from good for country,
it’s not either or, the choice is between good or bad, truth or lies, half truths are lies, neri can still speak the truth about gma’s involvement in the zte, defintely she is involved, what she did and didnot re the bribery attempt.
“At this point in time, we could not make heads or tails of all these talks about bribery. That is the reason why we felt that there’s no corroboration whatsoever as far as charges coming from people that there were bribes offered,” said Ermita, when asked to comment at a press conference about Neri’s admission that he had been offered a “200″ bribe by Abalos.
If Neri wants to be a real steward, he must realize that he cannot serve two masters. It’s either he serves the people and the next generation of Filipinos, or serve the devil.
In the meantime, I agree with the observation that senators if they are worth their salt must start to ask LEADING questions.
Manolo, thanks for this service. A media professor, I think Dr. David Considine, has once said (and I’m paraphrasing) . . . indeed, media shapes our perceptions, so it matters not just what we see but what we don’t see. Public policy is based on perception.
I am furious, livid… Neri is nothing but a worm of the tapeworm variety.
Equally, we have our VENERABLE, HONOURABLE but stupid senators to blame – they had their chance and they idiotically blew it. Why? They were just playing up to the gallery.
No wonder, Brenda walked out – she knew her colleagues were dumb, just the same, she should have stayed to do the right thing but as ever, she is just one unpredictable broad with stability problems!
Damn, damn, damn!
# 26 September 2007 at 9:50 pm
TDC said:
The Ateneo roll of honor:
HEROES:Jose Rizal,Ninoy Aquino,Ed Jopson
the never minds!: Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde,Joc-Joc Bolante,Ronnie Puno,Romy Neri
ermita is i.e. implying there was or that he is not aware of any PAGSI -mpresidential anti-graft for pres appointees — of abalos re neri’s report to gma. they’ll cover gma somehow, question is just how they’ii do it. ermita statement is subject to change or adjustmens.
# 26 September 2007 at 10:10 pm
TDC said:
Daddy chair:Some Are Smarter Than Others!Kawawa naman kayo .A fall guy at 73 for FG!
Let’s move on!
# 26 September 2007 at 10:15 pm
TDC said:
MBW:àquelque chose malheur est bon (every cloud has a silver lining)
By the way, could anybody tell me the exact translation of Switik in English… I thought it’s shrewed, cunning or foxy, but isn’t switik stronger than just shrewed?
Sorry, but it’s difficult to explain this expression too in French, which is the version if you like of “switik” – very strong language in French: ‘couilloner quelqu un’…
# 26 September 2007 at 10:32 pm
TDC said:
The problem with most senators,with the exception of Pimentel and Lacson,madaling mayanig kay Lolos Johnny/Joker and kay Lady Miriam !Nakakahiya!
# 26 September 2007 at 10:33 pm
TDC said:
Romy lost the chance to be in the annals of Philippine history.
Still has a chance to be Gloria’s toy(â€Âpinaglalaruanâ€Â):
TDC, i was hoping you would turn out right and i would be wrong about Neri. The Jesuits really have some soul-searching to do.
# 26 September 2007 at 11:13 pm
TDC said:
CVJ:very disappointed.I guess the Jesuits have to start thinking how Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde, Joc-Joc bolante,Ronnie Puno and now Romy Neri passed through the portals of Ateneo.
May the gods of basketball still smile on ateneo tomorrow!
# 26 September 2007 at 11:17 pm
TDC said:
Dearest Monchichi Neri:
You just destroyed whatever was left of my sagging reputation.
In return ,I give you a “saging†for your cowardice?But what will you do with a “saging “if you have no balls at all?
Do you think the pipol will believe you now?hehehe
In a way, he just proved he’s a miser – he refused to divulge all.
# 26 September 2007 at 11:29 pm
manuelbuencamino said:
I thought Abalos was the most despicable character here. I was wrong. It was Neri. He ratted on Abalos to protect his Queen and her consort.
# 26 September 2007 at 11:30 pm
Bencard said:
another bubble burst? what’s the matter guys, neri busted your chops because he did not “deliver” what you all were salivating to hear? it was really pgma and fg you were after, and abalos is only an insignificant “bonus”, right? when are you guys ever gonna learn? here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.
# 26 September 2007 at 11:31 pm
TDC said:
MonchichiNeri(Chair of CHED?)-According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “coward” comes from an Old French word coart, a combination of the word for “tail” and an agent noun suffix. It would therefore have meant “one with a tail”  perhaps one in the habit of turning it, or it may be derived from a dog’s habit of putting its tail between its legs when it is afraid.
# 26 September 2007 at 11:32 pm
TDC said:
“here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.Bencard”
Let’s move on!
# 26 September 2007 at 11:34 pm
TDC said:
“another bubble burst? what’s the matter guys, neri busted your chops because he did not “deliver†what you all were salivating to hear? it was really pgma and fg you were after, and abalos is only an insignificant “bonusâ€Â, right? when are you guys ever gonna learn? here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.BENCARD:
Dear Tito Bencard:
Thanks again!
Stay vigilant, my agent – in time, the opposition, for all intents and purposes, will BE the Luli Arroyo Internet Brigade!
RP climbed 10 steps down(?), after this Neri heap of dung did what he did, don’t be surprised if Pinas goes down another 10 steps and pretty soon, it will be partying with Somalia.
# 27 September 2007 at 12:11 am
manuelbuencamino said:
Bencard,
i was at the senate, I talked to neri’s classmates who were there to support him. many of them are gloria supporters like you. they wanted to see abalos skewered and no one else. neri turned them off when he kept invoking executive privilege. those neri classmates were not lawyers. they just wanted to hear their classmate tell the truth. neri lost their respect.
# 27 September 2007 at 12:21 am
Shaman of Malilipot said:
The fact that Neri invoked executive privilege when asked to divulge his conversations with GMA means that he is hiding something sordid that is damaging to her. I cannot imagine what there is in a conversation between a President (I’m not conceding legitimacy) and a NEDA Director-General about a broadband project that, if disclosed publicly, could possibly damage our diplomatic relations, our military, or national security.
Neri’s claim of executive privilege which means GMA is guilty of corruption in this deal is good enough for me (despite Bencard’s expected technical legalism).
GMA will have her day of reckoning after she relinquishes her stolen power. Remember that Fujimori has just been extradited to Peru.
# 27 September 2007 at 12:36 am
Bencard said:
buencamino, that’s the whole problem with people who have no real understanding of the law. they think with their guts, not with their brains, when it comes to observing legal niceties. the exercise of executive privilege implicates a constitutional prerogative that is a cornerstone of our democracy. neri’s classmates’ and your version of “truth” may be important to you, but the principle of executive privilege is an essential ingredient of democratice rule of law. to illustrate: a coerced confession, or one obtained by deceit, force or intimidation, may be “true” but not usable.
btw, how did you know neri lost their “respect”; are you sure he has their respect to begin with, whether or not they “support” pgma?
I don’t know what you people expect. You expect this guy to be a Saint, to offer himself up like Jose Rizal? Would anyone here do what they (stupidly) expected Nery to do?
Nery’s an old guy, and old guys are rarely heroes, as you may well know if you look at the history of this country.
On bad Filipino habit is to wait for big dramatic cues like men getting tragically murdered or women crying their eyes out, and you expected Nery to spill the beans in the Senate. But why would Nery do that, for what compelling reason, simply to tell the truth? Because he’s an Atenista?
“CVJ:very disappointed.I guess the Jesuits have to start thinking how Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde, Joc-Joc bolante,Ronnie Puno and now Romy Neri passed through the portals of Ateneo.”
bencard, it’s a concept invented in the 1950s, far from being a cornerstone of democracy, it’s an obstacle to checks and balances: and legal scholars have said as much-
What I don’t understand is why Neri, who seems like a perfect lil technocrat, who has the world of academe and business if he wants before him, a person who gives the impression that he doesn’t care very much about being a member of Gloria’s “millionaire club”, why didn’t he say the whole truth? By saying the truth, he’s got everything to gain, not only in terms of prestige among his peers but also the respect of even his ‘enemies’? Why did he prefer to lose all that by playing the coward card?
The excuse that he’s old and therefore has become more cautious doesn’t wash – he hasn’t got a family (wife and kids) to speak of hence, he doesn’t really have to think of them being kidnapped or held hostage by Gloria.
If he thinks that by sealing his puckered lips to protect Gloria, it will protect him… For a so-called brilliant mind, he’s not really thinking. Doesn’t he realize that this act of his has just emboldened the Macapagal-Arroyos to bully him all the more? Doesn’t he realize that all the more they will humiliate him because he’s lost the last ouce of respect that even those scallawags in Malacanang have of him?
Doesn’t he realize that he has virtually written an official authorization for the crime syndicate in Malacanang to insult his last shred of dignity from now till the end of time?
Where is your self-respect Mr Neri?
Cowardice – what men do to themselves in thy name!
# 27 September 2007 at 2:12 am
manuelbuencamino said:
Bencard,
there you go again. i heard Sen Gordon, an arroyo ally by the way, read in plain english the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive privilege in its decision declaring parts of EO 464 unconstitutional. Gordon pointed out that Neri neither had the position nor the grounds to invoke it. Another GMA ally, Ponce Enrile, said if that’s what the SC says then so be it. There was no argument among the senators over the meaning of executive privilege. The ony argument was whether or not to cite Neri for contempt or to give him time, as a courtesy, to justify his claim to e.p.
Before you go scrawling genralities about e.p. and all that, make sure you know the details of the case.
As usual you are making judgments based on HEARSAY. And you call yourself a lawyer.
# 27 September 2007 at 2:26 am
manuelbuencamino said:
bencard,
they went their to show their support for Neri. I suppose that qualifies as respect, right panero?
# 27 September 2007 at 2:27 am
Bencard said:
mlq3, thanks for citing the opinions of the late u.s. pres. woodrow wilson, history teacher/blogger david kaiser (offering in support of his contention the works of lawyer-violinist raoul berger) and the remarks of donald wolfensenberger re congressional oversight. these are opinions, not as persuasive as mine, but still opinions, not voices from heaven. as to where you got the 1950′s as the time of “invention” of the concept of executive privilege, how can i dispute “the explainer”?
at any rate, in the very words of the u.s. supreme court, it was held: “the expectation of the president to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and added to those the values the necessity for protection of public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in presidential decisionmaking. the president and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express privately. THESE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFYING A PRESUMPTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS. THE PRIVILEGE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT AND INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. (underscoring, mine). u.s. v. nixon (1974).
# 27 September 2007 at 2:29 am
manuelbuencamino said:
Bencard,
Ir will serve your so called legal whatever to read the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision. They’re who we follow around here,
# 27 September 2007 at 2:40 am
Bencard said:
buencamino, you call me “panero”. if i remember right, only lawyers call other lawyers panero in the philippines. if i may ask, are you one? how come you cannot distinguish a lawyer’s argument from a testimony, or even a “judgment” – a prerogative of a judge? oh, btw, you’re sure their watching the “performance” was for the purpose of supporting neri?
# 27 September 2007 at 2:42 am
Bencard said:
buencamino, and what would you say to mlq3 who invokes the “opinions” of americans, huh? and, last time i read the s.c. decision on eo 464, they invoked liberally from american jurisprudence, didn’t they?
# 27 September 2007 at 2:47 am
rego said:
Haay, Bencard, Eh ganyan naman talaga lagi at mulat sapul di ba? Asa ka pa. They are they majority in this forum remember so they they believe they should dictate the rules or they rule itself. And that include what reference to use and even the definitions.
# 27 September 2007 at 3:14 am
rego said:
On neris implicating only Abalos and spared Gloria…
You see Brian thats why I was bored following the live blogging. There is just no indication that Neri will implicate Gloria…
Ayan nafrustrate na naman toluy ng husto ang ang Pathetic Loser Crowd. And ang ending nito, kastiguhin nanaman nila ng Move On Crowd…
Rego, I never expected Nery to become more than a team player. I don’t know this guy personally, have not followed his career, and, to be very judgmental, he is a wimp, a sissy and has a practical look about him. He’s an accountant for crying out loud. I think someone posted a YouTube clip of the untouchables here yesterday. Nery was the Bookkeeper not Eliot Ness. The bookkeeper stepped out of the train but Ness was nowhere in sight.
All the reactions here to Neri’s cowardice in the Senate are not just about law books or legal opinions by brilliant legal minds like yours, like Ermita’s (who instructed Neri to invoke e.p.), or by American jurisprudence; the reactions expressed here are perfectly human reactions – much like your own feelings for us here who do not appreciate Gloria and her cabal of officers; of course, you can’t expect to find them in law books.
If people were to consult law books before they even utter a word for fear of hurting the powers that be, what kind of world would that be? Even you would not have a place in that kind of world… that will be Hitler’s world all over again.
You have to respect that there are poeple here who cannot think the way you do about Gloria because they do not believe that she is the person you think she is. It is your right to revere, adore and put her on a pedestal but you cannot on the strength of your feeling for her or on the basis of what your law books say, change what is fundamentally inherent in people – the right to differ from you.
I think that’s called democracy.
# 27 September 2007 at 4:14 am
Bencard said:
mbw, i see your point but it really is not about about gma, fg, abalos, the senators or the powers that be. its not about you, mlq3, buencamino, rego or me. its not even about the law books and court decisions that govern us. its not easy, but it is all about how it is to live under a rule of law and not of men. a hundred years from now, all of us will probably be not here in our present state, but the norms, precepts and principles we live by will endure as long as generations coming after us will respect, obey and observe them.
# 27 September 2007 at 5:47 am
nash said:
Manila bay watch: Godwin’s Law!
# 27 September 2007 at 6:02 am
pete m. said:
mlq3,
Would it be descretionary then on the part of the senators to divulge to the public parts of what discussed in the exec session to the public?
Will they vote on whether what were spoken by neri in ES are covered by executive privelege?
# 27 September 2007 at 6:28 am
tonio said:
ah well, contrary to all you guys, prof. neri behaved true to his form! i think quite a few of his former students at AIM will agree that old coot behaved exactly as we expected him to behave. apologies to all those who thought neri could’ve been a hero or something, he’s just NOT the type.
on EO464: not a legal authority or whatever, but i think what the SC did, by invalidating section 2b and 3, was to limit the scope of executive privilege to heads of departments of the executive branch. how does that apply to neri, who is no longer director-general of NEDA? and i think, per US and other examples of Philippine jurisprudence as provided in the SC decision, the invocation of the privilege requires that a specific question be posed, in order to determine whether or not such invocation of the privilege is warranted. can anyone confirm that?
as for getting GMA and FG on all of this. from the start i thought it was a long shot. Abalos had been such a conveniently larger from the get go, and the fact that he’s established himself as a consummate liar is not helping. if the objective was to sacrifice someone, well abalos is that sacrifice.
The buck went through mama gloria’s ear and stopped in her brilliant brain.
President Truman, in his speeches, referred to the saying “The buck stops here!†and specifically asserted: “The President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.â€Â
I believe Mr. Neri was candid and forthright when he recounted telling gloria of the bribe attempt. I am pretty sure Mr. Neri doesn’t get to hear a lot of these bribe attempts (as he might have been appalled when abalos said it to him). Therefore it’s possibly not everyday that he reports to gloria such attempts to make her callous in not doing anything about it.
Mr. Neri already elevated the situation to the acting highest (but probably the smallest) official in the land and yet that official did nothing as if no wrongdoing has been committed. gloria is remiss in her duty.
I hope gloria doesn’t go scot-free this time even though it’s just bribe attempt that was phoned to her. As others may recall, garci has intimated (also through phone – the garci wiretap) to her the “soft touch†policy (short of labeling it kidnap/hostage-taking) employed during the Rashma Hali Affair. gloria didn’t prevent it from occurring that’s why Ms. Harriet lost Rashma, their witness, to the government side. The latter incident is a more serious offense but the main difference now is that there is one Romulo L. Neri who is declaring gloria knows of the bribe attempt and that gloria or her minions are not disputing this statement!
—–
What I like to ask Mr. Neri is these:
You said you have poor memory, but aren’t we all (not expecting an answer)? There are situations wherein you can recall incidents in your life when it’s worth remembering or even not good to remember, like embarrassing moments, am I right? Anyway, let me ask again…Did you report abalos’ bribe attempt (as you have conjectured abalos was doing) to your president? How come you remembered (hoping to extract the circumstances surrounding it that made him recall the incidents)?
Do you often get to receive bribe attempts? How many? From whom (no names please – just designations, public official or private individual)? For how much?
Do you often report these bribe attempts (if there are any, other than abalos’ attempt) to your president?
Are you credible to your president when you phoned the incident to her? How did you feel when you unburdened yourself of that responsibility?
Now, did it ever occur to you that there was no investigation on the bribe attempt simply because you weren’t questioned about it?
# 27 September 2007 at 6:43 am
pete m. said:
Mlq3, bmw
Neri’s personality profile is relevant. A switik is a tight-wad tending to be rapacious or greedy. (A play on alma mater ‘jesuitic’ ateneo). Neri exhibited greed for cheap china loans almost in disregard of more important considerations. He is better placed as a tight-wad DBM head than a NEDA Dir Gen where foreign loan and investment policy decisions has more serious impact not only on the economy but on national interest and security.
GMA needs cheap china loans as a drug addict needs drug money. GMA is addicted to power. She justifies take-over and continued stay as president by showing an improving economy. She purveys cheap china-loan financed projects to political allies and propagandize an accelerating economy.
# 27 September 2007 at 7:21 am
Karl Garcia said:
Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons.
—–
i needed to look it up,as francis says;the more i learn, the less i know.
BrianB (@3:56AM), i was the one who posted the youtube video. I did that precisely because Neri reminded me of the accountant/bookeeper, particularly towards the end of that clip.
# 27 September 2007 at 8:14 am
Karl Garcia said:
From the chairman of the senate committee of foreign relations:
a tantrum,saying that the chinese,being the cradle of civilzation in the east started corruption…etc.
better find another committee,madam chairman.
kala nya showbiz foreign relations.
we are already perceived as like those mentioned by benign0 tapos may committee chair pa tayo kagaya ni Brenda….patay na !
# 27 September 2007 at 8:17 am
kampupot said:
Got this from philstar.com
DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
New chemical element
I got this from an e-group and I am not sure the one who sent it wants to be identified. But it is too good to pass up.
The recent graft and corruption issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium.
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would take less than a second what would normally take over four days to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with Money, Governmentium becomes Administratium  an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. When catalyzed with MORE MONEY, Governmentium and Administratium combine to become a true dastard of an element, Atemugloriam popularly referred to as Ate Glue.
# 27 September 2007 at 8:19 am
Karl Garcia said:
Maiba tayo
si enrile gusto patunayan na hindi pa sya ulianain..
imagine trying to recall the sc decison on eo464,me kodigo naman sa harap nya.
kaya tuloy pagdating ke gordon sinabi..I have the sc decision in front of me.
nakita ko lahat ng senator me binasa pag eo464,si jpe,I am trying to recall palagi ang banat.
in fairness, mas matindi si joker….we already won,so let’s go easy (on Neri)
# 27 September 2007 at 8:28 am
patsadakarajaw said:
it was a very frustrating day for us. Neri just cop out. He protected Gloria and FG but pinned Abalos.
The questioned is, would Abalos fight back againts his bosses.
I dont thin so. Maybe thats part of the game plan to escape from this current mess. Protect GMA, pin Abalos, Abalos does nothing and tapos.
# 27 September 2007 at 8:59 am
Beancurd said:
Bencard, there you go again about the rule of law. Have you ever heard or read the name Acsa Ramirez? You may want to research on her so that you would know that the rule of law does not operate in a vacuum. Tama si erap, in this country your kind of rule of law is weather weather lang yan.
# 27 September 2007 at 9:13 am
rego said:
“mbw, i see your point but it really is not about about gma, fg, abalos, the senators or the powers that be. its not about you, mlq3, buencamino, rego or me. its not even about the law books and court decisions that govern us. its not easy, but it is all about how it is to live under a rule of law and not of men. a hundred years from now, all of us will probably be not here in our present state, but the norms, precepts and principles we live by will endure as long as generations coming after us will respect, obey and observe them.”
——————————————————-
Oh I love this, Bencard. Mabuhay Ka!
This is very much aligned to what I have been saying since the very start I joined teh blogging community.
If only we woudl all be principle based, I dont thik there will so much chaos in this blog world.
You just cannot be an advocate of anti government corruption and revered the Erap after his convicted of plunder.
Just cannot cry injustice, unfairness yet be unfair to Gloria or to the move on crowd.
# 27 September 2007 at 9:27 am
rego said:
And there is just no way that you can break principles. You will just break yourself against it.
# 27 September 2007 at 9:28 am
rego said:
“Tama si erap, in this country your kind of rule of law is weather weather lang yan.”
—-
Yeah right and you expect us to believe what Erap said? Who is Erap anyway?. A great Pinoy Thinker? And what has he done to the betterment of the country that we shoudl believe on what he said?
# 27 September 2007 at 9:33 am
Bencard said:
beancurd, who says its win, win all the time? you win some, you lose some. that’s the way the game of life goes. don’t have a one-track mind. one instance of failure of the rule does not warrant its destruction, however profound you think what erap says is.
As applied to the separation of powers to each branch the legislative in is oversight functions also have subpoena powers. Executive privilege is not absolute. However in the Philippine setting it seems that people in government are not bound by laws which regulate mere mortals. They have assembled unto themselves the roles and personalities of Demi-Gods.
Unfortunately the quality of legislators is similarly suspect.
A crime was so obviously committed.
Case law from UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
418 U.S. 683
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
No. 73-1766.
Argued July 8, 1974.
Decided July 24, 1974. *
Under Philippine jurisprudence this will be used as basis for any challenge to executive privilege.
“The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”  James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon’s counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
“Mr. St. Clair, what public interest is there in preserving secrecy with respect to a criminal conspiracy?” â€â€Justice Lewis Powell during oral arguments
* However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of “a workable government” and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
He is not an accountant. He’s not even an economist. He finished Business Administration major in Marketing at UP. His masteral was Finance and International Management.
And I am sure it is his staff who did the evaluation.
He must have been given only the salient points to discuss.
Proofs.
When P. Cayetano asked about the IRR:
Cayetano: Isn’t it true if there’s a difference if NBN was through BOT or through loan, as economic benefits wouldn’t be there as public wouldn’t have access?
N: Rate of economic return would be same.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, the EIRR will be different because in the Build/operate/transfer, there will no loan obtained by the government. In the NBN-ZTE, the project is funded by a loan tied up to the procurement.
Then as P. Cayetano has mentioned, one is with public access and the other doesn’t have access. Therefore income is generated as they pay not only savings.
Another statement that made me look at his background.
N: You only look at right hand side of balance sheet. We don’t look at right hand side, which is financing.
REALLY?
N: I did not know that, we do not conduct financial audits.
True, but as evaluator, you have to know the capital exposure of the proponent especially if it is BOT.
To think that he just endorsed the idea NOT the project of J. de Venecia III(without a feasibility?) sabi nga isang papel lang?
As evaluator of a multi-million project, they could have hired an outside consultant who can do the canvass and verification of materials. This is the work of the consultant which could be very objective and thorough because he does not have direct interest on the project.
Neri should have presented alternatives in acquiring the broadband technology.
Option 1. Build/Operate and Transfer
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Option 2 NBN ZTE ODA
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Option 3 NBN ZTE PRC Loan
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Which among these options give the highest EIRR?
Which among the options give the shortest payback?
Which among the options give the highest positive NPV.
He was talking about 29 per cent EIRR but what is the basis that it is profitable. He admitted that there was no benchmark. Because they didn’t work to evaluate the options.
Sabi nga ni Mar Roxas,don’t make bola-bola. Sabi ko naman, don’t confuse us with terminologies. Some of us can understand what you’re saying and what you’ve failed to do.
# 27 September 2007 at 10:36 am
cesar said:
So where are the other senators now? Now that the issue is on the necessity of the broadband deal wala na sila? Senators talaga… all they wanted was to grandstand…. ngayon d na interesting ang issue kaya wala na sila…
# 27 September 2007 at 11:00 am
tonio said:
Cat:
all of Neri’s hijinx were an obvious attempt to confound the senators with b-school jargon. (Behold! I will now confound you with my incomprehensibility!) i’m glad someone put him in his place. AIM pa lang, ganyan na yan eh. buti nga sa kanya.
cesar:
wala ng media value, so the bulk of the senators won’t bother. that’s just the way things are. you think those guys would be interested in really doing work?
bencard, i don’t think you will find us arguing that neri be stripped of his rights, or the president deprived of hers. we can express opinions on executive privilege as a concept: rthere are historians (kaiser among them) who prove, convoincingly enough, based on documentary evidence., it’s a fairly recent invention which then entered jurisrudence. and there’s the problem. being in jurisprudence in america and then here in the rp, we’re bound by it. but when a principle enters law, you either interpret it in a way maximally beneficial to the one claiming it, or challenge it. which is why when eo 464 was issued, it was challenged. thats the legal system, too, and the senate won a partial victory.
notice no one sensible, i think, directly challenges a claim to privilege by the ex.: indeed even the senators said, there are three grounds. they rightfully asked, which do you invoke; neri said, i dunno, but i invoke it and will ask my bosses to explain why.
which then leads us basically a situation similar to someone claiming the fifth. its there as a guarantee agains hanging yourself; when you invoke it, no one can hang you -but everyone can conclude aha, the only way you escaped hanging, was to invoke your right against self incrimination.
against the statutory rights of even the chief executive and the cabinet must be balanced principles that are far older and more basic to democracy: transparency, accountability, and the fact that we live in a political world. when an official invokes privilge, and the question -bencard remember, invoking the exec. privilege in this case hinged on a question that did not seem to engage military, diplomatic secrets or natiolan security, but rather, presidential acts of commission or omission upon being informed of a bribery attempt, which is a crime- and that then neri invoked the privilege, suggests it’s a tactical move note in the national interest, but solely the presidet’s political and legal interest.
go back to the question, bencard, and where the question was headed. then look at the legitimate grounds for invoking presidential privilege. then see whether the two match. i don’t think they do. perhaps you do, but then tell me how. neri is offered a bribe. as is his duty, he tells his boss. his boss says, don’t take it. what else did she say or do? ah, then neri wouldn’t say. why not?
pete m/. , i think an executive session’s bound by confidentiality.
# 27 September 2007 at 12:28 pm
tonio said:
from the supreme court decision:
If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
i see in Section 1 that what Neri’s hiding is definitely covered by 464. Neri asserted executive privilege, but where’s the reason?
# 27 September 2007 at 12:45 pm
Willy said:
From a layman’s point of view:
JDV3 accuses Chairman Abalos of $10M bribe. Abalos denies.
One or the other is lying. Nothing can be proven though.
Sec Neri accuses C. Abalos of P200M bribe. Abalos denies.
One or the other is lying. Again hard to prove.
In spite of all the legal, ministerial, gov’t control mechanisms, and procedural intricacies in the system, no one in the government can justify a $329M project. You just hear: “It is not our job to do so and so, we just etc.,etc.,”… being passed back and forth.
Sec Neri reports 200M bribery attempt to PGMA. Invokes e.p. in response to queries about their conversation in this regard. And so story stops there. One would readily imagine the only valid response to a report of bribery is to say don’t take it, immediately order an investigation, and suspend any related activities to arrest probable wrongdoing. Thats it. No-brainer, really. Thus, it makes no sense to invoke e.p. if just to avoid admitting this was the actual response. It does make sense though to invoke e.p. if the response was something else. But its a dead-end here, e.p. you know. No negative speculation is proposed here, just saying its a dead-end.
Where to now? Lets move on (to the next controversy).
Then play the same zarzuela all over again. TV entertainment doesn’t get any better than this anyway.
# 27 September 2007 at 2:32 pm
tonio said:
sheesh. at least television writers know better than to use the same plot over and over again.
# 27 September 2007 at 3:05 pm
Karl Garcia said:
Things to learn:
NEDA is nothing but a rubber stamp for all the agencies.
I don’t know if thay have been like that,but Neri seeemed to tell us that they are like that now.
Next,
as in the corporate world,the military,etc.
we are at the mercy of the best case scenario proposals.
then,
That the government is not there to make profits per Enrile,but to serve the public. Oh cummon!
another point
Public bidding eliminates corruption, per Roxas,
What happened to the old fashioned under the table,is it no longer practiced..AS IF we were bornn yesterday.
——
Our law makers are incapable of making laws,with out the help of their staffs.
Imagine Escudero asking magkano talaga ang babayaran natin after 20 years?
It was repeated by Cayetano today,wwhen he asked his professor from UP?
we have to many lawyers,wala tayong maagagwa dyan.
I agree with Geo:
Geo :
Geez, I take it back re: Escudero. Add Cayetano to the “got no clue†department. Goodness, it’s like these guys have no knowledge whatsoever about simple economic basics…don’t they know the effects of inflation on long term loans?………
September 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
# 27 September 2007 at 4:42 pm
Karl Garcia said:
But when speaking to Neri of couse,who is not an economist,but a finance man
he does not factor in inflation but rather the future value of an investment.
maybe,Neri from the begining did not deserve the post… I remember upon his entry,he proposed not to focus on macroeconomics but instead on microeconomics. I wonder why pgma bought that.
# 27 September 2007 at 5:38 pm
Karl Garcia said:
To cut some slack to escudero,he was right when he pointed out to his fellow lawyer Asec Formoso, that he was talking about depreciation,not obsolescence.
was it formoso or neri,he was talking to?
I don’t care.
________
If this is the way we craft laws,and we run business,madami pa tayong kakaining bigas.
And this is not just a pinoy thing,a friendly reminder to the guys from the OZ and the US and elsewhere.
# 27 September 2007 at 5:51 pm
Karl Garcia said:
Now brenda is sending an apology to China..
Now she loves and admire the chinese,and she even has a chinese for a mother in law.
Now,she tells us.
# 27 September 2007 at 6:25 pm
Karl Garcia said:
Having a chinese mother-in-law…..
Maybe that’s is her qualilification for being chair of foreign relations other than a harvard(?) degree on foreign law.
# 27 September 2007 at 7:46 pm
Karl Garcia said:
Miriam is doing what Mattel did: offer an apology to China.
“…bencard remember, invoking the exec. privilege in this case hinged on a question that did not seem to engage military, diplomatic secrets or national security, but rather, presidential acts of commission or omission upon being informed of a bribery attempt, which is a crime- and that then neri invoked the privilege..”
Manolo, maybe it does hinged on one of the three, perhaps even two.
1. diplomatic secrets with China (shh. atin-atin lang to, pero binebenta ko na sa inyo ang bayan ko – Ate Glue to the Chinese)
2. National Security (per Gloria’s actuations – I am the nation, and if my security is threatened, then it’s a threat to national security! jail the destabilizers!)
so you see, we can’t really blame Neri. He said on TV, I have no intentions of being a hero. Translation: oo alam ko I am threading the fine line of truth and white lies but what can I do? My family is held hostage by PNP watching over my house. The president can’t blame me. I was under oath, I tried my best to speak the truth without speaking the WHOLE truth. It’s the best I can do. Don’t be too harsh to judge me. I am an old man. And when you’re an old man, you are bound to discover that you don’t really want to die for a lot of things that you wanted to die for when you were young. You want only simple things: to watch your kids live a good life, and retire peacefully.
Can any kind hearted Christian deny Neri this much?
Don’t be too harsh to judge unless you’ve been on the same spot as the one you’re judging. I can almost imagine myself agonizing over the same things Neri’s agonizing over. to sell my soul for a piece of peace and quiet for my family…
Karl: “Maybe that’s is her qualilification for being chair of foreign relations other than a harvard(?) degree on foreign law.”
That’s funny!
# 27 September 2007 at 10:27 pm
Bencard said:
sorry, mlq3, but quite honestly, i never heard of blogger, mr. kaiser and his “legal scholar”, raoul berger, during my studies of legal history and constitutional law both here and in pinas, or during my 41-year law practice here and there. but of course, that doesn’t mean they are not “authorities” on the subject of executive privilege.
nevertheless, thanks for lecturing me on constitutional law. it’s not everyday that i get lessons in law from a journalist/historian.
i just want to correct certain statements that you have made. first, executive privilege is not derived from statutes (act of congress), rather it is born with the constitution of a democratic nation as integral part of the separation of powers principle. it follows that, as a concept, it is by no means a recent “invention” but instead as old as the idea of democratic constitutional government.
second, jurisprudence (or case law) is part of the law of the land and has the full force of law in all subsequent cases involving similar issues. constitutional principles and precepts not explicitly stated in the constitution, e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances, supremacy of the law, sovereign immunity, full faith and credit, etc. are observed and acknowledged through jurisprudence without the necessity of statutory enactment. i don’t recall “transparency” and “accountability” being among those principles that are inherent in the constitution. they are more appropriate subjects of statutory regulations of all public officers.
in the specific case of neri’s invocation of the privilege, what makes you, or anyone, so sure that a crime has been committed upon the sole assertion of neri; that gma did not take any action; or that if she did not, she violated the law? and what is wrong with discreet investigation? a high public official is being accused of having committed what could be an attempted bribery. is it prudent or proper for any president to initiate a nationwide scandal out of an uncorroborated allegation. even the nbi, or the pnp, or the prosecutors, withhold giving information on actions being taken on allegations of crime to protect the rights of the accused who until an airtight case is established or a formal indictment is made may not be put to embarrassment, shame or ridicule. how would it look to you if one of your mail staff in abs-cbn “the explainer” show accuses a co-employee of sexual abuse, confidentially reports it to the management, and the latter calling a press-conference in addition to broadcasting it in “tv-patrol” disclosing that so and so is being investigated for sex abuse?
btw, i think whether or not an invocation of executive privilege is necessary is the first call of the one who owns it. then it is the court who will ultimately decide whether or not the exercise is proper. until then, the senate must wait.
# 28 September 2007 at 5:57 am
Karl Garcia said:
MBW,
I forgot to add to Geo’s list of senility miriam dahil she already is brenda even before.
akala nya,foreign relations is all about international law.
bakit kasi di sya sinama ni Abalos o ni pgma mna lang sa China,sya chair ng foreign relations.
# 28 September 2007 at 9:25 am
Bencard said:
p.s., how would anyone know for certain that what gma said to neri, after he told her about the alleged offer, was: if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal. it is so unfair to assume that she was already convinced, right then and there, that a “crime” has been committed. an allegation that a crime has been committed does not necessarily mean that a crime has in fact been committed. an assertion, even if made by an angel from heaven, is still an assertion, not a fact.
# 28 September 2007 at 9:39 am
Bencard said:
correction: a question mark (?) after “illegal” on 3rd line.
Re: “how would anyone know for certain that what gma said to neri, after he told her about the alleged offer, was: if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal. ”
Bencard, easy! Gloria should refute Neri’s statement publicly or in the very least, tell the Filipino nation what she herself said.
Her cabinet man tells the whole world, he reported the bribe to her – it would be so easy for her to either deny it or confirm it and furtehermore, reveal what she herself said to him.
Yours is a speculation too: “if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal.” It must come from the horse’s mouth.
# 28 September 2007 at 9:07 pm
Bencard said:
mbw, sorry but it seems you didn’t digest my comment very well. how could “Gloria” make a prejudgment for or against neri’s assertion? i said even the law enforcement agencies (nbi, pnp, etc.) do not publicize the name of their suspect, until they are ready to make an arrest upon probable cause, for good reasons which i explained. neri’s telling the “whole world” was his responsibility. he is a grown man and should, at least, know the rudiments of law enforcement as a responsible public official, and his personal liability if he is found to be lying. gma did the right thing by being discreet. the allegation puts the entire integrity and reputation of a constitutional official on the line. she could not afford to be cavalier about it like some irresponsible gossip mongers to whom mere suspicion means guilt.
of course, what i think pgma said was speculation too, as everything at this point is speculation. but i’m not the one criticizing her for alleged “inaction”.
i would agree with bencard on this point, except i’d wonder why if there was already suspicions of impropriety on the deal, GMA only ordered a supposed “discrete” investigation, and then we don’t know anymore what happened with that investigation. also, even with that knowledge, she still wanted the deal pushed through and yet now that there’s public furor, ordered the deal suspended (even though the SC has already beaten her to the punch with a TRO). parang pakitang tao na lang yung pag order nya ng suspension. if she really believed that everything’s above board, why order the suspension? there’s already a TRO and no need to order something redundant. unless you’re jz acting for PR. and if there’s nothing illegal with the deal, why would she order it suspended?
i would even think that even the claimed investigation is just an afterthought when the ZTE deal was already exposed. methinks there were no investigations when Neri informed the president abt the bribe, and this supposed “discrete” investigation is just an act.
ay oo, nagpa imbestiga ako nun malaman kong may posibleng krimen na nangyari sa deal na yon?
ano po nangyari sa imbestigasyon? ba’t di po nalaman ng publiko?
ay sikretong malupit na namin yon. ang tawag namin don ay: discrete. kaw ha, be discrete abt this interview too, ha?
# 29 September 2007 at 2:06 pm
Bencard said:
devils, of course we wouldn’t know “what happened” to the ‘discreet’ investigation. in fact, no one, outside of the president and the investigators, was supposed to know that an investigation was being conducted. yes, not even neri until he unilaterally divulged his claim to the media after joeydv “spilled the beans”.
judging from the turn of events, we can speculate that the investigation did not reveal existence of a probable cause (no corroboration of neri’s allegation), thus the cabinet approval of the deal.
as to the “suspension”, the official explanation is that it was necessary because of the supervening controversy over the project. no question the frenzy was generated by media hype and salivating senators anxious to pin down the first couple (not to mention the controversial abalos).
frankly, devils, i don’t see anything wrong with the suspension even as a pr gesture as you suspect it. filipinos are very impressionable people. politicians live and die on “pakitang tao”. what do you think of these senators trying in vain to look and sound good in front of tv cameras (e.g., the black-haired pimentel’s smart-alecky questioning of abalos regarding a rumored child with another woman)? in any event, the tro was a judicial process while the suspension is an executive action. i don’t see any incompatibility as they serve the same objective. to persistent fault-finders, it could be made to appear malicious. but…oh well, what do you expect?
btw, i thought it was “discreet” (adv), not “discrete”(adj). the former means prudent, the latter non-continuous. merriam-webster dict.
ay oo nga, discreet pala. anyway, what i meant was inconspicious – same thing.
what i see wrong with the suspension was that after trying so hard to push the deal through, they’ve suddenly flopped when the heat was greatest. (and that coming from an administration supposedly proud of governing whether its policies were popular or not) you think that if they really believed the deal was above board they’d reason this out with the public. the public isn’t unreasonable you know. the problem is that they won’t disclose fully the details of the deal.
what bugs me is that our govt will cave in jz to pander to PR needs. if the deal was warranted and govt really needed it, why scuttle it at all? shouldn’t the gov’t have bunkered down and prepared to fight the SC’s TRO?
you see, if pandering to PR need is what all an administration is interested of, then you can be sure it has no interest in governing at all.
lumaki kasi si Gloria watching her dad doing photo ops and ribbon cutting. yun lang ang definition nya ng governing. amp.
# 30 September 2007 at 1:28 am
grd said:
what a disgusting conduct of some senators and their line of questioning. never mind madrigal but pimentel asking abalos about his alleged “other womanâ€Â. i thought i was watching a showbiz talk show. why drag the name of that woman and their alleged love child? what has it got to do with the ZTE deal? pimentel has been acting like a tabloid reporter lately (i remember that incident about the chance encounter of abalos w/ the zubiris). he should stick to the issue and not behave in an unparliamentary conduct. he used to be very good. maybe aging is a big factor. he’s getting senile just like the others. i think he should retire from politics before tarnishing further his good name.
# 30 September 2007 at 2:34 am
Bencard said:
i could just imagine jinggoy’s reaction to pimentel’s line of questioning re child with another woman. it came very close to home, huh? you think jinggoy would ask those same questions? or bong revilla (if he was there)?
sobrang bitter na kasi yan si lolo pimentel. natalo na nga anak nya, di pa sya naging speaker.
i think we can all agree na kasuka suka lahat ng mga senators natin ngayon.
disgusting talaga ginawa ni Pimentel. and following the next day pa eh lumabas na yung babae na nili link nya ki Abalos eh nag issue ng categorical denial. amp. mas pinaniwalaan ko pa yung babae kesa sa kanya.
# 30 September 2007 at 3:04 pm
grd said:
si pangilinan naman, ang tanong ay “sino nagbayad ng laro at sa restaurant?” susmaryosep, multi-million anomalous project ang pinag-uusapan eh pag-aaksayahan pa ng oras yung barya? what a smart-alecky question (ika nga ni bencard). abugado ba talaga yan?
Pangilinan’s question was very important – you cannot dismiss barya bribe because in any civilized nation acceptance of barya as a form of bribe is bribe. It’s graft and again, in any civilized nation, those officials caught getting wined and danced by proponents of grossly exagerrated deals are sent to prison.
“i could just imagine jinggoy’s reaction to pimentel’s line of questioning re child with another woman.”
why is that? Does Jinggoy have kept women or concubines?
# 1 October 2007 at 2:12 am
grd said:
mbw, and what is that? you call it bribery say if zte paid for their golf rounds and dine out? is that enough to send some people to prison or bring them to court? don’t be so naive. in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. mendoza or abalos could have even paid the bill. you expect them to make kanya-kanyang bayad? that’s funny.
have you heard about the bribery scandal involving the british aerospace and the members of the saudi royal family regarding huge military supply contracts? what was the reaction of the british government, a highly civilized nation?
as for the statement of bencard, of course, he was referring to the father. isn’t it so obvious who has concubines in the family?
WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.
If it shows that the said govt officials who had received said freebies are directly connected to the foreign company lobbying efforts in the client country, they are subject to suspension, prosecution, fines, or fines plus prison sentence.
Some governemtn officials may take liberties with this particularl OECD rule but that’s alright if they don’t get caught.
And yes, “you expect them to make kanya-kanyang bayad? that’s funny.”
To give you an example: At NATO where companies lobby all the time to sell equipment, lemme tell you that NO NATO official WILL ACCEPT a lunch appointment with the propent of an equipment. From time to time, one might accept but that official WILL PAY FOR HIS OWN LUNCH.
That’s how it should be!
Don’t dimiss barya bribes. That’s how corruption snowballs big time.
” in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. ”
True! If the busines is between two private corporations.
In Europe, if the Minister of Interior (who’s in charge of elections) accepted a golf party by a commercial corporation trying to do business with his government and if to get there he accepted plane tickets, hotel accomodations, lunches and other freebies, believe he would be out of his job right away followed by intense police investigations, etc. WALANG PATAWAD!
As I said, never ever dismiss barya bribe. That’s how corruption snowballs big time.
And really if you would like to know, part of my job before and after is lobbying with government so I know what I’m talking about!
# 1 October 2007 at 4:24 am
Bencard said:
thanks, grd for answering mbw question re jingoy. i thought it was public knowledge.
mbw, now i know, you’ve been away so long. but i thought you were out of sight but not of mind. you could have fooled me.
Was never really interested in Estrada’s^progenitures.
# 1 October 2007 at 6:28 am
grd said:
“ in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. †grd
“True! If the busines is between two private corporations.†mbw
mbw, I asked you if you knew about that BAE money laundering and bribery scandal of the century. it was highly publicized that the british govt has to conduct an investigation (a staged one?) but dismissed it later supposedly for the interest of the country (or maybe because the Saudis threatened them cancellation of a new multi-billion dollar patriot fighter jets supply deal?). an outside whistleblower exposed that BAE operated on a £60m slush fund used to bribe Saudi officials with exotic holidays, expensive cars and lavish entertainment.
here’s one story below:
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWSâ€Â
i’m breaking the link here: (http://) mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/larouche-pac-p.html
this world wide web of corruption, didn’t you hear it being discussed in NATO’s vicinity? you and NATO people should know this being within your expertise. did I hear a sound of protest from the European unions particularly your adopted country? or maybe if it’s between two highly civilized countries, then the OECD REGULATIONS and RICOH LAW are being respected, specially between European nations. why are you focusing much on that barya bribery(?)instead of that 200M which was my point? you should look first into your own backyard .
“WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.†mbw
tell that to the Brits and the Saudis plus the kano and of course to all big time arms dealers. and Miriam thought corruption was invented by the Chinese? come to think of it, it was the jews who invented corruption first when those rabbis bribed Judah to betray Jesus.
# 1 October 2007 at 4:15 pm
grd said:
“ in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. †grd
“True! If the busines is between two private corporations.†mbw
mbw, I asked you if you knew about that BAE money laundering and bribery scandal of the century. it was highly publicized that the british govt has to conduct an investigation (a staged one?) but dismissed it later supposedly for the interest of the country (or maybe because the Saudis threatened them cancellation of a new multi-billion dollar patriot fighter jets supply deal?). an outside whistleblower exposed that BAE operated on a £60m slush fund used to bribe Saudi officials with exotic holidays, expensive cars and lavish entertainment.
here’s one story below:
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWSâ€Â
i’m breaking the link here just add http://
mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/larouche-pac-p.html
this world wide web of corruption, didn’t you hear it being discussed in NATO’s vicinity? you and NATO people should know this being within your expertise. did I hear a sound of protest from the European unions particularly your adopted country? or maybe if it’s between two highly civilized countries, then the OECD REGULATIONS and RICOH LAW are being respected, specially between European nations. why are you focusing much on that barya bribery(?)instead of that 200M which was my point? you should look first into your own backyard .
“WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.†mbw
tell that to the Brits and the Saudis plus the kano and of course to all big time arms dealers. and Miriam thought corruption was invented by the Chinese? come to think of it, it was the jews who invented corruption first when those rabbis bribed Judah to betray Jesus.
I think you’ll find that it’s members of the Saudi govt who are suspected of having received bribes from British industries.
OECD regulations state that these British industry people (private corporation people) are subject to investigation and if it could be proven that they paid bribes to these foreign govt officials, they can be fined and put in prison.
Tony Blair, whom I don’t – but not at all – and his govt were the ones that tried to bury successive inquiries into the allegations that BAe bribed their way to win contracts in Saudi Arabia.
The issue you raised here GRD, is you implicitly, and flippantly dismissed potential bribes TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS because they are “barya” and my contention is that IT IS NOT RIGHT for government officials to accept bribe BARYA OR NOT.
Ooops, “Tony Blair, whom I don’t – but not at all – LIKE and his Labour govt were the ones that tried to bury successive inquiries into the allegations that BAe bribed their way to win contracts in Saudi Arabia.”
Your comparisson there could be mistaken as a DEFENCE of ZTE officials, with their attempt to bribe their way, even if only by lavishing what you call “barya” on Abalos, into landing a contract with Philippine govt by wining and dancing the nation’s then election boss.
Do you really think it’s right for both parties – ZTE & RP govt official, i.e., Abalos to engage in such act?
I don’t deny that there are occassions when private British corporate officials WILL TRY TO BRIBE foreign government officials to land a juicy (and even a not so juicy) contract but my point here is it is WRONG!
If these PRIVATE corporate officials are caught doing that and are proven to have done it in order to win a contract in that foreign country (or in Britain) and that they won that contract because a bribe had been paid to a government official or officials, foreign or not, the OECD can slap the said private entity with sanctions and the erring officials of that company directly linked to the acts of bribing foreign government or public officials risk prison terms. I kid thee not.
Furthermore, re BAe: in order for the investigations on the bribery allegations against BAe to fluorish in Britain, it is imperative that Saudi Arabian officials cooperate in with investigators. Unfortunately Saudi Arabians are not cooperative.
The EU, much less the OECD cannot do anything against BAe if the Saudi Arabians (whom I believe are not signatory to the OECD treaty of anti-corruption) will not testify to the fact that they had received bribes – so, it’s not the rules that are wrong but the actors that are wily.
It is therefore in RP’s honour that Senate is looking at this, i.e., they themselves are determining whether there’s enough guilt to condemn their compatriots. You can’t do this in Saudi Arabia! So, you should encourage your Senate or any group of RP officials in bringing this out officially, investigating RP officials being accused of corruption as well as to determine the scope of bribing attempts by ZTE.
# 1 October 2007 at 8:49 pm
grd said:
MBW,
re corruption: don’t get me wrong I deplore corruption in any form or kind. corruption scandals such as this zte deal should be exposed and investigated w/o let-up (not just for media mileage by those senators) till those people involved are brought to court and punished although realistically speaking, I doubt it’s gonna happen. if it does well & good. as I’ve commented in the other thread, the best that can be accomplished from this investigation is the cancellation of this NBN deal. I really don’t see anyone going to jail or gma getting thrown out of office because of this.
but I maintain that it’s a cheap shot when pangilinan asked about who paid for the golf rounds and the dinner. he blurted it out para lang may masabi siya sa hearing. anyone among those in wack-wack could have easily afforded to pay the bill. you cannot build a case on that. but if you’ll tell me that they played golf and dined say in Hongkong or China, then that’s another story. but do you really think this kind of rendezvous just happens in the phils and highly unusual in other countries?
well, congratulations for bagging a govt project in the phils or any other country without bribery in any form.
now going back to that money laundering and bribery scandal between BAE and the Saudi govt official, it seems you did not read the link I mentioned above. did you know that the tornado supply deal back in 1985 was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher while this latest eurofighter typhoon supply contract was done by Tony Blair? you see it’s not BAE but the british government who actually negotiated for the contract just like what the Chinese govt did with this NBN deal. are you absolving the british govt from this web of corruption due to this contract just because the saudis are not cooperating? end of the story? that’s strange. you think the saudis will ever cooperate? the absence of any cooperation is a deadlock, case close and no need to pursue? again I find that logic strange. anyway, what has the OECD done so far? I have not heard any action from them or an independent inquiry maybe. you think European companies really follow OECD’s regulations to the letter? well, I myself know what’s the conduct of some companies being connected to a European company myself and under the contracts department. i know that europeans are corrupt from top to bottom. but did you know that the investigation of the british govt prior to it’s dismissal last December 2006 by Tony Blair dragged already for about 3 years?
I’m posting below one of the many articles about this anomaly just for you maybe to read and understand clearly what’s the story behind this.
# 2 October 2007 at 3:24 am
grd said:
Blair government cancels British Aerospace-Saudi arms inquiry
By Jean Shaoul
29 December 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
This is the first of a two-part article
On December 15, the Labour government called off the three-year long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the alleged bribery of the Saudi ruling family by British Aerospace (BAe) in the multibillion-pound Al Yamamah defence contract.
Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted “full responsibility†for dropping the inquiry. “Leaving aside the effect on thousands of British jobs and billions of pounds worth for British industry . . . Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East and in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine,†he said.
The decision, following an orchestrated campaign by BAe and intense political pressure from the Saudi royal family, has grave implications. It marks a significant stepping-up of the government’s offensive against democratic norms and underscores the utter contempt of the ruling elite for any notion of popular accountability.
The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, Britain’s senior law official and member of the government, had sought to bury the decision by making the announcement in an almost deserted House of Lords on the day the long awaited Stevens Inquiry into Princess Diana’s death was released.
Goldsmith had consulted the prime minister, the foreign and defence secretaries and the security services. He relayed a statement by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), justifying the actions taken after these deliberations: “It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.â€Â
In what must rank as one of the more disingenuous statements made in recent times, he then claimed, “No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.â€Â
What Goldsmith means by the “public interest†is the interest of the British ruling class. He came close to saying as much when he added that the SFO had dropped its inquiry “to safeguard national and international security.â€Â
Both Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that to continue with the investigation would damage “UK-Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation,†he added. Yet he also denied that this meant that the government had abandoned the investigation because of the “potential effect on relations with another state.â€Â
Later, Goldsmith insisted that the SFO had taken the lead in dropping the case. In a radio interview, he said that the SFO said to him, “‘Our judgement is that in the national interest this should not go aheadâ€â€what do you think?’ After looking at the case and taking advice, my judgement was, ‘Well, actually, I agree that this case should be discontinued’, although for somewhat different reasons, because I didn’t just think the case was uncertain. My judgement at this stage was that it wouldn’t go anywhere at the end of the day.â€Â
SFO director Robert Wardle immediately contradicted Goldsmith. He issued a short statement saying that he had dropped the Saudi end of the wide-ranging investigation, not because of insufficient evidence for a prosecution, but “following representations that have been made to both the attorney general and the director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international securityâ€Â
The SFO team carrying out the inquiry was ordered to surrender 20 boxes of files relating to the allegations of Saudi bribery. Investigations into BAe’s activities in Romania, Chile, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania are supposed to continue.
The attorney general was forced to abandon the SFO inquiry not only because it had become a major political embarrassment, but it was also a real danger to the economic and political interests of British imperialism.
The inquiry was into long running allegations that BAe, Britain’s leading defence contractor, operated a £60 million slush fund to oil the wheels of its largest-ever overseas arms deal, the Al Yamamah contract for Tornado jetfighters. Secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1985, the deal has brought BAe £42 billion ($84 billion) in the 18 years since it began and staved off BAe’s near-bankruptcy during the lean years of the early 1990s. At the end of 2005, after Blair’s personal intervention to clinch the deal, BAe secured a third orderâ€â€for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters, variously stated in the press to be worth between £6 billion and £40 billion. Prior to that, the Typhoon had failed to secure any significant export orders.
Ever since 1986, when allegations of corruption first began to circulate, successive governments have maintained that no bribery was involved. The SFO inquiry into BAe was only set up in 2004 following revelations in the press that could no longer be ignored.
In 2003, the Guardian disclosed that accidentally-released Whitehall papers, including a telegram from the head of Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), showed that the price of the Tornados had been inflated by 32 percent due to commissions and bribery. Another document from the archives cited a dispatch from a British ambassador saying that the family of Prince Sultan, who held the defence portfolio for many years, “had a corrupt interest in all contracts†The newspaper also published details from two travel agencies used to funnel funds for the hospitality BAe lavished on Saudi officials when they visited the UK.
The government could not ignore these revelations because in 2002 it had finally introduced legislation outlawing overseas bribery, as a result of pressure from the US, whose corporations, facing slightly more restrictive laws, found themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
The decision to ditch the inquiry that has already cost £2 million came after intense campaigning by BAe. In the last few weeks, lobbying from BAe, its public relations consultant Tim Bell, and the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Exports Services Organisation was intense. DESO is dominated by BAe. Some of its 500 employees, whose task is to promote arms sales, are located at a BAe site in Saudi Arabiaâ€â€at taxpayers’ expense.
BAe and its engineering suppliers claimed that tens of thousands of British jobs were at stake, although York University’s defence economics expert Professor Keith Hartley’s report last June showed that only 5,000 jobs were involved.
Last November, the Saudi royal family threatened to cancel the third phase of the deal for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters agreed at the end of 2005, and buy from France instead.
As well as the political embarrassment that any detailed exposure of their own avarice and corruption would cause them, the Saudis feared it would fuel resentment against the ruling family in both Saudi Arabia and throughout the Muslim world. The head of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, warned that the Saudis would withdraw their cooperation on security, including intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda and downgrade their embassy in London.
The Saudis piled on the pressure and reportedly issued a 10-day ultimatum after the SFO gained access to the normally highly secretive Swiss bank accounts whose records contain details of BAe’s recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi intermediaries. These would show whether BAe had made payments to Saudi princes, committed offences under UK law, and lied to the government to secure insurance cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the deal with its claims that it had complied with recent legislation that outlawed bribery overseas.
These broader economic and political realities counted for far more than any possible political fallout from Labour’s abandonment of the investigation. BAe and the defence corporations were delighted with the announcement and shares in the company and its major suppliers rose immediately after the news.
The Independent on Sunday has even reported that the police believed that they were bugged in an attempt to stop the inquiry. One senior figure involved in the SFO’s investigation into BAe said that its security had been frequently compromised. “I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on this inquiry had been reaching outside parties,†he told the press.
That the government should be able to abandon the inquiry is in no small part because the Conservative Party, industry and the trade unions were foursquare behind the decision. Only the much smaller Liberal Democrats, sections of the liberal press and pressure groups such as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), Corner House, and Transparency International have opposed it. CAAT and Corner House have hired a leading QC, David Pannick, to mount a legal challenge via a judicial review. Pannick is expected to argue that the decision to drop the inquiry contravenes the OECD’s convention on corruption that outlaws consideration of relations with another country in deciding whether to prosecute.
Saudi Arabia’s ruling clique and the Al Yamamah deal
The House of Saud, with its 7,000-plus princes, rules Saudi Arabia as a fiefdom. In defence terms, dynastic considerations demand a National Guard based in the cities, not an army that might rise up against it. In the context of the air force, the need is for high-tech unmanned planes and manned planes piloted overwhelmingly by junior members of the House of Saud and “reliable families.†But they lack the training and technical support to operate such equipment effectively.
Surrounded by enemies, Saudi Arabia has no friendly neighbours. There are long unresolved border conflicts in the region, particularly with Iraq, with Iran over its claims to Bahrain, now linked to the mainland by a causeway, and with Yemen, the product of earlier imperialist intrigues. Israel’s warplanes routinely make unauthorised flights over Saudi airspace.
The 1979 Iranian revolution installed a Shi’ite theocracy which the Saudis opposed. One consequence was an intensification of the traditional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional dominance. Within Saudi Arabia, it led to a radicalisation of the more impoverished and restive Shi’ites who live in the oil rich Eastern province. The brutal suppression of riots there in 1979 and 1980 cost dozens of lives.
All this plus the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war that Iran appeared to be winning provided the Saudis with the justification for a massive arms build-up. The Campaign against Arms Trade’s report, “The Arabian connectionâ€â€the UK arms trade to Saudi Arabia,†provides an insight into the shameless fraud that was perpetrated via Britain’s arms sales on both the Saudi and British people for the benefit of their ruling and financial elites. BAe’s profits came courtesy of taxpayers, not the much vaunted free market.
Britain had longed courted the Saudis as a trading partner, with the Duke of Edinburgh and Conservative Foreign Secretary Francis Pym attending King Fahd’s enthronement in 1982, at the height of the Malvinas (Falklands) War.
The Al Yamamah deal was secured in 1985 after the personal intervention of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Britain won the deal over its US and French rivals at a time when US-Saudi relations were strained, in part due to Riyadh’s refusal to allow an American base on Saudi soil and opposition from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
The deal was controversial from the start. Worth $8 billion over six years, it required Britain to equip, organise and train the Saudi air force, with the recently privatised BAe as the prime contractor. Most of the Tornados were strike planes and the British placed no restrictions on their use, despite fears about the Middle East arms race.
Allegations of corruption surfaced almost immediately. The Guardian spoke of “bribes of £600 million in jets deal†Some newspapers claimed that up to 30 percent of the cost of the deal was inflated by the rake-offs. Said Aburish, in his book House of Saud (written in 1994), said that BAe had never denied using agents and paying commissions to secure arms deals and that he had documents confirming BAe’s willingness to pay commissions.
# 2 October 2007 at 3:25 am
grd said:
here’s another one. the thing is, this anomaly is way above OECD.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Will BAE Scandal of Century Bring Down Cheney?
by Jeffrey Steinberg
June 21, 2007 (LPAC)–With the U.S. Department of Justice now confirmed to be investigating money laundering and bribery by the British aerospace giant, BAE Systems, Congress and the American people must make certain that the investigation does not turn into one more Bush-Cheney-Gonzales coverup. The issue on the table is far bigger than the alleged $2 billion in bribes that BAE Systems paid out to former Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, through the now defunct Washington, D.C. based Riggs Bank. As Executive Intelligence Review revealed in a stunning expose appearing in the June 22, 2007 edition (“Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City”), at least $80 billion in unaccounted for loot has been generated by the Al-Yamamah oil-for-jet fighters barter deal, since it was first signed in Sept. 1985.
While British news organizations, led by The Guardian and BBC have published revealing details of BAE bribery and slush funds, involving Prince Bandar, former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and the late Dutch Royal Consort, Prince Bernhard, none of the British media have touched upon the full magnitude of the scandal–the approximately $160 billion in secret oil revenues, generated by the BAE-Saudi Al-Yamamah deal, over the past 22 years (see accompanying chart for the year-by-year cash value of the Saudi oil shipments to BAE, through British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization).
British author William Simpson, who wrote the 2006 authorized biography of Prince Bandar, The Prince–The Secret Story of the World’s Most Intriguing Royal, on the other hand, provided authoritative details “right from the prince’s mouth” that should be of great interest to American Justice Department and Congressional investigators. What Simpson hinted at is perhaps the biggest covert Anglo-American slush fund in history –one that the author openly acknowledged had been used to fund clandestine wars, including the Afghantsi Mujahideen war against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, and other covert military actions in Africa.
Citing his interviews with Tony Edwards, the one-time head of the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization (DESO), which administered the Al-Yamamah project, Simpson wrote:
“Edwards admitted that for the Saudis the use of oil meant that the contract was effectively an off-balance-sheet transaction: it did not go through the Saudi treasury. Edwards also confirmed that one of the main attractions for the Saudis in this unique arrangement was British flexibility. ‘The British were much more flexible than the Americans,’ he said. ‘The Americans went through the Foreign Military sales system, which has congressional law behind it. If the customers get out of line and they fail to pay the money, then they are cut off. In this country, it was quite flexible; sometimes the oil flow and the associated monies that were received by selling it were ahead, at other times it fell behind.’”
Simpson continued, “The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO, before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the Treasury as it built up a considerable surplus.”
What neither Edwards nor Simpson chose to point out was the fact that the oil revenues generated from the 600,000 barrels per day that the Saudis paid into the Al-Yamamah fund from 1985 through to the present, amounted to an estimated $160 billion–four times the actual cost of the entire military package delivered by BAE to Saudi Arabia. Nobody in London is talking about where the rest of the money landed–and what it was used for.
DESO was established as a British government entity in the mid-1960s, and has been the private domain of Britain’s main defense manufacturers and allied financial institutions, ever since. Throughout its history, the director of DESO has always been a director of a major British arms manufacturer, responsible for hawking as much business as possible for the Anglo firms.
But beyond the increase in British portion of the global arms business, DESO also aimed to secure British control over the entirety of the Western arms business, through off-balance-sheet arrangements that would be impossible to pull off under American law. Simpson revealed that, under Al-Yamamah, American and other foreign firms were also allowed to cash in on the deal:
“The Al-Yamamah deal Mrs. Thatcher negotiated placed British Aerospace as the prime contractor for the provision of any other military equipment purchased for Saudi Arabia. ‘By supporting not just the British aircraft but the American aircraft too,’ said Edwards, ‘Al-Yamamah was an integral part of supporting the Saudi Air Force in total.’ He stressed that DESO and British Aerospace have thus ended up supporting all Saudi aircraft–the Peace Shield program–all funded through Al-Yamamah. Edwards concluded, ‘In other words, the value of this stream of income and what it is used for has drifted a little bit over the years into things other than it was originally destined for.’
“In effect,” Simpson admitted, “Al-Yamamah would become a backdoor method of covertly buying U.S. arms for the kingdom; military hardware purchases that would not be visible to Congress. It specifically had been structured to provide an unparalleled degree of flexibility whereby the Saudis could purchase military equipment under the imprimatur of DESO and British Aerospace.”
Simpson, who wrote The Prince as virtually a ghost autobiography of the enigmatic Saudi diplomat, Prince Bandar, openly acknowledged that the sheer magnitude of the oil-for-jets deal raised serious questions of corruption.
“The ingenious diversity of Al-Yamamah,” he wrote, “together with the British government’s discretion and liberal approach to a unique finance deal, largely founded on the undisputed collateral of the huge Saudi oil reserves, could explain the financial black holes assumed by a suspicious media to be evidence of commissions.”
But, Simpson explained, “Although Al-Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spin-offs are the by-products of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al-Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al-Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qadaffi’s troops from Chad. It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupying forces.”
“Arguably,” Simpson admitted, “its consummate flexibility is needed because of inevitable opposition to Saudi arms purchases in Congress… The oil barter arrangement circumvented such bureaucracy.”
Simpson quoted “sources close to Bandar,” who explained: “What Al-Yamamah did, because it is oil for services, is to say: Okay. Al-Yamamah picks up the tab; Saudi Arabia will sign with the French or whoever, and Britain pays them on their behalf. So suddenly the Saudis now have an operational weapons system complete with its support that doesn’t reflect on Al-Yamamah as a project. Therefore, if Saudi Arabia wants some services from the Americans, or some weapons system that they have to buy now, otherwise Congress will object to it later, and they can’t get it from their current defense budget, then they simply tell Al-Yamamah, ‘You divert that money.’”
Between the more than $80 billion in untraced funds generated through Al-Yamamah, according to EIR’s conservative estimate, corroborated by U.S. intelligence sources, and the use of the project as a cover for covert activities around the globe and unauthorized weapons purchases, both the Justice Department and the U.S. Congress have a much bigger series of crimes to probe than the $2 billion in fees allegedly conduited through the Saudi accounts at Riggs Bank. The issue is the British corruption and subversion of American law on a grand scale.
Prince Bandar’s ghost writer, William Simpson, has revealed that Al-Yamamah provided off-balance-sheet covert funding for the decade-long Mujihadeen covert war to drive the Soviet Red Army out of Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence sources have independently confirmed that at least some of those funds went to the recruitment and training of foreign Muslim fighters, who were sent to Afghanistan. Some of those fighters, following the Afghan War (1979-1990) would later surface in such far-away places as Algeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as Islamist insurgents, including members of Al Qaeda.
Simpson also revealed that Al-Yamamah funds went to the purchase of Soviet-made weapons, that were provided to Chad, to drive Libyan forces out of that African country. John Bedenkamp, a onetime top aide to Rhodesia’s apartheid-era President Ian Smith, and a major arms broker throughout Africa, is currently under investigation by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for his role in BAE arms dealings in South Africa. U.S. intelligence sources have identified Bedenkamp as a conduit for Soviet arms into African insurgents, raising questions about his earlier involvement with the Al-Yamamah project in these weapons deals fueling wars in Africa.
Cheney On The Hot Seat
Washington sources have reported to EIR that the Al-Yamamah revelations have sent shock-waves through the City of London. According to one senior U.S. intelligence source, who spoke to EIR on condition of anonymity, “the Al-Yamamah story opens a window into the inner world of Anglo-Dutch financial power. While Al-Yamamah is not the only such off-budget arrangement, it is one of the largest, and it provides a clear picture of a mode of operation–totally outside the control of any government agency, especially the U.S. government. Ultimately, this is a London scandal, not a Riyad scandal.”
One consequence of those shock waves is that Vice President Dick Cheney, according to knowledgeable Washington insiders, is in deep trouble with his London friends. Cheney, the sources report, was the guarantor that the story of the $80-100 billion dollar fund would never see the light of day. And, while the American and British establishment press have attempted to bury the scandal, either through blacking it our altogether, or focusing attention on tertiary features, like the relatively small flow of cash into Prince Bandar, the EIR revelations have saturated the U.S. Congress and have been picked up around the world.
The next chapter is now being written in the scandal of the century, and that could mean the political doom of Dick Cheney. Ironically, it could come at the hands of his own political boosters in the City of London, rather than from Congressional Democrats, who remain divided on the issue of Cheney’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Ultimately, the real powers behind the throne in London have very low tolerance for failure.
I’m fully aware of this scandal in the UK. I said, Tony Blair’s government buried all posibilities of investigating into the allegations of bribery committed by BAe officials. (Margaret Thatcher’s government may have done it but it was Tony Blair’s Labour govt that decided to scuttle investigation efforts.)
Re: ” i know that europeans are corrupt from top to bottom.”
That’s rather a blanket statement. You sure of what you are saying?
# 2 October 2007 at 4:23 am
grd said:
mbw, i told you i work for a european company. it’s first hand information based on personal experience. from the managing director down to the supervisor, all are corrupt. europeans are not only corrupt they are racist too. you think they just manifest this behavior when they are overseas?
# 2 October 2007 at 11:26 am
grd said:
mbw,
re: bae, you don’t get it. the corruption did not stop when the british bagged the contract. it was infact, just the start of the web of corruptions that took place. the bigger one is the money laundering (where the money trail lead to an account in a swiss bank of a saudi billionaire brokering between the british and saudi govt) . the corruption and the cover-ups continued up to the present govt. and since the british govt will not incriminate themselves for the british people interest, what did the OECD do during those 3 years of inquiry up to present? did they do their own investigation if you say it’s a powerful tool of the EU against corruption? IMHO OECD is inutile on this case.
that’s why I’m congratulating you and your company if you’re saying that 100% of your dealings are corruption free. plus the fact that you’re one of the competitors of Bae, that is truly awesome. how does your commercial managers do it? you can’t even play host on meetings with your clients since that will be a form (as you said) of bribery. and how do you lobby? just wondering how you do it.
Re: “mbw, i told you i work for a european company. it’s first hand information based on personal experience. from the managing director down to the supervisor, all are corrupt. europeans are not only corrupt they are racist too. you think they just manifest this behavior when they are overseas?”
Grd,
Why don’t you resign if they are all that corrupt?
# 2 October 2007 at 5:58 pm
grd said:
mbw, why should i? it’s not my money they are stealing but the company’s. and i’m not going to stay here forever as well. while mine is contractual they are regulars. it’s the mother company who should do a life style check on their regular employees.
but you have not answered my question re: bae, your company and OECD.
Which questions on “bae, your company and OECD?” Is it “did they do their own investigation if you say it’s a powerful tool of the EU against corruption?”
You must understand first that the OECD rules stipulate that member nations are bound by an inter-nation agreement to exhaust their own legal tools and to use every legal avenue to bring the culprit to justice. If you like, OECD as a body, becomes the final offical arbiter or judge and disseminate their findings and rulings on a corruption case to the rest of the member nations.
As to whether they’ve done any ‘investigating’ into the allegations that BAe corrupted Saudi Arabian officials, don’t honestly know the answer.
I can only speculate at this point: There could have been official investigations into the allegations but couldn’t indict BAe for wrongdoings most likely because evidence is weak.
I can see why indicting BAe would be difficult: the act of corrupting of government officials, if it was committed was done overseas, in Saudi Arabia, hence there is a NEED to obtain the testimony of the Saudis to charge BAe before the OECD. Understand that alleged BAe act of corruption was NOT committed ON UK government officials, in other words, I myself don’t believe BAe officials CORRUPTED UK government officials to win the contract in Saudi Arabia – just doesn’t make sense. Internal anti-corruption laws in the UK are very tough and I don’t believe BAe’s top officials would take the risk of corrupting British government officials.
Also, OECD can act only if its own investigators have completed the evidence gathering and proofs of wrongdoing are assembled from member nations. Just like in any court of law. But I don’t believe that can be done without the help of current UK govt, i.e., Labour. You must also understand that OECD cannot act when there is no legal complaint to speak of or when a complaint file is not complete. They also rely heavily on findings by a nation’s official bodies and European NGOs which are having a hard time obtaining evidence, eg, from the UK. (By the way, one good NGO, Tranparency International is all over – trying to help out in curbing or stamping out corruption at home and overseas, you might want to reach them if truly you believe your company is corrupt.)
Having said that, I do believe that if BAe officials are found to have corrupted Saudi Officials to win the contract, they are liable to be charged in their own home country’s tribunals (UK’s) and bound by OECD rules to go the whole hog but for any charge to stick, AGAIN, testimonies from Saudi officials need to be heard. (But don’t ever believe this is forthcoming from the Saudis…, no way!)
But in spite of this BAe scandal, you shouldn’t lead yourself to believe that there’s widespread corruption IN governments here in Europe or that all Europeans are corrupt.
Your assertion that “All Europeans are corrupt from top to bottom” is really NOT credible.
Grd, and Re: “mbw, why should i? it’s not my money they are stealing but the company’s.”
But if you know that there’s theft being committed, why don’t you report it to the company hqs or if not, you can contact the OECD yourself and reveal the corruption practices being committed by your company?
Bottom line is if you truly believe that the company is that corrupt, why receive money emanating from corruption? Don’t understand! Why be complicit or be an accessory to corruption? Resign!
# 2 October 2007 at 11:13 pm
grd said:
“Citing his interviews with Tony Edwards, the one-time head of the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization (DESO), which administered the Al-Yamamah project…â€Â
“Simpson continued, “The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO, before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the Treasury as it built up a considerable surplus.â€Â
Mbw,
I’m quite disappointed with your explanation re: OECD. In a way, if there’s no complainant then OECD can do nothing. But what if the host nation is an accessory to the crime? In the Phils there was this famous line “ang dagdag, ang dagdag” or say “may 200 kaâ€Â. In this case, it’s “ ang DESO, ang DESOâ€Â. But I thought your company has interest on this case since you’re the competitor, you can actually file a complain to OECD. But then again as what you’ve said, the evidence is weak even though a lot of these incriminating evidences has been reported already in the media like BBC’s investigative report ala PCIJ. Of course, all these can be considered as HEARSAY without concrete evidence. You can attest to that fact. By the way, those high priced prostitutes are from the UK (part of that lavish gifts to the Saudi officials as reported in the media.
Now, we go back to the Phils, what I don’t understand with you and your ilk specially your compatriots in ellenvile, you take everything that is reported in the local media, ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND WRONGDOING BY GOVT OFFICIALS as the GOSPEL TRUTH. You’re all too fast to jump the gun with everything that the media reports about wrongdoings, specially those stories written by ellen. Generating all those hatred from your fellow bloggers, very fast to pounch on commenters with different views (experience first hand by Devils), making fun of people, the cursing and everything.
Could it be that our local media is more credible than the western media that’s why they are more believable when they report allegations of corruptions? While you treat western reports with skepticism, in the Phils, there’s no second thought, no rationalizations, everything’s just spontaneously explosive. What could be the explanation behind this double standard? anyway, my last take on the subject re: Bae.
# 3 October 2007 at 3:59 am
grd said:
“But if you know that there’s theft being committed, why don’t you report it to the company hqs or if not, you can contact the OECD yourself and reveal the corruption practices being committed by your company?
Bottom line is if you truly believe that the company is that corrupt, why receive money emanating from corruption? Don’t understand! Why be complicit or be an accessory to corruption? Resign!â€Â
Mbw,
Ah, you’re too naïve about what you say report the corruption to the higher ups. It’s not really for us to do it. Just an analogy, your company cannot even report or complain to OECD the anomalous practices of your competitor how much I who’s just an ordinary employee? But don’t get me wrong again, our projects are legitimate. It maybe overpriced (I don’t know the figures) based on the lavish spendings of our officials and their families but it doesn’t concern us anymore.
As what Cat commented in the other thread re: Emron, “It is not only greed. It is also power and accessibility to the resources.†It’s what driving these people to commit such abuses. But what we filipinos (I and the other staffs) receive here are the fruits of our hardwork. I never stole anything from the company and I am not complaining either. I’m just giving you the facts about corruption that it happens everywhere big and small. It’s not us only but also our other competitors, clients, suppliers, etc.. In an imperfect world that I and others live, these corruptions that you are defining exist and thriving normally. We see it face to face everyday. Treating our clients, giving them favors for their personal requests, likewise, our suppliers treating us also, giving us company souvenirs, you name it. That’s how it is in our world. And yes, in a way I am not clean since I’m part of that system. I have endured and tolerated it. Now, I don’t know with your perfect world you might be doing things differently.
Re: “But I thought your company has interest on this case since you’re the competitor, you can actually file a complain to OECD.”
Grd,
You’re going way over the top… how on earth did you even presume that my company was asking for another company, their competitor in general, for an investigation into your BAe scandal?
Problem with you is you think that because you thought then it’s what things are supposed to be.
Are you trying to discuss the alleged act of corruption by BAe or are you trying to get back at me for being a regular poster at Ellenville (just like I am here)? I honestly can’t understand what you’re trying to drive at?
Anyway, this is not going anywhere — an exercise in futility.
Have tried to answer your questions but you are not prepared for anything other than what you “THOUGHT”…
You need to overhaul your thinking, discover other places, talk with people other than your corrupt superiors, read things other than your “sex scandal” in Saudi Arabia, etc., perhaps then you will realize that your blanket assertion that “Europeans are all corrupt from top to bottom” is just a pure product of your imagination.
You are too warped in your own cynicsm that it would take a great deal of patience to get you out of that sorry state of mind. I can’t be your father confessor (and I don’t want to be) so I don’t see any point continuing this discussion – much too difficult to play father confessor to a cynic for a simple sailor like me.
Last thing: “Now, I don’t know with your perfect world you might be doing things differently.”
You wouldn’t know now, would you? Not unless you carry out a re-hauling of your entire thinking but if I have a piece of advice, take it or leave it, this is what it is: There’s a whole world of politics that that you should try to discover beyond the confines of the corrupt company that employs you…being an eternal cynic will not help.
grd, ellen is a reputable and conscientious journalist. she does not print what she hasn’t verified through her own research or cross-checking via various sources. people wouldn’t be issuing death threats if she weren’t on to something. neither does she try to hide her sympathies, to which she’s entitled, and disclosure of her sympathies is all she owes her readers.
she’s a brave woman, does not take payola, and does not lie in her writings.
# 3 October 2007 at 12:54 pm
grd said:
Mbw,
I’m a failure. I can’t get through your vaunted jagged wits. Oh well, I can live with that.
Re: your being regular of both blogs, did you spot the difference? What’s anyway with that dual personality? I mean, here being prim and proper while over there like an unchained wild cat ala lady Miriam together w/ your ilk spewing tons of volcanic hatred in all directions (ahh cynicism ). But does it really help? Some kind of a therapy maybe as advised by doc (I understand the stress with your line of work). Or it’s just really about that old adage “when you’re in Rome, act like the Romansâ€Â. But you know, over there you’re committing also the C act. It’s called CORRUPTION OF THE MIND.
As for Europeans being corrupt, okay, I’ll qualify my statement. Could it be that only when they are overseas?
Anyway, agree with what you’re saying, this is an exercise in futility. So better end the story now.
But I wish I can experience living in your “real†world maybe just for a moment. It must be heaven in there.
# 3 October 2007 at 1:08 pm
grd said:
“grd, ellen is a reputable and conscientious journalist. she does not print what she hasn’t verified through her own research or cross-checking via various sources.â€Â
mlq3, maybe on her obsessions about issues such as the military activities, coup trials and all about gloria. but how sure are you about her being a conscientious journalist at all times? i think that’s disputable. there’s one article she wrote in her Malaya column (it’s in her blog too) printing a report about a school sent by one anonymous parent(?) complaining about certain school policies/activities. isn’t it the normal thing for a journalist to check the veracity of that letter before even printing it? the principal of that school sent her own letter to clarify the said complaint and explain her side of the story. she further said something about her good reputation being tarnished because of this unverified report and without the writer even bothering to check or clarify things w/ her office. that letter again was bombarded w/ insults from the regulars (of course in defense of ellen). is it the other way around now? the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not guilty of the crime? i really can’t see the fairness with that act. it’s really disappointing. how can you repair the damage if it has been done? being a journalist or in the media profession, you have that power and undue advantage to make or destroy someone’s reputation. but responsibilities also comes with it. it should not be abused. what i’m saying is, there should be some kind of self-regulation w/in your ranks.
grd, a reporter has to get all sides. a columnist, if presenting something and later someone onjects, should then accord the other side a chance to rebut if they want to.
you have to presume that ellen didn’t print the letter without doing her own checking to see if the matter was sufficiently important to publish. where ellen would be culpable is, if after her column came out, she refused to give the side of the principal. there’s also the possibility that informing the principal beforehand might have led to reprisals against the student(s).
# 3 October 2007 at 4:46 pm
grd said:
ok manolo, got it and thanks for the clarification. appreciate it.
OK, Re “As for Europeans being corrupt, okay, I’ll qualify my statement. Could it be that only when they are overseas? ”
Maybe so, can’t honestly be categorical but has it ever occurred to you that they may just be following the old rule “When in Rome do what the Romans do?”
Also, as to your “being prim and proper” resentment, are you happy about that or unhappy? Besides, I believe you should look back at hundreds of my comments in Mlq3′s blog so you can properly determine what you really mean by being prim and proper.
Let’s say that I’m perfectly capable of throwing you turd if you start going overboard but again, that would be useless. I’d rather focus on throwing turds at corrupt politicians, corrupt powers that be, etc. I wouldn’t want to waste my time on you unless you are one of those powers that be. (As it is, I should be reading the latest blog thread by Manolo here more seriously – instead of typing away to exchange “pleasantries” with you, talk of wasting time!)
So till the next time, I propose we agree to disagree.
# 3 October 2007 at 10:53 pm
grd said:
mbw, agree. i wont fan the flames any further. sorry for wasting your time. not for me though. i’m just one persistent person. my only regret, the response did not reach 200. till the next time and peace.
That smell, ladies and gentlemen, is the smell of someone’s goose being cooked.
here we go. let’s hope it all hits the fan.
I’ve always thought it was woman who invented corruption. Chinese pala.
M,
Pangilinan is correct. Only the President can invoke Executive Privilege. If she allowed Neri to appear before the Senate, then that means Neri must testify to all and sundry conversations with the President.
It must have been tactical for Neri to testify against Abalos but not GMA. But he will find no comfort in invoking executive privilege. Only the President and by extension and authority, the Executive Secretary can so invoke. And it cannot be invoked piece meal precisely because the President has given her approval for her to appear.
The approval itself is suspect but until MO 106 is disapproved, it stands. And having allowed Neri to testify despite the presence of MO 106, Neri could not invoke executive privilege.
so they called Neri in… Malacañang must be telling him to shut up already.
From the gallery, we conclude:
Lawyers for the administration
Sen Miriam – threw squid ink and debased the proceedings and witnesses with her remarks.
Sen Arroyo – made Neri look like a NINCOMPOOP and NEDA, a mere agency that passes the buck to simply get the monkey off its back.But you miss the point , sir Joker, even if it were just 200 pesos offered by Abalos to Neri, that was still a bribery attempt. Whatever happened to you, sir?
The rest of the senators with the exception of just a couple, did not study their homeworks and preferred to shoot their questions – to sound bright -from the morning dailies they may have read.
But the saddest part is: the administration’s gargantuan and conspiratorial effort to lie and protect the liars and their loot. Wow, this is really the pits!
“Pangilinan is correct. Only the President can invoke Executive Privilege. If she allowed Neri to appear before the Senate, then that means Neri must testify to all and sundry conversations with the President.”
Based on this argument, the President shouldn’t allow the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense to ever appear before the Senate or the House? Imagine a stupid Senator or Congressman asking these people about State secrets.
this is the philippines. yun lang.
(i’ll stop now, lest i find benign0 agreeing with me. hahaha)
Attack of the Romulan? It took me a while to figure out it’s from Star Trek. But what is the relation?
It is astounding that suppliers to government can meet with cabinet ministers who are after all ‘alter-egos’ of the President, privately to discuss their offers.
No matter what, Abalos is buried deep in shit in acting as fixer on behalf of a supplier and off course the still as unnamed people.
Government procurement in the Philippines is always about buying goods and services with non-transparent standards, shoddy workmanship and incomplete deliveries.
Approving a project without having a basis for comparative costs is a recipe for stealing. Yet NEDA approved the project based on what? The executive department approved a procurement contract without even knowing what the hell they were getting.
The Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary General of NEDA and the Commissioner of Elections Abalos met with suppliers to the government to discuss their proposed offer in private meetings.
We now know that the President of the Republic knew of these meetings.
If there was no JDV3 offer this deal would have gone through.
There is fundamentally a serious character flaw with these people who take an oath to serve the people in a constitutional framework. Maybe it is a cultural flaw. I do not know what to call it.
There really is no concept of the common good amongst the highest levels of men at the highest positions of government.
I am really stunned at the callousness of these men. I am totally dumbfounded as to why there was no alarm sounded by any of this men.
Neri always speaks of regulatory capture of government but there he was involved in a shady process of which he sees absolutely nothing wrong. He rationalizes his part in the food chain and disclaims responsibility for the rest of the chain.
I am reminded of Watergate. If Alexander Butterfield did not reveal the existence of the tapes Nixon would never have been forced to resign. John Deans testimony would not have been corroborated by Nixon himself.
The Supreme Court then struck down Nixons claim of executive privilege simply because he was accused of probably committing a felony.
Now it seems Neri is claiming executive privilege? But he is not the President and there is information that she is probably involved in a crime.
I’m thinking maybe Sec. Neri is waiting willingly to be cornered for the knockout question. Then he could say, “wala na akong magawa! nasabi ko tuloy ang totoo” We’re waiting for that question, Mr. Senators.
“There is fundamentally a serious character flaw with these people who take an oath to serve the people in a constitutional framework. Maybe it is a cultural flaw. I do not know what to call it.”
hvrds, it’s the intsik in all of us.
“I’m thinking maybe Sec. Neri is waiting willingly to be cornered”
I’m thinking everything’s scripted, including Miriam’s rant. I remember one middle aged guy complaining about the youth’s penchant for ranting. Well?
brian:
it’s a play on Romulo Neri’s name first of all…. and well, the Romulans were one sneaky, backstabbing bunch in the Star Trek series. their spacecraft had cloaking devices.
I think it funny, ‘Attack of the Romulan’ hwehehehehehe.
Gloria replies: “E…yung additional na 1M?”
“it’s a play on Romulo Neri’s name first of all…. and well, the Romulans were one sneaky, backstabbing bunch in the Star Trek series. their spacecraft had cloaking devices.”
Yeah, Neri does look like a Romulan. Slim like them too, without the pointy ears. But Romulans are the bad guys.
Gloria: “Hello, Neri?… yung pampataas? yung pampataas na 1M?”
attack of the Romulan,
Was it from Star Trek?
Sorry BrianB,
I did not scroll up.
Me sagot na pala.
Ewan ko lang, pero medyo na bore ako sa live blogging na to. There is really nothing much so far. Kaya tulog muna ako
“Ewan ko lang, pero medyo na bore ako sa live blogging na to. There is really nothing much so far. Kaya tulog muna ako”
We’re going to war with China, but you’re probably over drafting age.
But your right, as long as they can avoid any major drama (i.e. Loren crying) this thing will prolly just blow over. It has that vibe.
What’s wrong with Madrigal? MLQ3 should edit her out of his live blogging. A genuine bummer.
Been reading blow by blow live blogging account by Quezon.
My initial comments:
As usual, this is first class reporting – can’t wait to read the rest.
Arroyo the senator seems to be the one who’s asked the more relevant questions.
Pity they didn’t continue the line of questioning: what abalos doing brokering for a deal with a line agency very much outside his turf.
Highly irregular.
Even if i can’t see Abalos’ body language, his replies point to being evasive, and much as one wants to give him benefit of doubt, the man is clearly lying.
He brokered, fixed the deal for ZTE.
To be able to go around Speaker Joe de Venecia in deals of this kind or that he’s shown interest in and seems to back (ok it’s his son’s), only another ‘bigger’, powerful official can do that at election time; easy to dedeuce that among protagonists present, only Abalos could do that. The next would have been president.
“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?”. The only surprising thing I got from the
liveblog was chairman Abalos himself quoting scripture! Nakaka pangilabot! We have to commend him at least for memorizing this verse, from Matthew 16:26. If he had only proceeded further to verse 17, it goes on “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and
WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.”
Let us look into Chairman Abalos history in the Comelec to have an idea of his DEEDS, all there for the public to take note of. Maybe, next time chairman Abalos quotes scriptures, someone please tell him to understand its full context first, and that it certainly applies to him too.
In Mlq3′s liveblog feed, Neri said or rather someone called Sales said that there were no other proposals so difficult to make comparisson – one senator quipped, NEDA didn’t do job properly – then insisted that this deal was based on tied loan.
Actually it’s line agency that didn’t do its job properly – how can they be so sure that other govts can’t propose better loan terms if they didn’t ask other govts. All they have to do is inform embassies in Manila soliciting proposals. Embassies would have done job for them contacting industries. DoTC didn’t even have to get off its backside and proposals would be “pouring in”.
Embassy economic post would have lobbied with their govt for back to back govt loans.
Only way to know if Chinese offer is good offer.
In other words, however they want to slice this as being tied to China govt loan, etc., this ZTE deals smacks of corruption, not only financially but morally.
At the very least, RP govt line agency has been very negligent and NEDA has not been up to their task. At that level, it’s RP chief exec who should be blamed. Am trying to be very objective here and do not wish to accuse her of anything at this point save for gross negligence. She has command responsiblity.
For one who is reputed to be micro management prone, she overlooked, and only god knows why, the flaws and gross negligence committed by her cabinet men in the performance of their tasks.
ZTE deal is purely commercial transaction even if backed by their own govt banks (Chinese) so it’s not as if this deal is a national security treaty matter involving China that president cannot question or compare it with other possible offers from other countries.
Any way you look at it, this deal is fishy.
Sen. Pangilinan is wrong. Sec. 2a of E.O. 464 is valid according to the decision of the Supreme Court. They cannot force Neri to tell them what was discussed between Neri and PGMA.
Be objective. You are all bias and already prejudged this issue.
Mr. Willy,
You are not God to judge a person.
Tagabukid,
Sa bukid ka na lang magtanim. You are not helping the Philippines. What you are saying are insults and speculations.
So is Abalos being sacrificed now? He has no aces up his sleeve. He can’t get back at GMA by exposing the dirty tricks of the last elections because he’ll be in a deeper hole.
I must say, excellent tactics by GMA. This bitch is good.
Abalos doesn’t have to do any exposé frontally – if he thinks he’s being made the fall guy, and if he’s got the goods on her, Abalos is not nearly a dumbo not to be able to have some trusted fellows to leak things to the press and to Congress without incriminating himself.
Other words, Gloria is not yet off the hooks if it’s true she wants Abalos to serve as the fall guy.
Nash: I’m not sure what you mean. If Abalos is to be sacrificed, why can’t he threaten to bring down the whole house of cards?
Then again, I guess it depends on just how he will be sacrificed.
BrianB: It’s up to the Senators to prevent this from blowing over. This is, so far, the biggest stink that the administration has been associated with and it will not go away so easily.
For sure, these leeches will claim that there’s no harm done because the ZTE deal is now suspended and will eventually be canceled. Nobody benefited.
No harm no foul?! No Sir, this is what one may call: Frustrated Plunder!
He can’t because as a fall guy he would have been exposed as a liar so he can’t say anything against gma that gma can’t easily wave off with her magic wand.
Unless of course he does a Chavit Singson, admit he’s a crook, then spill the beans.
Tagabukid,
“Nobody benefited.”
Not so sure about that…
Neri played up to Malacañan’s propaganda. He did EVERYTHING to protect Gloria & Mike. I was so disappointed at him. I agree with Sen Lacson when he said Neri missed the opportunity for his defying moment. Arrogantly, Neri said he will be the judge of that.
Notwithstanding I suspect that Abalos is a crook, but after listening to the manner of how Neri was answering the queries of the Senators, I’m beginning to doubt about the 200 that was offered to him by Abalos. I wouldn’t be surprised if Neri said that if only to deflect the public’s focus on FG & Gloria.
A few hours after listening to the hearing, I got the feeling that Abalos was going to be the fall guy of FG & Gloria. What the public got was the supposedly tell-all of a whimpy Neri. Impressed ? Not !
Neri confirms bribe alright but if he cannot be more specific, i.e., by refusing to reveal his conversations with Gloria following his squealing to her of the bribe attempt, then Abalos goes scot free and in addition, Gloria can say once more… let’s move on.
Not at all the results I expected from this Senate hearing today. Not at all…
Up to the Senators to dig more intelligently.
too many events where abalos’ names appears to be considered just a mere coincindence.
neri is telling half-truths…covering for someone…can’t blame the guy(neri), PNP already posted in front of house…sure sign of intimidation!
senate inquiry too technical questions…what happened to common sense and plain and simply truth?
there were “advances” already made. that itself makes sure “somebody” benefited.
Enrico, AFAICS Willy was not judging. He was pointing out that Abalos’ deeds are all there for everyone to see. and btw, as public officials, men like Abalos cannot just claim citizens are not Gods, so they shouldn’t judge him. public officials will always be subject to criticisms. and tha tby itself is a form of judgment.
so we aren’t Gods huh? tell that to the justices who renders judgments on persons and cases.
If I were senator, I would ask Neri following:
In conscience and deep in your heart, could you say in your capacity as a respected technocrat (economist or whatever his/Neri’s title or profession is), that this contract or whatever it’s called, not disadvantageous to govt if only to refer to fact that from 262 million dollars, bloated to 330 million in a few months…
Answer yes it is disadvantageous or no it’s not disadvantageous and explain why or why not.
read between the lines…neri says he doesn’t approve the contract but merely recommends it…who signed the contract in china( GMA was there!)…GMA had prior knowledge of the bribe attempt as neri said…neri might not be saying it loudly but, he is saying it clearly!
let the pieces fall where there are supposed to.
Senators MUST ASK QUESTIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THE GUY SPEAK AT LENGTH, TO EXPLAIN…
I get the impression reading Quezon’s live feed that they cut him off and only ask stupid quesitions so they can in turn show off to the gallery!!! Dumb thing to do if they want to get Neri to expose what he knows, then they are not doing it properly.
The guy is a technocrat so let him explain his side of the story by making him lecture if need be – and that’s when you pounce on what he said if it’s clear he’s hiding something.
Going round and round serves no purpose.
And if he falters, Senator should merely say, “Go on… you were a professor (or still a professor of something), so please feel free to lecture us on why you think it’s disadvantageous or not disadvantageous to govt…â€Â
which is why the senators are doing it wrong. if they’d just let these people speak at length, they’ll eventually stick their foot in their mouth. lying and hiding the truth can be very confusing. you’d have to be alert all the time jz to catch yourself from contradicting things you’ve said. no person can ever keep this up at all times!
and senators shouldn’t be allowed to interrupt and “coach” when witnesses are beginning to crumble. in fact, i wonder where these senator’s manners are when they keep on interrupting people speaking. i’ve never been like that. if i want to interpellate or back people into a corner (when i was still in the debating team) i note things they said, and when they’re finish putting their foot in their mouth, i point it out: sirs and madames, how does ur foot taste?
Devils,
“i note things they said, and when they’re finish putting their foot in their mouth, i point it out: sirs and madames, how does ur foot taste?”
Absolutely!
Devils, that’s why mlq says they smack of baranggay cop mentality.
mlq3,
abalos nilaglag, gma protektado
now abalos will get back at gma,
anything abalos can do to get back at gma?
most serious threat to abalos, heart attack before he can counter-attack
neri chose gma over 80m filipinos,
MBW, so true. sigh.
on the issue of neri’s invocation of executive privilege on behalf of the president with respect to certain questions asked of him, i agree with sen. enrile’s view that it doesn’t make sense, legal, logical or practical, to compel neri to answer right then and there. every lawyer worth his law diploma knows that, in the context of an oral examination, the issue of privilege only comes into play after the question is asked, not before (unless the witness is a mind reader). and since, under the ermita sc decision, only the president herself and the executive secretary (who are not physically present) can claim the privilege, how can they do so without first being made aware of the question being asked? and how can neri know right then and there that either the president or the executive secretary would want to invoke the privilege with reespect to that particular question?
contrary to ordinary layman’s belief, eo 464 was not totally invalidated by the sc. in fact, it upheld executive privilege within certain parameters. but i don’t believe sc made its exercise a virtual impossibility.
pete m, no. Neri chose his family over everything else. even I would choose the safety of my family over 80m strangers whose only claim to my goodness of heart is that they’re my countrymen. and some don’t even deserve to be fought for.
mbw, dadvocate,
observed that too, senators should just let them talk,
villar is best, spoke least
gordon, msantiago, enrile, arroyo – gma tutas
abalos will psycho breakdown, gma and fg defensible
long-term problem is chinese invasion via cheap moneys, investments,
I agree with MLQ3 that the senate has a baranggay desk clerk attitude in its line of questioning.
Tapos yung random thinking aloud,hindi na mawala.
Si enrile,kinwestyon kung bakit nagtatanong si mar roxas on behalf of trillanes,sya daw hindi nagka chance nung nakulong sya.
Beh,buti nga,malas mo.
davocate,
can’t separate good for family from good for country,
it’s not either or, the choice is between good or bad, truth or lies, half truths are lies, neri can still speak the truth about gma’s involvement in the zte, defintely she is involved, what she did and didnot re the bribery attempt.
Sanamagan!
Ermita has just virtually branded Neri “a liar!”
From the inquirer:
“At this point in time, we could not make heads or tails of all these talks about bribery. That is the reason why we felt that there’s no corroboration whatsoever as far as charges coming from people that there were bribes offered,” said Ermita, when asked to comment at a press conference about Neri’s admission that he had been offered a “200″ bribe by Abalos.
Unfortunately and fortunately for Gloria, Neri is just no ordinary wimp – I agree with Manolo’s take on him, that he is a SWITIK!
If Neri wants to be a real steward, he must realize that he cannot serve two masters. It’s either he serves the people and the next generation of Filipinos, or serve the devil.
In the meantime, I agree with the observation that senators if they are worth their salt must start to ask LEADING questions.
Manolo, thanks for this service. A media professor, I think Dr. David Considine, has once said (and I’m paraphrasing) . . . indeed, media shapes our perceptions, so it matters not just what we see but what we don’t see. Public policy is based on perception.
I ditto Abe’s comments and thank Manolo for this wonderful service!
Ok,let’s give Neri the banana that he deserves!
We expect too much from that wimp.Do wimps have defining moments except when they are hungry!
Let’s move on please!
I am furious, livid… Neri is nothing but a worm of the tapeworm variety.
Equally, we have our VENERABLE, HONOURABLE but stupid senators to blame – they had their chance and they idiotically blew it. Why? They were just playing up to the gallery.
No wonder, Brenda walked out – she knew her colleagues were dumb, just the same, she should have stayed to do the right thing but as ever, she is just one unpredictable broad with stability problems!
Damn, damn, damn!
The Ateneo roll of honor:
HEROES:Jose Rizal,Ninoy Aquino,Ed Jopson
the never minds!: Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde,Joc-Joc Bolante,Ronnie Puno,Romy Neri
Oh well, never mind! Tomorrow is another day…
mbw,
ermita is i.e. implying there was or that he is not aware of any PAGSI -mpresidential anti-graft for pres appointees — of abalos re neri’s report to gma. they’ll cover gma somehow, question is just how they’ii do it. ermita statement is subject to change or adjustmens.
Daddy chair:Some Are Smarter Than Others!Kawawa naman kayo .A fall guy at 73 for FG!
Let’s move on!
MBW:àquelque chose malheur est bon (every cloud has a silver lining)
Right on, TdC!
By the way, could anybody tell me the exact translation of Switik in English… I thought it’s shrewed, cunning or foxy, but isn’t switik stronger than just shrewed?
Tagalog: tuso, switik, paimbabaw, sinungaling
TdC,
Neri a bien couilloné les senateurs, mais bien, bien couilloné!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but it’s difficult to explain this expression too in French, which is the version if you like of “switik” – very strong language in French: ‘couilloner quelqu un’…
The problem with most senators,with the exception of Pimentel and Lacson,madaling mayanig kay Lolos Johnny/Joker and kay Lady Miriam !Nakakahiya!
Romy lost the chance to be in the annals of Philippine history.
Still has a chance to be Gloria’s toy(â€Âpinaglalaruanâ€Â):
http://soucoupe.altervista.org/images/monchichi.jpg
“We are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.” – Bong Austero
Did he really say THAT?
What kind of plonker statement was that?
Can “Monchichiâ€ÂNeri handle CHED?
Can a wimp be a role model for college students?
What will he include in the curriculum? “Profiles in Courage�
Heh! “What will he include in the curriculum? “Profiles in Courageâ€Â?”
Heheh! Exact course title: “Profiles in Courage, Este, Cowardice Pala”
or PROFILES IN EUNUCHRY!
TDC, i was hoping you would turn out right and i would be wrong about Neri. The Jesuits really have some soul-searching to do.
CVJ:very disappointed.I guess the Jesuits have to start thinking how Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde, Joc-Joc bolante,Ronnie Puno and now Romy Neri passed through the portals of Ateneo.
May the gods of basketball still smile on ateneo tomorrow!
Dearest Monchichi Neri:
You just destroyed whatever was left of my sagging reputation.
In return ,I give you a “saging†for your cowardice?But what will you do with a “saging “if you have no balls at all?
Do you think the pipol will believe you now?hehehe
Daddy Chair
switik : miser, tending to rapaciousness
synonyms : barat
thnx pete m!
In a way, he just proved he’s a miser – he refused to divulge all.
I thought Abalos was the most despicable character here. I was wrong. It was Neri. He ratted on Abalos to protect his Queen and her consort.
another bubble burst? what’s the matter guys, neri busted your chops because he did not “deliver” what you all were salivating to hear? it was really pgma and fg you were after, and abalos is only an insignificant “bonus”, right? when are you guys ever gonna learn? here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.
MonchichiNeri(Chair of CHED?)-According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “coward” comes from an Old French word coart, a combination of the word for “tail” and an agent noun suffix. It would therefore have meant “one with a tail”  perhaps one in the habit of turning it, or it may be derived from a dog’s habit of putting its tail between its legs when it is afraid.
“here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.Bencard”
Let’s move on!
“another bubble burst? what’s the matter guys, neri busted your chops because he did not “deliver†what you all were salivating to hear? it was really pgma and fg you were after, and abalos is only an insignificant “bonusâ€Â, right? when are you guys ever gonna learn? here, take these rugs to wipe your faces. better still, take a swim in the pasig.BENCARD:
Dear Tito Bencard:
Thanks again!
Stay vigilant, my agent – in time, the opposition, for all intents and purposes, will BE the Luli Arroyo Internet Brigade!
Love and kisses,
LULI A. (My Mommy right or wrong!)
2007 Corruption Perception Index(Transparency International)
The Philippines no 131.Somalia the worst(179)
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007
RP climbed 10 steps down(?), after this Neri heap of dung did what he did, don’t be surprised if Pinas goes down another 10 steps and pretty soon, it will be partying with Somalia.
Bencard,
i was at the senate, I talked to neri’s classmates who were there to support him. many of them are gloria supporters like you. they wanted to see abalos skewered and no one else. neri turned them off when he kept invoking executive privilege. those neri classmates were not lawyers. they just wanted to hear their classmate tell the truth. neri lost their respect.
The fact that Neri invoked executive privilege when asked to divulge his conversations with GMA means that he is hiding something sordid that is damaging to her. I cannot imagine what there is in a conversation between a President (I’m not conceding legitimacy) and a NEDA Director-General about a broadband project that, if disclosed publicly, could possibly damage our diplomatic relations, our military, or national security.
Neri’s claim of executive privilege which means GMA is guilty of corruption in this deal is good enough for me (despite Bencard’s expected technical legalism).
GMA will have her day of reckoning after she relinquishes her stolen power. Remember that Fujimori has just been extradited to Peru.
buencamino, that’s the whole problem with people who have no real understanding of the law. they think with their guts, not with their brains, when it comes to observing legal niceties. the exercise of executive privilege implicates a constitutional prerogative that is a cornerstone of our democracy. neri’s classmates’ and your version of “truth” may be important to you, but the principle of executive privilege is an essential ingredient of democratice rule of law. to illustrate: a coerced confession, or one obtained by deceit, force or intimidation, may be “true” but not usable.
btw, how did you know neri lost their “respect”; are you sure he has their respect to begin with, whether or not they “support” pgma?
Re: Nery,
I don’t know what you people expect. You expect this guy to be a Saint, to offer himself up like Jose Rizal? Would anyone here do what they (stupidly) expected Nery to do?
Nery’s an old guy, and old guys are rarely heroes, as you may well know if you look at the history of this country.
On bad Filipino habit is to wait for big dramatic cues like men getting tragically murdered or women crying their eyes out, and you expected Nery to spill the beans in the Senate. But why would Nery do that, for what compelling reason, simply to tell the truth? Because he’s an Atenista?
“CVJ:very disappointed.I guess the Jesuits have to start thinking how Jose Pidal,Jose Velarde, Joc-Joc bolante,Ronnie Puno and now Romy Neri passed through the portals of Ateneo.”
EXACTLY, Jesuits.
bencard, it’s a concept invented in the 1950s, far from being a cornerstone of democracy, it’s an obstacle to checks and balances: and legal scholars have said as much-
http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2007/08/executive-privilege.html
For God’s sakes read Woodrow Wilson-
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=798
And this:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.documents&doc_id=4319&group_id=4312
Where is the Benign Zero? It’s not his day off? We need his real analysis….
What I don’t understand is why Neri, who seems like a perfect lil technocrat, who has the world of academe and business if he wants before him, a person who gives the impression that he doesn’t care very much about being a member of Gloria’s “millionaire club”, why didn’t he say the whole truth? By saying the truth, he’s got everything to gain, not only in terms of prestige among his peers but also the respect of even his ‘enemies’? Why did he prefer to lose all that by playing the coward card?
The excuse that he’s old and therefore has become more cautious doesn’t wash – he hasn’t got a family (wife and kids) to speak of hence, he doesn’t really have to think of them being kidnapped or held hostage by Gloria.
If he thinks that by sealing his puckered lips to protect Gloria, it will protect him… For a so-called brilliant mind, he’s not really thinking. Doesn’t he realize that this act of his has just emboldened the Macapagal-Arroyos to bully him all the more? Doesn’t he realize that all the more they will humiliate him because he’s lost the last ouce of respect that even those scallawags in Malacanang have of him?
Doesn’t he realize that he has virtually written an official authorization for the crime syndicate in Malacanang to insult his last shred of dignity from now till the end of time?
Where is your self-respect Mr Neri?
Cowardice – what men do to themselves in thy name!
Bencard,
there you go again. i heard Sen Gordon, an arroyo ally by the way, read in plain english the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive privilege in its decision declaring parts of EO 464 unconstitutional. Gordon pointed out that Neri neither had the position nor the grounds to invoke it. Another GMA ally, Ponce Enrile, said if that’s what the SC says then so be it. There was no argument among the senators over the meaning of executive privilege. The ony argument was whether or not to cite Neri for contempt or to give him time, as a courtesy, to justify his claim to e.p.
Before you go scrawling genralities about e.p. and all that, make sure you know the details of the case.
As usual you are making judgments based on HEARSAY. And you call yourself a lawyer.
bencard,
they went their to show their support for Neri. I suppose that qualifies as respect, right panero?
mlq3, thanks for citing the opinions of the late u.s. pres. woodrow wilson, history teacher/blogger david kaiser (offering in support of his contention the works of lawyer-violinist raoul berger) and the remarks of donald wolfensenberger re congressional oversight. these are opinions, not as persuasive as mine, but still opinions, not voices from heaven. as to where you got the 1950′s as the time of “invention” of the concept of executive privilege, how can i dispute “the explainer”?
at any rate, in the very words of the u.s. supreme court, it was held: “the expectation of the president to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and added to those the values the necessity for protection of public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in presidential decisionmaking. the president and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express privately. THESE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFYING A PRESUMPTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS. THE PRIVILEGE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT AND INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. (underscoring, mine). u.s. v. nixon (1974).
Bencard,
Ir will serve your so called legal whatever to read the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision. They’re who we follow around here,
buencamino, you call me “panero”. if i remember right, only lawyers call other lawyers panero in the philippines. if i may ask, are you one? how come you cannot distinguish a lawyer’s argument from a testimony, or even a “judgment” – a prerogative of a judge? oh, btw, you’re sure their watching the “performance” was for the purpose of supporting neri?
buencamino, and what would you say to mlq3 who invokes the “opinions” of americans, huh? and, last time i read the s.c. decision on eo 464, they invoked liberally from american jurisprudence, didn’t they?
Haay, Bencard, Eh ganyan naman talaga lagi at mulat sapul di ba? Asa ka pa. They are they majority in this forum remember so they they believe they should dictate the rules or they rule itself. And that include what reference to use and even the definitions.
On neris implicating only Abalos and spared Gloria…
You see Brian thats why I was bored following the live blogging. There is just no indication that Neri will implicate Gloria…
Ayan nafrustrate na naman toluy ng husto ang ang Pathetic Loser Crowd. And ang ending nito, kastiguhin nanaman nila ng Move On Crowd…
Rego, I never expected Nery to become more than a team player. I don’t know this guy personally, have not followed his career, and, to be very judgmental, he is a wimp, a sissy and has a practical look about him. He’s an accountant for crying out loud. I think someone posted a YouTube clip of the untouchables here yesterday. Nery was the Bookkeeper not Eliot Ness. The bookkeeper stepped out of the train but Ness was nowhere in sight.
Bencard,
All the reactions here to Neri’s cowardice in the Senate are not just about law books or legal opinions by brilliant legal minds like yours, like Ermita’s (who instructed Neri to invoke e.p.), or by American jurisprudence; the reactions expressed here are perfectly human reactions – much like your own feelings for us here who do not appreciate Gloria and her cabal of officers; of course, you can’t expect to find them in law books.
If people were to consult law books before they even utter a word for fear of hurting the powers that be, what kind of world would that be? Even you would not have a place in that kind of world… that will be Hitler’s world all over again.
You have to respect that there are poeple here who cannot think the way you do about Gloria because they do not believe that she is the person you think she is. It is your right to revere, adore and put her on a pedestal but you cannot on the strength of your feeling for her or on the basis of what your law books say, change what is fundamentally inherent in people – the right to differ from you.
I think that’s called democracy.
mbw, i see your point but it really is not about about gma, fg, abalos, the senators or the powers that be. its not about you, mlq3, buencamino, rego or me. its not even about the law books and court decisions that govern us. its not easy, but it is all about how it is to live under a rule of law and not of men. a hundred years from now, all of us will probably be not here in our present state, but the norms, precepts and principles we live by will endure as long as generations coming after us will respect, obey and observe them.
Manila bay watch: Godwin’s Law!
mlq3,
Would it be descretionary then on the part of the senators to divulge to the public parts of what discussed in the exec session to the public?
Will they vote on whether what were spoken by neri in ES are covered by executive privelege?
ah well, contrary to all you guys, prof. neri behaved true to his form! i think quite a few of his former students at AIM will agree that old coot behaved exactly as we expected him to behave. apologies to all those who thought neri could’ve been a hero or something, he’s just NOT the type.
on EO464: not a legal authority or whatever, but i think what the SC did, by invalidating section 2b and 3, was to limit the scope of executive privilege to heads of departments of the executive branch. how does that apply to neri, who is no longer director-general of NEDA? and i think, per US and other examples of Philippine jurisprudence as provided in the SC decision, the invocation of the privilege requires that a specific question be posed, in order to determine whether or not such invocation of the privilege is warranted. can anyone confirm that?
as for getting GMA and FG on all of this. from the start i thought it was a long shot. Abalos had been such a conveniently larger from the get go, and the fact that he’s established himself as a consummate liar is not helping. if the objective was to sacrifice someone, well abalos is that sacrifice.
Nash,
dont think so.
The buck went through mama gloria’s ear and stopped in her brilliant brain.
President Truman, in his speeches, referred to the saying “The buck stops here!†and specifically asserted: “The President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.â€Â
I believe Mr. Neri was candid and forthright when he recounted telling gloria of the bribe attempt. I am pretty sure Mr. Neri doesn’t get to hear a lot of these bribe attempts (as he might have been appalled when abalos said it to him). Therefore it’s possibly not everyday that he reports to gloria such attempts to make her callous in not doing anything about it.
Mr. Neri already elevated the situation to the acting highest (but probably the smallest) official in the land and yet that official did nothing as if no wrongdoing has been committed. gloria is remiss in her duty.
I hope gloria doesn’t go scot-free this time even though it’s just bribe attempt that was phoned to her. As others may recall, garci has intimated (also through phone – the garci wiretap) to her the “soft touch†policy (short of labeling it kidnap/hostage-taking) employed during the Rashma Hali Affair. gloria didn’t prevent it from occurring that’s why Ms. Harriet lost Rashma, their witness, to the government side. The latter incident is a more serious offense but the main difference now is that there is one Romulo L. Neri who is declaring gloria knows of the bribe attempt and that gloria or her minions are not disputing this statement!
—–
What I like to ask Mr. Neri is these:
You said you have poor memory, but aren’t we all (not expecting an answer)? There are situations wherein you can recall incidents in your life when it’s worth remembering or even not good to remember, like embarrassing moments, am I right? Anyway, let me ask again…Did you report abalos’ bribe attempt (as you have conjectured abalos was doing) to your president? How come you remembered (hoping to extract the circumstances surrounding it that made him recall the incidents)?
Do you often get to receive bribe attempts? How many? From whom (no names please – just designations, public official or private individual)? For how much?
Do you often report these bribe attempts (if there are any, other than abalos’ attempt) to your president?
Are you credible to your president when you phoned the incident to her? How did you feel when you unburdened yourself of that responsibility?
Now, did it ever occur to you that there was no investigation on the bribe attempt simply because you weren’t questioned about it?
Mlq3, bmw
Neri’s personality profile is relevant. A switik is a tight-wad tending to be rapacious or greedy. (A play on alma mater ‘jesuitic’ ateneo). Neri exhibited greed for cheap china loans almost in disregard of more important considerations. He is better placed as a tight-wad DBM head than a NEDA Dir Gen where foreign loan and investment policy decisions has more serious impact not only on the economy but on national interest and security.
GMA needs cheap china loans as a drug addict needs drug money. GMA is addicted to power. She justifies take-over and continued stay as president by showing an improving economy. She purveys cheap china-loan financed projects to political allies and propagandize an accelerating economy.
Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons.
—–
i needed to look it up,as francis says;the more i learn, the less i know.
BrianB (@3:56AM), i was the one who posted the youtube video. I did that precisely because Neri reminded me of the accountant/bookeeper, particularly towards the end of that clip.
From the chairman of the senate committee of foreign relations:
a tantrum,saying that the chinese,being the cradle of civilzation in the east started corruption…etc.
better find another committee,madam chairman.
kala nya showbiz foreign relations.
we are already perceived as like those mentioned by benign0 tapos may committee chair pa tayo kagaya ni Brenda….patay na !
Got this from philstar.com
DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
New chemical element
I got this from an e-group and I am not sure the one who sent it wants to be identified. But it is too good to pass up.
The recent graft and corruption issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium.
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would take less than a second what would normally take over four days to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with Money, Governmentium becomes Administratium  an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. When catalyzed with MORE MONEY, Governmentium and Administratium combine to become a true dastard of an element, Atemugloriam popularly referred to as Ate Glue.
Maiba tayo
si enrile gusto patunayan na hindi pa sya ulianain..
imagine trying to recall the sc decison on eo464,me kodigo naman sa harap nya.
kaya tuloy pagdating ke gordon sinabi..I have the sc decision in front of me.
nakita ko lahat ng senator me binasa pag eo464,si jpe,I am trying to recall palagi ang banat.
in fairness, mas matindi si joker….we already won,so let’s go easy (on Neri)
it was a very frustrating day for us. Neri just cop out. He protected Gloria and FG but pinned Abalos.
The questioned is, would Abalos fight back againts his bosses.
I dont thin so. Maybe thats part of the game plan to escape from this current mess. Protect GMA, pin Abalos, Abalos does nothing and tapos.
Bencard, there you go again about the rule of law. Have you ever heard or read the name Acsa Ramirez? You may want to research on her so that you would know that the rule of law does not operate in a vacuum. Tama si erap, in this country your kind of rule of law is weather weather lang yan.
“mbw, i see your point but it really is not about about gma, fg, abalos, the senators or the powers that be. its not about you, mlq3, buencamino, rego or me. its not even about the law books and court decisions that govern us. its not easy, but it is all about how it is to live under a rule of law and not of men. a hundred years from now, all of us will probably be not here in our present state, but the norms, precepts and principles we live by will endure as long as generations coming after us will respect, obey and observe them.”
——————————————————-
Oh I love this, Bencard. Mabuhay Ka!
This is very much aligned to what I have been saying since the very start I joined teh blogging community.
If only we woudl all be principle based, I dont thik there will so much chaos in this blog world.
You just cannot be an advocate of anti government corruption and revered the Erap after his convicted of plunder.
Just cannot cry injustice, unfairness yet be unfair to Gloria or to the move on crowd.
And there is just no way that you can break principles. You will just break yourself against it.
“Tama si erap, in this country your kind of rule of law is weather weather lang yan.”
—-
Yeah right and you expect us to believe what Erap said? Who is Erap anyway?. A great Pinoy Thinker? And what has he done to the betterment of the country that we shoudl believe on what he said?
beancurd, who says its win, win all the time? you win some, you lose some. that’s the way the game of life goes. don’t have a one-track mind. one instance of failure of the rule does not warrant its destruction, however profound you think what erap says is.
As applied to the separation of powers to each branch the legislative in is oversight functions also have subpoena powers. Executive privilege is not absolute. However in the Philippine setting it seems that people in government are not bound by laws which regulate mere mortals. They have assembled unto themselves the roles and personalities of Demi-Gods.
Unfortunately the quality of legislators is similarly suspect.
A crime was so obviously committed.
Case law from UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
418 U.S. 683
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
No. 73-1766.
Argued July 8, 1974.
Decided July 24, 1974. *
Under Philippine jurisprudence this will be used as basis for any challenge to executive privilege.
“The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”  James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon’s counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
“Mr. St. Clair, what public interest is there in preserving secrecy with respect to a criminal conspiracy?” â€â€Justice Lewis Powell during oral arguments
* However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of “a workable government” and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
Chief Justice Burger – Vote was 8-0
He is not an accountant. He’s not even an economist. He finished Business Administration major in Marketing at UP. His masteral was Finance and International Management.
And I am sure it is his staff who did the evaluation.
He must have been given only the salient points to discuss.
Proofs.
When P. Cayetano asked about the IRR:
Cayetano: Isn’t it true if there’s a difference if NBN was through BOT or through loan, as economic benefits wouldn’t be there as public wouldn’t have access?
N: Rate of economic return would be same.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, the EIRR will be different because in the Build/operate/transfer, there will no loan obtained by the government. In the NBN-ZTE, the project is funded by a loan tied up to the procurement.
Then as P. Cayetano has mentioned, one is with public access and the other doesn’t have access. Therefore income is generated as they pay not only savings.
Another statement that made me look at his background.
N: You only look at right hand side of balance sheet. We don’t look at right hand side, which is financing.
REALLY?
N: I did not know that, we do not conduct financial audits.
True, but as evaluator, you have to know the capital exposure of the proponent especially if it is BOT.
To think that he just endorsed the idea NOT the project of J. de Venecia III(without a feasibility?) sabi nga isang papel lang?
As evaluator of a multi-million project, they could have hired an outside consultant who can do the canvass and verification of materials. This is the work of the consultant which could be very objective and thorough because he does not have direct interest on the project.
Neri should have presented alternatives in acquiring the broadband technology.
Option 1. Build/Operate and Transfer
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Option 2 NBN ZTE ODA
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Option 3 NBN ZTE PRC Loan
1. EIRR
2. Payback
3. NPV
Which among these options give the highest EIRR?
Which among the options give the shortest payback?
Which among the options give the highest positive NPV.
He was talking about 29 per cent EIRR but what is the basis that it is profitable. He admitted that there was no benchmark. Because they didn’t work to evaluate the options.
Sabi nga ni Mar Roxas,don’t make bola-bola. Sabi ko naman, don’t confuse us with terminologies. Some of us can understand what you’re saying and what you’ve failed to do.
So where are the other senators now? Now that the issue is on the necessity of the broadband deal wala na sila? Senators talaga… all they wanted was to grandstand…. ngayon d na interesting ang issue kaya wala na sila…
Cat:
all of Neri’s hijinx were an obvious attempt to confound the senators with b-school jargon. (Behold! I will now confound you with my incomprehensibility!) i’m glad someone put him in his place. AIM pa lang, ganyan na yan eh. buti nga sa kanya.
cesar:
wala ng media value, so the bulk of the senators won’t bother. that’s just the way things are. you think those guys would be interested in really doing work?
bencard, i don’t think you will find us arguing that neri be stripped of his rights, or the president deprived of hers. we can express opinions on executive privilege as a concept: rthere are historians (kaiser among them) who prove, convoincingly enough, based on documentary evidence., it’s a fairly recent invention which then entered jurisrudence. and there’s the problem. being in jurisprudence in america and then here in the rp, we’re bound by it. but when a principle enters law, you either interpret it in a way maximally beneficial to the one claiming it, or challenge it. which is why when eo 464 was issued, it was challenged. thats the legal system, too, and the senate won a partial victory.
notice no one sensible, i think, directly challenges a claim to privilege by the ex.: indeed even the senators said, there are three grounds. they rightfully asked, which do you invoke; neri said, i dunno, but i invoke it and will ask my bosses to explain why.
which then leads us basically a situation similar to someone claiming the fifth. its there as a guarantee agains hanging yourself; when you invoke it, no one can hang you -but everyone can conclude aha, the only way you escaped hanging, was to invoke your right against self incrimination.
against the statutory rights of even the chief executive and the cabinet must be balanced principles that are far older and more basic to democracy: transparency, accountability, and the fact that we live in a political world. when an official invokes privilge, and the question -bencard remember, invoking the exec. privilege in this case hinged on a question that did not seem to engage military, diplomatic secrets or natiolan security, but rather, presidential acts of commission or omission upon being informed of a bribery attempt, which is a crime- and that then neri invoked the privilege, suggests it’s a tactical move note in the national interest, but solely the presidet’s political and legal interest.
go back to the question, bencard, and where the question was headed. then look at the legitimate grounds for invoking presidential privilege. then see whether the two match. i don’t think they do. perhaps you do, but then tell me how. neri is offered a bribe. as is his duty, he tells his boss. his boss says, don’t take it. what else did she say or do? ah, then neri wouldn’t say. why not?
pete m/. , i think an executive session’s bound by confidentiality.
from the supreme court decision:
i see in Section 1 that what Neri’s hiding is definitely covered by 464. Neri asserted executive privilege, but where’s the reason?
From a layman’s point of view:
JDV3 accuses Chairman Abalos of $10M bribe. Abalos denies.
One or the other is lying. Nothing can be proven though.
Sec Neri accuses C. Abalos of P200M bribe. Abalos denies.
One or the other is lying. Again hard to prove.
In spite of all the legal, ministerial, gov’t control mechanisms, and procedural intricacies in the system, no one in the government can justify a $329M project. You just hear: “It is not our job to do so and so, we just etc.,etc.,”… being passed back and forth.
Sec Neri reports 200M bribery attempt to PGMA. Invokes e.p. in response to queries about their conversation in this regard. And so story stops there. One would readily imagine the only valid response to a report of bribery is to say don’t take it, immediately order an investigation, and suspend any related activities to arrest probable wrongdoing. Thats it. No-brainer, really. Thus, it makes no sense to invoke e.p. if just to avoid admitting this was the actual response. It does make sense though to invoke e.p. if the response was something else. But its a dead-end here, e.p. you know. No negative speculation is proposed here, just saying its a dead-end.
Where to now? Lets move on (to the next controversy).
Then play the same zarzuela all over again. TV entertainment doesn’t get any better than this anyway.
sheesh. at least television writers know better than to use the same plot over and over again.
Things to learn:
NEDA is nothing but a rubber stamp for all the agencies.
I don’t know if thay have been like that,but Neri seeemed to tell us that they are like that now.
Next,
as in the corporate world,the military,etc.
we are at the mercy of the best case scenario proposals.
then,
That the government is not there to make profits per Enrile,but to serve the public. Oh cummon!
another point
Public bidding eliminates corruption, per Roxas,
What happened to the old fashioned under the table,is it no longer practiced..AS IF we were bornn yesterday.
——
Our law makers are incapable of making laws,with out the help of their staffs.
Imagine Escudero asking magkano talaga ang babayaran natin after 20 years?
It was repeated by Cayetano today,wwhen he asked his professor from UP?
we have to many lawyers,wala tayong maagagwa dyan.
I agree with Geo:
Geo :
Geez, I take it back re: Escudero. Add Cayetano to the “got no clue†department. Goodness, it’s like these guys have no knowledge whatsoever about simple economic basics…don’t they know the effects of inflation on long term loans?………
September 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
But when speaking to Neri of couse,who is not an economist,but a finance man
he does not factor in inflation but rather the future value of an investment.
maybe,Neri from the begining did not deserve the post… I remember upon his entry,he proposed not to focus on macroeconomics but instead on microeconomics. I wonder why pgma bought that.
To cut some slack to escudero,he was right when he pointed out to his fellow lawyer Asec Formoso, that he was talking about depreciation,not obsolescence.
was it formoso or neri,he was talking to?
I don’t care.
________
If this is the way we craft laws,and we run business,madami pa tayong kakaining bigas.
And this is not just a pinoy thing,a friendly reminder to the guys from the OZ and the US and elsewhere.
Now brenda is sending an apology to China..
Now she loves and admire the chinese,and she even has a chinese for a mother in law.
Now,she tells us.
Having a chinese mother-in-law…..
Maybe that’s is her qualilification for being chair of foreign relations other than a harvard(?) degree on foreign law.
Miriam is doing what Mattel did: offer an apology to China.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20903731/
“…bencard remember, invoking the exec. privilege in this case hinged on a question that did not seem to engage military, diplomatic secrets or national security, but rather, presidential acts of commission or omission upon being informed of a bribery attempt, which is a crime- and that then neri invoked the privilege..”
Manolo, maybe it does hinged on one of the three, perhaps even two.
1. diplomatic secrets with China (shh. atin-atin lang to, pero binebenta ko na sa inyo ang bayan ko – Ate Glue to the Chinese)
2. National Security (per Gloria’s actuations – I am the nation, and if my security is threatened, then it’s a threat to national security! jail the destabilizers!)
so you see, we can’t really blame Neri. He said on TV, I have no intentions of being a hero. Translation: oo alam ko I am threading the fine line of truth and white lies but what can I do? My family is held hostage by PNP watching over my house. The president can’t blame me. I was under oath, I tried my best to speak the truth without speaking the WHOLE truth. It’s the best I can do. Don’t be too harsh to judge me. I am an old man. And when you’re an old man, you are bound to discover that you don’t really want to die for a lot of things that you wanted to die for when you were young. You want only simple things: to watch your kids live a good life, and retire peacefully.
Can any kind hearted Christian deny Neri this much?
Don’t be too harsh to judge unless you’ve been on the same spot as the one you’re judging. I can almost imagine myself agonizing over the same things Neri’s agonizing over. to sell my soul for a piece of peace and quiet for my family…
Karl: “Maybe that’s is her qualilification for being chair of foreign relations other than a harvard(?) degree on foreign law.”
That’s funny!
sorry, mlq3, but quite honestly, i never heard of blogger, mr. kaiser and his “legal scholar”, raoul berger, during my studies of legal history and constitutional law both here and in pinas, or during my 41-year law practice here and there. but of course, that doesn’t mean they are not “authorities” on the subject of executive privilege.
nevertheless, thanks for lecturing me on constitutional law. it’s not everyday that i get lessons in law from a journalist/historian.
i just want to correct certain statements that you have made. first, executive privilege is not derived from statutes (act of congress), rather it is born with the constitution of a democratic nation as integral part of the separation of powers principle. it follows that, as a concept, it is by no means a recent “invention” but instead as old as the idea of democratic constitutional government.
second, jurisprudence (or case law) is part of the law of the land and has the full force of law in all subsequent cases involving similar issues. constitutional principles and precepts not explicitly stated in the constitution, e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances, supremacy of the law, sovereign immunity, full faith and credit, etc. are observed and acknowledged through jurisprudence without the necessity of statutory enactment. i don’t recall “transparency” and “accountability” being among those principles that are inherent in the constitution. they are more appropriate subjects of statutory regulations of all public officers.
in the specific case of neri’s invocation of the privilege, what makes you, or anyone, so sure that a crime has been committed upon the sole assertion of neri; that gma did not take any action; or that if she did not, she violated the law? and what is wrong with discreet investigation? a high public official is being accused of having committed what could be an attempted bribery. is it prudent or proper for any president to initiate a nationwide scandal out of an uncorroborated allegation. even the nbi, or the pnp, or the prosecutors, withhold giving information on actions being taken on allegations of crime to protect the rights of the accused who until an airtight case is established or a formal indictment is made may not be put to embarrassment, shame or ridicule. how would it look to you if one of your mail staff in abs-cbn “the explainer” show accuses a co-employee of sexual abuse, confidentially reports it to the management, and the latter calling a press-conference in addition to broadcasting it in “tv-patrol” disclosing that so and so is being investigated for sex abuse?
btw, i think whether or not an invocation of executive privilege is necessary is the first call of the one who owns it. then it is the court who will ultimately decide whether or not the exercise is proper. until then, the senate must wait.
MBW,
I forgot to add to Geo’s list of senility miriam dahil she already is brenda even before.
akala nya,foreign relations is all about international law.
bakit kasi di sya sinama ni Abalos o ni pgma mna lang sa China,sya chair ng foreign relations.
p.s., how would anyone know for certain that what gma said to neri, after he told her about the alleged offer, was: if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal. it is so unfair to assume that she was already convinced, right then and there, that a “crime” has been committed. an allegation that a crime has been committed does not necessarily mean that a crime has in fact been committed. an assertion, even if made by an angel from heaven, is still an assertion, not a fact.
correction: a question mark (?) after “illegal” on 3rd line.
Re: “how would anyone know for certain that what gma said to neri, after he told her about the alleged offer, was: if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal. ”
Bencard, easy! Gloria should refute Neri’s statement publicly or in the very least, tell the Filipino nation what she herself said.
Her cabinet man tells the whole world, he reported the bribe to her – it would be so easy for her to either deny it or confirm it and furtehermore, reveal what she herself said to him.
Yours is a speculation too: “if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it because it is illegal.” It must come from the horse’s mouth.
mbw, sorry but it seems you didn’t digest my comment very well. how could “Gloria” make a prejudgment for or against neri’s assertion? i said even the law enforcement agencies (nbi, pnp, etc.) do not publicize the name of their suspect, until they are ready to make an arrest upon probable cause, for good reasons which i explained. neri’s telling the “whole world” was his responsibility. he is a grown man and should, at least, know the rudiments of law enforcement as a responsible public official, and his personal liability if he is found to be lying. gma did the right thing by being discreet. the allegation puts the entire integrity and reputation of a constitutional official on the line. she could not afford to be cavalier about it like some irresponsible gossip mongers to whom mere suspicion means guilt.
of course, what i think pgma said was speculation too, as everything at this point is speculation. but i’m not the one criticizing her for alleged “inaction”.
i would agree with bencard on this point, except i’d wonder why if there was already suspicions of impropriety on the deal, GMA only ordered a supposed “discrete” investigation, and then we don’t know anymore what happened with that investigation. also, even with that knowledge, she still wanted the deal pushed through and yet now that there’s public furor, ordered the deal suspended (even though the SC has already beaten her to the punch with a TRO). parang pakitang tao na lang yung pag order nya ng suspension. if she really believed that everything’s above board, why order the suspension? there’s already a TRO and no need to order something redundant. unless you’re jz acting for PR. and if there’s nothing illegal with the deal, why would she order it suspended?
i would even think that even the claimed investigation is just an afterthought when the ZTE deal was already exposed. methinks there were no investigations when Neri informed the president abt the bribe, and this supposed “discrete” investigation is just an act.
ay oo, nagpa imbestiga ako nun malaman kong may posibleng krimen na nangyari sa deal na yon?
ano po nangyari sa imbestigasyon? ba’t di po nalaman ng publiko?
ay sikretong malupit na namin yon. ang tawag namin don ay: discrete. kaw ha, be discrete abt this interview too, ha?
devils, of course we wouldn’t know “what happened” to the ‘discreet’ investigation. in fact, no one, outside of the president and the investigators, was supposed to know that an investigation was being conducted. yes, not even neri until he unilaterally divulged his claim to the media after joeydv “spilled the beans”.
judging from the turn of events, we can speculate that the investigation did not reveal existence of a probable cause (no corroboration of neri’s allegation), thus the cabinet approval of the deal.
as to the “suspension”, the official explanation is that it was necessary because of the supervening controversy over the project. no question the frenzy was generated by media hype and salivating senators anxious to pin down the first couple (not to mention the controversial abalos).
frankly, devils, i don’t see anything wrong with the suspension even as a pr gesture as you suspect it. filipinos are very impressionable people. politicians live and die on “pakitang tao”. what do you think of these senators trying in vain to look and sound good in front of tv cameras (e.g., the black-haired pimentel’s smart-alecky questioning of abalos regarding a rumored child with another woman)? in any event, the tro was a judicial process while the suspension is an executive action. i don’t see any incompatibility as they serve the same objective. to persistent fault-finders, it could be made to appear malicious. but…oh well, what do you expect?
btw, i thought it was “discreet” (adv), not “discrete”(adj). the former means prudent, the latter non-continuous. merriam-webster dict.
ay oo nga, discreet pala. anyway, what i meant was inconspicious – same thing.
what i see wrong with the suspension was that after trying so hard to push the deal through, they’ve suddenly flopped when the heat was greatest. (and that coming from an administration supposedly proud of governing whether its policies were popular or not) you think that if they really believed the deal was above board they’d reason this out with the public. the public isn’t unreasonable you know. the problem is that they won’t disclose fully the details of the deal.
what bugs me is that our govt will cave in jz to pander to PR needs. if the deal was warranted and govt really needed it, why scuttle it at all? shouldn’t the gov’t have bunkered down and prepared to fight the SC’s TRO?
you see, if pandering to PR need is what all an administration is interested of, then you can be sure it has no interest in governing at all.
lumaki kasi si Gloria watching her dad doing photo ops and ribbon cutting. yun lang ang definition nya ng governing. amp.
what a disgusting conduct of some senators and their line of questioning. never mind madrigal but pimentel asking abalos about his alleged “other womanâ€Â. i thought i was watching a showbiz talk show. why drag the name of that woman and their alleged love child? what has it got to do with the ZTE deal? pimentel has been acting like a tabloid reporter lately (i remember that incident about the chance encounter of abalos w/ the zubiris). he should stick to the issue and not behave in an unparliamentary conduct. he used to be very good. maybe aging is a big factor. he’s getting senile just like the others. i think he should retire from politics before tarnishing further his good name.
i could just imagine jinggoy’s reaction to pimentel’s line of questioning re child with another woman. it came very close to home, huh? you think jinggoy would ask those same questions? or bong revilla (if he was there)?
sobrang bitter na kasi yan si lolo pimentel. natalo na nga anak nya, di pa sya naging speaker.
i think we can all agree na kasuka suka lahat ng mga senators natin ngayon.
disgusting talaga ginawa ni Pimentel. and following the next day pa eh lumabas na yung babae na nili link nya ki Abalos eh nag issue ng categorical denial. amp. mas pinaniwalaan ko pa yung babae kesa sa kanya.
si pangilinan naman, ang tanong ay “sino nagbayad ng laro at sa restaurant?” susmaryosep, multi-million anomalous project ang pinag-uusapan eh pag-aaksayahan pa ng oras yung barya? what a smart-alecky question (ika nga ni bencard). abugado ba talaga yan?
grd,
Pangilinan’s question was very important – you cannot dismiss barya bribe because in any civilized nation acceptance of barya as a form of bribe is bribe. It’s graft and again, in any civilized nation, those officials caught getting wined and danced by proponents of grossly exagerrated deals are sent to prison.
Bencard,
“i could just imagine jinggoy’s reaction to pimentel’s line of questioning re child with another woman.”
why is that? Does Jinggoy have kept women or concubines?
mbw, and what is that? you call it bribery say if zte paid for their golf rounds and dine out? is that enough to send some people to prison or bring them to court? don’t be so naive. in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. mendoza or abalos could have even paid the bill. you expect them to make kanya-kanyang bayad? that’s funny.
have you heard about the bribery scandal involving the british aerospace and the members of the saudi royal family regarding huge military supply contracts? what was the reaction of the british government, a highly civilized nation?
as for the statement of bencard, of course, he was referring to the father. isn’t it so obvious who has concubines in the family?
GRD,
WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.
If it shows that the said govt officials who had received said freebies are directly connected to the foreign company lobbying efforts in the client country, they are subject to suspension, prosecution, fines, or fines plus prison sentence.
Some governemtn officials may take liberties with this particularl OECD rule but that’s alright if they don’t get caught.
OECD REGULATIONS and RICOH LAW!
And yes, “you expect them to make kanya-kanyang bayad? that’s funny.”
To give you an example: At NATO where companies lobby all the time to sell equipment, lemme tell you that NO NATO official WILL ACCEPT a lunch appointment with the propent of an equipment. From time to time, one might accept but that official WILL PAY FOR HIS OWN LUNCH.
That’s how it should be!
Don’t dimiss barya bribes. That’s how corruption snowballs big time.
Re: “isn’t it so obvious who has concubines in the family?”
Honestly, I wouldn’t know. I thought that Jinggoy might have concubines too so I was asking.
And GRD,
” in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. ”
True! If the busines is between two private corporations.
In Europe, if the Minister of Interior (who’s in charge of elections) accepted a golf party by a commercial corporation trying to do business with his government and if to get there he accepted plane tickets, hotel accomodations, lunches and other freebies, believe he would be out of his job right away followed by intense police investigations, etc. WALANG PATAWAD!
As I said, never ever dismiss barya bribe. That’s how corruption snowballs big time.
And really if you would like to know, part of my job before and after is lobbying with government so I know what I’m talking about!
thanks, grd for answering mbw question re jingoy. i thought it was public knowledge.
mbw, now i know, you’ve been away so long. but i thought you were out of sight but not of mind. you could have fooled me.
Bencard,
Was never really interested in Estrada’s^progenitures.
“ in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. †grd
“True! If the busines is between two private corporations.†mbw
mbw, I asked you if you knew about that BAE money laundering and bribery scandal of the century. it was highly publicized that the british govt has to conduct an investigation (a staged one?) but dismissed it later supposedly for the interest of the country (or maybe because the Saudis threatened them cancellation of a new multi-billion dollar patriot fighter jets supply deal?). an outside whistleblower exposed that BAE operated on a £60m slush fund used to bribe Saudi officials with exotic holidays, expensive cars and lavish entertainment.
here’s one story below:
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWSâ€Â
i’m breaking the link here: (http://) mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/larouche-pac-p.html
this world wide web of corruption, didn’t you hear it being discussed in NATO’s vicinity? you and NATO people should know this being within your expertise. did I hear a sound of protest from the European unions particularly your adopted country? or maybe if it’s between two highly civilized countries, then the OECD REGULATIONS and RICOH LAW are being respected, specially between European nations. why are you focusing much on that barya bribery(?)instead of that 200M which was my point? you should look first into your own backyard .
“WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.†mbw
tell that to the Brits and the Saudis plus the kano and of course to all big time arms dealers. and Miriam thought corruption was invented by the Chinese? come to think of it, it was the jews who invented corruption first when those rabbis bribed Judah to betray Jesus.
“ in any civilized world paying for dinner or a round of golf is nothing when transacting business deals. †grd
“True! If the busines is between two private corporations.†mbw
mbw, I asked you if you knew about that BAE money laundering and bribery scandal of the century. it was highly publicized that the british govt has to conduct an investigation (a staged one?) but dismissed it later supposedly for the interest of the country (or maybe because the Saudis threatened them cancellation of a new multi-billion dollar patriot fighter jets supply deal?). an outside whistleblower exposed that BAE operated on a £60m slush fund used to bribe Saudi officials with exotic holidays, expensive cars and lavish entertainment.
here’s one story below:
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWSâ€Â
i’m breaking the link here just add http://
mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/larouche-pac-p.html
this world wide web of corruption, didn’t you hear it being discussed in NATO’s vicinity? you and NATO people should know this being within your expertise. did I hear a sound of protest from the European unions particularly your adopted country? or maybe if it’s between two highly civilized countries, then the OECD REGULATIONS and RICOH LAW are being respected, specially between European nations. why are you focusing much on that barya bribery(?)instead of that 200M which was my point? you should look first into your own backyard .
“WRONG! Government officials are not allowed to accept any kind of freebie from any company, particularly foreign companies that are lobbying for a project in their country.†mbw
tell that to the Brits and the Saudis plus the kano and of course to all big time arms dealers. and Miriam thought corruption was invented by the Chinese? come to think of it, it was the jews who invented corruption first when those rabbis bribed Judah to betray Jesus.
here’s another one for your entertainment:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/bae1-d29.shtml
here’s another one for your entertainment (add http:// in front):
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/bae1-d29.shtml
sorry for the double postings manolo.
correction: it’s typhoon (euro)jets and not patriot jets.
GRD,
I think you’ll find that it’s members of the Saudi govt who are suspected of having received bribes from British industries.
OECD regulations state that these British industry people (private corporation people) are subject to investigation and if it could be proven that they paid bribes to these foreign govt officials, they can be fined and put in prison.
Tony Blair, whom I don’t – but not at all – and his govt were the ones that tried to bury successive inquiries into the allegations that BAe bribed their way to win contracts in Saudi Arabia.
The issue you raised here GRD, is you implicitly, and flippantly dismissed potential bribes TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS because they are “barya” and my contention is that IT IS NOT RIGHT for government officials to accept bribe BARYA OR NOT.
Ooops, “Tony Blair, whom I don’t – but not at all – LIKE and his Labour govt were the ones that tried to bury successive inquiries into the allegations that BAe bribed their way to win contracts in Saudi Arabia.”
Your comparisson there could be mistaken as a DEFENCE of ZTE officials, with their attempt to bribe their way, even if only by lavishing what you call “barya” on Abalos, into landing a contract with Philippine govt by wining and dancing the nation’s then election boss.
Do you really think it’s right for both parties – ZTE & RP govt official, i.e., Abalos to engage in such act?
I don’t deny that there are occassions when private British corporate officials WILL TRY TO BRIBE foreign government officials to land a juicy (and even a not so juicy) contract but my point here is it is WRONG!
If these PRIVATE corporate officials are caught doing that and are proven to have done it in order to win a contract in that foreign country (or in Britain) and that they won that contract because a bribe had been paid to a government official or officials, foreign or not, the OECD can slap the said private entity with sanctions and the erring officials of that company directly linked to the acts of bribing foreign government or public officials risk prison terms. I kid thee not.
It’s been done and can be done again.
Furthermore, re BAe: in order for the investigations on the bribery allegations against BAe to fluorish in Britain, it is imperative that Saudi Arabian officials cooperate in with investigators. Unfortunately Saudi Arabians are not cooperative.
The EU, much less the OECD cannot do anything against BAe if the Saudi Arabians (whom I believe are not signatory to the OECD treaty of anti-corruption) will not testify to the fact that they had received bribes – so, it’s not the rules that are wrong but the actors that are wily.
It is therefore in RP’s honour that Senate is looking at this, i.e., they themselves are determining whether there’s enough guilt to condemn their compatriots. You can’t do this in Saudi Arabia! So, you should encourage your Senate or any group of RP officials in bringing this out officially, investigating RP officials being accused of corruption as well as to determine the scope of bribing attempts by ZTE.
MBW,
re corruption: don’t get me wrong I deplore corruption in any form or kind. corruption scandals such as this zte deal should be exposed and investigated w/o let-up (not just for media mileage by those senators) till those people involved are brought to court and punished although realistically speaking, I doubt it’s gonna happen. if it does well & good. as I’ve commented in the other thread, the best that can be accomplished from this investigation is the cancellation of this NBN deal. I really don’t see anyone going to jail or gma getting thrown out of office because of this.
but I maintain that it’s a cheap shot when pangilinan asked about who paid for the golf rounds and the dinner. he blurted it out para lang may masabi siya sa hearing. anyone among those in wack-wack could have easily afforded to pay the bill. you cannot build a case on that. but if you’ll tell me that they played golf and dined say in Hongkong or China, then that’s another story. but do you really think this kind of rendezvous just happens in the phils and highly unusual in other countries?
well, congratulations for bagging a govt project in the phils or any other country without bribery in any form.
now going back to that money laundering and bribery scandal between BAE and the Saudi govt official, it seems you did not read the link I mentioned above. did you know that the tornado supply deal back in 1985 was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher while this latest eurofighter typhoon supply contract was done by Tony Blair? you see it’s not BAE but the british government who actually negotiated for the contract just like what the Chinese govt did with this NBN deal. are you absolving the british govt from this web of corruption due to this contract just because the saudis are not cooperating? end of the story? that’s strange. you think the saudis will ever cooperate? the absence of any cooperation is a deadlock, case close and no need to pursue? again I find that logic strange. anyway, what has the OECD done so far? I have not heard any action from them or an independent inquiry maybe. you think European companies really follow OECD’s regulations to the letter? well, I myself know what’s the conduct of some companies being connected to a European company myself and under the contracts department. i know that europeans are corrupt from top to bottom. but did you know that the investigation of the british govt prior to it’s dismissal last December 2006 by Tony Blair dragged already for about 3 years?
I’m posting below one of the many articles about this anomaly just for you maybe to read and understand clearly what’s the story behind this.
Blair government cancels British Aerospace-Saudi arms inquiry
By Jean Shaoul
29 December 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
This is the first of a two-part article
On December 15, the Labour government called off the three-year long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the alleged bribery of the Saudi ruling family by British Aerospace (BAe) in the multibillion-pound Al Yamamah defence contract.
Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted “full responsibility†for dropping the inquiry. “Leaving aside the effect on thousands of British jobs and billions of pounds worth for British industry . . . Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East and in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine,†he said.
The decision, following an orchestrated campaign by BAe and intense political pressure from the Saudi royal family, has grave implications. It marks a significant stepping-up of the government’s offensive against democratic norms and underscores the utter contempt of the ruling elite for any notion of popular accountability.
The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, Britain’s senior law official and member of the government, had sought to bury the decision by making the announcement in an almost deserted House of Lords on the day the long awaited Stevens Inquiry into Princess Diana’s death was released.
Goldsmith had consulted the prime minister, the foreign and defence secretaries and the security services. He relayed a statement by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), justifying the actions taken after these deliberations: “It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.â€Â
In what must rank as one of the more disingenuous statements made in recent times, he then claimed, “No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.â€Â
What Goldsmith means by the “public interest†is the interest of the British ruling class. He came close to saying as much when he added that the SFO had dropped its inquiry “to safeguard national and international security.â€Â
Both Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that to continue with the investigation would damage “UK-Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation,†he added. Yet he also denied that this meant that the government had abandoned the investigation because of the “potential effect on relations with another state.â€Â
Later, Goldsmith insisted that the SFO had taken the lead in dropping the case. In a radio interview, he said that the SFO said to him, “‘Our judgement is that in the national interest this should not go aheadâ€â€what do you think?’ After looking at the case and taking advice, my judgement was, ‘Well, actually, I agree that this case should be discontinued’, although for somewhat different reasons, because I didn’t just think the case was uncertain. My judgement at this stage was that it wouldn’t go anywhere at the end of the day.â€Â
SFO director Robert Wardle immediately contradicted Goldsmith. He issued a short statement saying that he had dropped the Saudi end of the wide-ranging investigation, not because of insufficient evidence for a prosecution, but “following representations that have been made to both the attorney general and the director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international securityâ€Â
The SFO team carrying out the inquiry was ordered to surrender 20 boxes of files relating to the allegations of Saudi bribery. Investigations into BAe’s activities in Romania, Chile, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania are supposed to continue.
The attorney general was forced to abandon the SFO inquiry not only because it had become a major political embarrassment, but it was also a real danger to the economic and political interests of British imperialism.
The inquiry was into long running allegations that BAe, Britain’s leading defence contractor, operated a £60 million slush fund to oil the wheels of its largest-ever overseas arms deal, the Al Yamamah contract for Tornado jetfighters. Secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1985, the deal has brought BAe £42 billion ($84 billion) in the 18 years since it began and staved off BAe’s near-bankruptcy during the lean years of the early 1990s. At the end of 2005, after Blair’s personal intervention to clinch the deal, BAe secured a third orderâ€â€for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters, variously stated in the press to be worth between £6 billion and £40 billion. Prior to that, the Typhoon had failed to secure any significant export orders.
Ever since 1986, when allegations of corruption first began to circulate, successive governments have maintained that no bribery was involved. The SFO inquiry into BAe was only set up in 2004 following revelations in the press that could no longer be ignored.
In 2003, the Guardian disclosed that accidentally-released Whitehall papers, including a telegram from the head of Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), showed that the price of the Tornados had been inflated by 32 percent due to commissions and bribery. Another document from the archives cited a dispatch from a British ambassador saying that the family of Prince Sultan, who held the defence portfolio for many years, “had a corrupt interest in all contracts†The newspaper also published details from two travel agencies used to funnel funds for the hospitality BAe lavished on Saudi officials when they visited the UK.
The government could not ignore these revelations because in 2002 it had finally introduced legislation outlawing overseas bribery, as a result of pressure from the US, whose corporations, facing slightly more restrictive laws, found themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
The decision to ditch the inquiry that has already cost £2 million came after intense campaigning by BAe. In the last few weeks, lobbying from BAe, its public relations consultant Tim Bell, and the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Exports Services Organisation was intense. DESO is dominated by BAe. Some of its 500 employees, whose task is to promote arms sales, are located at a BAe site in Saudi Arabiaâ€â€at taxpayers’ expense.
BAe and its engineering suppliers claimed that tens of thousands of British jobs were at stake, although York University’s defence economics expert Professor Keith Hartley’s report last June showed that only 5,000 jobs were involved.
Last November, the Saudi royal family threatened to cancel the third phase of the deal for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters agreed at the end of 2005, and buy from France instead.
As well as the political embarrassment that any detailed exposure of their own avarice and corruption would cause them, the Saudis feared it would fuel resentment against the ruling family in both Saudi Arabia and throughout the Muslim world. The head of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, warned that the Saudis would withdraw their cooperation on security, including intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda and downgrade their embassy in London.
The Saudis piled on the pressure and reportedly issued a 10-day ultimatum after the SFO gained access to the normally highly secretive Swiss bank accounts whose records contain details of BAe’s recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi intermediaries. These would show whether BAe had made payments to Saudi princes, committed offences under UK law, and lied to the government to secure insurance cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the deal with its claims that it had complied with recent legislation that outlawed bribery overseas.
These broader economic and political realities counted for far more than any possible political fallout from Labour’s abandonment of the investigation. BAe and the defence corporations were delighted with the announcement and shares in the company and its major suppliers rose immediately after the news.
The Independent on Sunday has even reported that the police believed that they were bugged in an attempt to stop the inquiry. One senior figure involved in the SFO’s investigation into BAe said that its security had been frequently compromised. “I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on this inquiry had been reaching outside parties,†he told the press.
That the government should be able to abandon the inquiry is in no small part because the Conservative Party, industry and the trade unions were foursquare behind the decision. Only the much smaller Liberal Democrats, sections of the liberal press and pressure groups such as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), Corner House, and Transparency International have opposed it. CAAT and Corner House have hired a leading QC, David Pannick, to mount a legal challenge via a judicial review. Pannick is expected to argue that the decision to drop the inquiry contravenes the OECD’s convention on corruption that outlaws consideration of relations with another country in deciding whether to prosecute.
Saudi Arabia’s ruling clique and the Al Yamamah deal
The House of Saud, with its 7,000-plus princes, rules Saudi Arabia as a fiefdom. In defence terms, dynastic considerations demand a National Guard based in the cities, not an army that might rise up against it. In the context of the air force, the need is for high-tech unmanned planes and manned planes piloted overwhelmingly by junior members of the House of Saud and “reliable families.†But they lack the training and technical support to operate such equipment effectively.
Surrounded by enemies, Saudi Arabia has no friendly neighbours. There are long unresolved border conflicts in the region, particularly with Iraq, with Iran over its claims to Bahrain, now linked to the mainland by a causeway, and with Yemen, the product of earlier imperialist intrigues. Israel’s warplanes routinely make unauthorised flights over Saudi airspace.
The 1979 Iranian revolution installed a Shi’ite theocracy which the Saudis opposed. One consequence was an intensification of the traditional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional dominance. Within Saudi Arabia, it led to a radicalisation of the more impoverished and restive Shi’ites who live in the oil rich Eastern province. The brutal suppression of riots there in 1979 and 1980 cost dozens of lives.
All this plus the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war that Iran appeared to be winning provided the Saudis with the justification for a massive arms build-up. The Campaign against Arms Trade’s report, “The Arabian connectionâ€â€the UK arms trade to Saudi Arabia,†provides an insight into the shameless fraud that was perpetrated via Britain’s arms sales on both the Saudi and British people for the benefit of their ruling and financial elites. BAe’s profits came courtesy of taxpayers, not the much vaunted free market.
Britain had longed courted the Saudis as a trading partner, with the Duke of Edinburgh and Conservative Foreign Secretary Francis Pym attending King Fahd’s enthronement in 1982, at the height of the Malvinas (Falklands) War.
The Al Yamamah deal was secured in 1985 after the personal intervention of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Britain won the deal over its US and French rivals at a time when US-Saudi relations were strained, in part due to Riyadh’s refusal to allow an American base on Saudi soil and opposition from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
The deal was controversial from the start. Worth $8 billion over six years, it required Britain to equip, organise and train the Saudi air force, with the recently privatised BAe as the prime contractor. Most of the Tornados were strike planes and the British placed no restrictions on their use, despite fears about the Middle East arms race.
Allegations of corruption surfaced almost immediately. The Guardian spoke of “bribes of £600 million in jets deal†Some newspapers claimed that up to 30 percent of the cost of the deal was inflated by the rake-offs. Said Aburish, in his book House of Saud (written in 1994), said that BAe had never denied using agents and paying commissions to secure arms deals and that he had documents confirming BAe’s willingness to pay commissions.
here’s another one. the thing is, this anomaly is way above OECD.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Will BAE Scandal of Century Bring Down Cheney?
by Jeffrey Steinberg
June 21, 2007 (LPAC)–With the U.S. Department of Justice now confirmed to be investigating money laundering and bribery by the British aerospace giant, BAE Systems, Congress and the American people must make certain that the investigation does not turn into one more Bush-Cheney-Gonzales coverup. The issue on the table is far bigger than the alleged $2 billion in bribes that BAE Systems paid out to former Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, through the now defunct Washington, D.C. based Riggs Bank. As Executive Intelligence Review revealed in a stunning expose appearing in the June 22, 2007 edition (“Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City”), at least $80 billion in unaccounted for loot has been generated by the Al-Yamamah oil-for-jet fighters barter deal, since it was first signed in Sept. 1985.
While British news organizations, led by The Guardian and BBC have published revealing details of BAE bribery and slush funds, involving Prince Bandar, former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and the late Dutch Royal Consort, Prince Bernhard, none of the British media have touched upon the full magnitude of the scandal–the approximately $160 billion in secret oil revenues, generated by the BAE-Saudi Al-Yamamah deal, over the past 22 years (see accompanying chart for the year-by-year cash value of the Saudi oil shipments to BAE, through British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization).
British author William Simpson, who wrote the 2006 authorized biography of Prince Bandar, The Prince–The Secret Story of the World’s Most Intriguing Royal, on the other hand, provided authoritative details “right from the prince’s mouth” that should be of great interest to American Justice Department and Congressional investigators. What Simpson hinted at is perhaps the biggest covert Anglo-American slush fund in history –one that the author openly acknowledged had been used to fund clandestine wars, including the Afghantsi Mujahideen war against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, and other covert military actions in Africa.
Citing his interviews with Tony Edwards, the one-time head of the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization (DESO), which administered the Al-Yamamah project, Simpson wrote:
“Edwards admitted that for the Saudis the use of oil meant that the contract was effectively an off-balance-sheet transaction: it did not go through the Saudi treasury. Edwards also confirmed that one of the main attractions for the Saudis in this unique arrangement was British flexibility. ‘The British were much more flexible than the Americans,’ he said. ‘The Americans went through the Foreign Military sales system, which has congressional law behind it. If the customers get out of line and they fail to pay the money, then they are cut off. In this country, it was quite flexible; sometimes the oil flow and the associated monies that were received by selling it were ahead, at other times it fell behind.’”
Simpson continued, “The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO, before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the Treasury as it built up a considerable surplus.”
What neither Edwards nor Simpson chose to point out was the fact that the oil revenues generated from the 600,000 barrels per day that the Saudis paid into the Al-Yamamah fund from 1985 through to the present, amounted to an estimated $160 billion–four times the actual cost of the entire military package delivered by BAE to Saudi Arabia. Nobody in London is talking about where the rest of the money landed–and what it was used for.
DESO was established as a British government entity in the mid-1960s, and has been the private domain of Britain’s main defense manufacturers and allied financial institutions, ever since. Throughout its history, the director of DESO has always been a director of a major British arms manufacturer, responsible for hawking as much business as possible for the Anglo firms.
But beyond the increase in British portion of the global arms business, DESO also aimed to secure British control over the entirety of the Western arms business, through off-balance-sheet arrangements that would be impossible to pull off under American law. Simpson revealed that, under Al-Yamamah, American and other foreign firms were also allowed to cash in on the deal:
“The Al-Yamamah deal Mrs. Thatcher negotiated placed British Aerospace as the prime contractor for the provision of any other military equipment purchased for Saudi Arabia. ‘By supporting not just the British aircraft but the American aircraft too,’ said Edwards, ‘Al-Yamamah was an integral part of supporting the Saudi Air Force in total.’ He stressed that DESO and British Aerospace have thus ended up supporting all Saudi aircraft–the Peace Shield program–all funded through Al-Yamamah. Edwards concluded, ‘In other words, the value of this stream of income and what it is used for has drifted a little bit over the years into things other than it was originally destined for.’
“In effect,” Simpson admitted, “Al-Yamamah would become a backdoor method of covertly buying U.S. arms for the kingdom; military hardware purchases that would not be visible to Congress. It specifically had been structured to provide an unparalleled degree of flexibility whereby the Saudis could purchase military equipment under the imprimatur of DESO and British Aerospace.”
Simpson, who wrote The Prince as virtually a ghost autobiography of the enigmatic Saudi diplomat, Prince Bandar, openly acknowledged that the sheer magnitude of the oil-for-jets deal raised serious questions of corruption.
“The ingenious diversity of Al-Yamamah,” he wrote, “together with the British government’s discretion and liberal approach to a unique finance deal, largely founded on the undisputed collateral of the huge Saudi oil reserves, could explain the financial black holes assumed by a suspicious media to be evidence of commissions.”
But, Simpson explained, “Although Al-Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spin-offs are the by-products of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al-Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al-Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qadaffi’s troops from Chad. It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupying forces.”
“Arguably,” Simpson admitted, “its consummate flexibility is needed because of inevitable opposition to Saudi arms purchases in Congress… The oil barter arrangement circumvented such bureaucracy.”
Simpson quoted “sources close to Bandar,” who explained: “What Al-Yamamah did, because it is oil for services, is to say: Okay. Al-Yamamah picks up the tab; Saudi Arabia will sign with the French or whoever, and Britain pays them on their behalf. So suddenly the Saudis now have an operational weapons system complete with its support that doesn’t reflect on Al-Yamamah as a project. Therefore, if Saudi Arabia wants some services from the Americans, or some weapons system that they have to buy now, otherwise Congress will object to it later, and they can’t get it from their current defense budget, then they simply tell Al-Yamamah, ‘You divert that money.’”
Between the more than $80 billion in untraced funds generated through Al-Yamamah, according to EIR’s conservative estimate, corroborated by U.S. intelligence sources, and the use of the project as a cover for covert activities around the globe and unauthorized weapons purchases, both the Justice Department and the U.S. Congress have a much bigger series of crimes to probe than the $2 billion in fees allegedly conduited through the Saudi accounts at Riggs Bank. The issue is the British corruption and subversion of American law on a grand scale.
Prince Bandar’s ghost writer, William Simpson, has revealed that Al-Yamamah provided off-balance-sheet covert funding for the decade-long Mujihadeen covert war to drive the Soviet Red Army out of Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence sources have independently confirmed that at least some of those funds went to the recruitment and training of foreign Muslim fighters, who were sent to Afghanistan. Some of those fighters, following the Afghan War (1979-1990) would later surface in such far-away places as Algeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as Islamist insurgents, including members of Al Qaeda.
Simpson also revealed that Al-Yamamah funds went to the purchase of Soviet-made weapons, that were provided to Chad, to drive Libyan forces out of that African country. John Bedenkamp, a onetime top aide to Rhodesia’s apartheid-era President Ian Smith, and a major arms broker throughout Africa, is currently under investigation by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for his role in BAE arms dealings in South Africa. U.S. intelligence sources have identified Bedenkamp as a conduit for Soviet arms into African insurgents, raising questions about his earlier involvement with the Al-Yamamah project in these weapons deals fueling wars in Africa.
Cheney On The Hot Seat
Washington sources have reported to EIR that the Al-Yamamah revelations have sent shock-waves through the City of London. According to one senior U.S. intelligence source, who spoke to EIR on condition of anonymity, “the Al-Yamamah story opens a window into the inner world of Anglo-Dutch financial power. While Al-Yamamah is not the only such off-budget arrangement, it is one of the largest, and it provides a clear picture of a mode of operation–totally outside the control of any government agency, especially the U.S. government. Ultimately, this is a London scandal, not a Riyad scandal.”
One consequence of those shock waves is that Vice President Dick Cheney, according to knowledgeable Washington insiders, is in deep trouble with his London friends. Cheney, the sources report, was the guarantor that the story of the $80-100 billion dollar fund would never see the light of day. And, while the American and British establishment press have attempted to bury the scandal, either through blacking it our altogether, or focusing attention on tertiary features, like the relatively small flow of cash into Prince Bandar, the EIR revelations have saturated the U.S. Congress and have been picked up around the world.
The next chapter is now being written in the scandal of the century, and that could mean the political doom of Dick Cheney. Ironically, it could come at the hands of his own political boosters in the City of London, rather than from Congressional Democrats, who remain divided on the issue of Cheney’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Ultimately, the real powers behind the throne in London have very low tolerance for failure.
Grd,
You ask, “are you absolving the british govt from this web of corruption due to this contract just because the saudis are not cooperating?”
Personally? NO!
I’m fully aware of this scandal in the UK. I said, Tony Blair’s government buried all posibilities of investigating into the allegations of bribery committed by BAe officials. (Margaret Thatcher’s government may have done it but it was Tony Blair’s Labour govt that decided to scuttle investigation efforts.)
For your govern, Grd, I worked for a company that is one of the largests competitors of BAe so I’m aware of the story.
Re: ” i know that europeans are corrupt from top to bottom.”
That’s rather a blanket statement. You sure of what you are saying?
mbw, i told you i work for a european company. it’s first hand information based on personal experience. from the managing director down to the supervisor, all are corrupt. europeans are not only corrupt they are racist too. you think they just manifest this behavior when they are overseas?
mbw,
re: bae, you don’t get it. the corruption did not stop when the british bagged the contract. it was infact, just the start of the web of corruptions that took place. the bigger one is the money laundering (where the money trail lead to an account in a swiss bank of a saudi billionaire brokering between the british and saudi govt) . the corruption and the cover-ups continued up to the present govt. and since the british govt will not incriminate themselves for the british people interest, what did the OECD do during those 3 years of inquiry up to present? did they do their own investigation if you say it’s a powerful tool of the EU against corruption? IMHO OECD is inutile on this case.
that’s why I’m congratulating you and your company if you’re saying that 100% of your dealings are corruption free. plus the fact that you’re one of the competitors of Bae, that is truly awesome. how does your commercial managers do it? you can’t even play host on meetings with your clients since that will be a form (as you said) of bribery. and how do you lobby? just wondering how you do it.
Re: “mbw, i told you i work for a european company. it’s first hand information based on personal experience. from the managing director down to the supervisor, all are corrupt. europeans are not only corrupt they are racist too. you think they just manifest this behavior when they are overseas?”
Grd,
Why don’t you resign if they are all that corrupt?
mbw, why should i? it’s not my money they are stealing but the company’s. and i’m not going to stay here forever as well. while mine is contractual they are regulars. it’s the mother company who should do a life style check on their regular employees.
but you have not answered my question re: bae, your company and OECD.
Grd,
Which questions on “bae, your company and OECD?” Is it “did they do their own investigation if you say it’s a powerful tool of the EU against corruption?”
You must understand first that the OECD rules stipulate that member nations are bound by an inter-nation agreement to exhaust their own legal tools and to use every legal avenue to bring the culprit to justice. If you like, OECD as a body, becomes the final offical arbiter or judge and disseminate their findings and rulings on a corruption case to the rest of the member nations.
As to whether they’ve done any ‘investigating’ into the allegations that BAe corrupted Saudi Arabian officials, don’t honestly know the answer.
I can only speculate at this point: There could have been official investigations into the allegations but couldn’t indict BAe for wrongdoings most likely because evidence is weak.
I can see why indicting BAe would be difficult: the act of corrupting of government officials, if it was committed was done overseas, in Saudi Arabia, hence there is a NEED to obtain the testimony of the Saudis to charge BAe before the OECD. Understand that alleged BAe act of corruption was NOT committed ON UK government officials, in other words, I myself don’t believe BAe officials CORRUPTED UK government officials to win the contract in Saudi Arabia – just doesn’t make sense. Internal anti-corruption laws in the UK are very tough and I don’t believe BAe’s top officials would take the risk of corrupting British government officials.
Also, OECD can act only if its own investigators have completed the evidence gathering and proofs of wrongdoing are assembled from member nations. Just like in any court of law. But I don’t believe that can be done without the help of current UK govt, i.e., Labour. You must also understand that OECD cannot act when there is no legal complaint to speak of or when a complaint file is not complete. They also rely heavily on findings by a nation’s official bodies and European NGOs which are having a hard time obtaining evidence, eg, from the UK. (By the way, one good NGO, Tranparency International is all over – trying to help out in curbing or stamping out corruption at home and overseas, you might want to reach them if truly you believe your company is corrupt.)
Having said that, I do believe that if BAe officials are found to have corrupted Saudi Officials to win the contract, they are liable to be charged in their own home country’s tribunals (UK’s) and bound by OECD rules to go the whole hog but for any charge to stick, AGAIN, testimonies from Saudi officials need to be heard. (But don’t ever believe this is forthcoming from the Saudis…, no way!)
But in spite of this BAe scandal, you shouldn’t lead yourself to believe that there’s widespread corruption IN governments here in Europe or that all Europeans are corrupt.
Your assertion that “All Europeans are corrupt from top to bottom” is really NOT credible.
Grd, and Re: “mbw, why should i? it’s not my money they are stealing but the company’s.”
But if you know that there’s theft being committed, why don’t you report it to the company hqs or if not, you can contact the OECD yourself and reveal the corruption practices being committed by your company?
Bottom line is if you truly believe that the company is that corrupt, why receive money emanating from corruption? Don’t understand! Why be complicit or be an accessory to corruption? Resign!
“Citing his interviews with Tony Edwards, the one-time head of the British government’s Defence Export Sales Organization (DESO), which administered the Al-Yamamah project…â€Â
“Simpson continued, “The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO, before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the Treasury as it built up a considerable surplus.â€Â
Mbw,
I’m quite disappointed with your explanation re: OECD. In a way, if there’s no complainant then OECD can do nothing. But what if the host nation is an accessory to the crime? In the Phils there was this famous line “ang dagdag, ang dagdag” or say “may 200 kaâ€Â. In this case, it’s “ ang DESO, ang DESOâ€Â. But I thought your company has interest on this case since you’re the competitor, you can actually file a complain to OECD. But then again as what you’ve said, the evidence is weak even though a lot of these incriminating evidences has been reported already in the media like BBC’s investigative report ala PCIJ. Of course, all these can be considered as HEARSAY without concrete evidence. You can attest to that fact. By the way, those high priced prostitutes are from the UK (part of that lavish gifts to the Saudi officials as reported in the media.
Now, we go back to the Phils, what I don’t understand with you and your ilk specially your compatriots in ellenvile, you take everything that is reported in the local media, ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND WRONGDOING BY GOVT OFFICIALS as the GOSPEL TRUTH. You’re all too fast to jump the gun with everything that the media reports about wrongdoings, specially those stories written by ellen. Generating all those hatred from your fellow bloggers, very fast to pounch on commenters with different views (experience first hand by Devils), making fun of people, the cursing and everything.
Could it be that our local media is more credible than the western media that’s why they are more believable when they report allegations of corruptions? While you treat western reports with skepticism, in the Phils, there’s no second thought, no rationalizations, everything’s just spontaneously explosive. What could be the explanation behind this double standard? anyway, my last take on the subject re: Bae.
“But if you know that there’s theft being committed, why don’t you report it to the company hqs or if not, you can contact the OECD yourself and reveal the corruption practices being committed by your company?
Bottom line is if you truly believe that the company is that corrupt, why receive money emanating from corruption? Don’t understand! Why be complicit or be an accessory to corruption? Resign!â€Â
Mbw,
Ah, you’re too naïve about what you say report the corruption to the higher ups. It’s not really for us to do it. Just an analogy, your company cannot even report or complain to OECD the anomalous practices of your competitor how much I who’s just an ordinary employee? But don’t get me wrong again, our projects are legitimate. It maybe overpriced (I don’t know the figures) based on the lavish spendings of our officials and their families but it doesn’t concern us anymore.
As what Cat commented in the other thread re: Emron, “It is not only greed. It is also power and accessibility to the resources.†It’s what driving these people to commit such abuses. But what we filipinos (I and the other staffs) receive here are the fruits of our hardwork. I never stole anything from the company and I am not complaining either. I’m just giving you the facts about corruption that it happens everywhere big and small. It’s not us only but also our other competitors, clients, suppliers, etc.. In an imperfect world that I and others live, these corruptions that you are defining exist and thriving normally. We see it face to face everyday. Treating our clients, giving them favors for their personal requests, likewise, our suppliers treating us also, giving us company souvenirs, you name it. That’s how it is in our world. And yes, in a way I am not clean since I’m part of that system. I have endured and tolerated it. Now, I don’t know with your perfect world you might be doing things differently.
Re: “But I thought your company has interest on this case since you’re the competitor, you can actually file a complain to OECD.”
Grd,
You’re going way over the top… how on earth did you even presume that my company was asking for another company, their competitor in general, for an investigation into your BAe scandal?
Problem with you is you think that because you thought then it’s what things are supposed to be.
Get a grip!
Are you trying to discuss the alleged act of corruption by BAe or are you trying to get back at me for being a regular poster at Ellenville (just like I am here)? I honestly can’t understand what you’re trying to drive at?
Anyway, this is not going anywhere — an exercise in futility.
Have tried to answer your questions but you are not prepared for anything other than what you “THOUGHT”…
You need to overhaul your thinking, discover other places, talk with people other than your corrupt superiors, read things other than your “sex scandal” in Saudi Arabia, etc., perhaps then you will realize that your blanket assertion that “Europeans are all corrupt from top to bottom” is just a pure product of your imagination.
You are too warped in your own cynicsm that it would take a great deal of patience to get you out of that sorry state of mind. I can’t be your father confessor (and I don’t want to be) so I don’t see any point continuing this discussion – much too difficult to play father confessor to a cynic for a simple sailor like me.
Last thing: “Now, I don’t know with your perfect world you might be doing things differently.”
You wouldn’t know now, would you? Not unless you carry out a re-hauling of your entire thinking but if I have a piece of advice, take it or leave it, this is what it is: There’s a whole world of politics that that you should try to discover beyond the confines of the corrupt company that employs you…being an eternal cynic will not help.
End of story!
grd, ellen is a reputable and conscientious journalist. she does not print what she hasn’t verified through her own research or cross-checking via various sources. people wouldn’t be issuing death threats if she weren’t on to something. neither does she try to hide her sympathies, to which she’s entitled, and disclosure of her sympathies is all she owes her readers.
she’s a brave woman, does not take payola, and does not lie in her writings.
Mbw,
I’m a failure. I can’t get through your vaunted jagged wits. Oh well, I can live with that.
Re: your being regular of both blogs, did you spot the difference? What’s anyway with that dual personality? I mean, here being prim and proper while over there like an unchained wild cat ala lady Miriam together w/ your ilk spewing tons of volcanic hatred in all directions (ahh cynicism ). But does it really help? Some kind of a therapy maybe as advised by doc (I understand the stress with your line of work). Or it’s just really about that old adage “when you’re in Rome, act like the Romansâ€Â. But you know, over there you’re committing also the C act. It’s called CORRUPTION OF THE MIND.
As for Europeans being corrupt, okay, I’ll qualify my statement. Could it be that only when they are overseas?
Anyway, agree with what you’re saying, this is an exercise in futility. So better end the story now.
But I wish I can experience living in your “real†world maybe just for a moment. It must be heaven in there.
“grd, ellen is a reputable and conscientious journalist. she does not print what she hasn’t verified through her own research or cross-checking via various sources.â€Â
mlq3, maybe on her obsessions about issues such as the military activities, coup trials and all about gloria. but how sure are you about her being a conscientious journalist at all times? i think that’s disputable. there’s one article she wrote in her Malaya column (it’s in her blog too) printing a report about a school sent by one anonymous parent(?) complaining about certain school policies/activities. isn’t it the normal thing for a journalist to check the veracity of that letter before even printing it? the principal of that school sent her own letter to clarify the said complaint and explain her side of the story. she further said something about her good reputation being tarnished because of this unverified report and without the writer even bothering to check or clarify things w/ her office. that letter again was bombarded w/ insults from the regulars (of course in defense of ellen). is it the other way around now? the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not guilty of the crime? i really can’t see the fairness with that act. it’s really disappointing. how can you repair the damage if it has been done? being a journalist or in the media profession, you have that power and undue advantage to make or destroy someone’s reputation. but responsibilities also comes with it. it should not be abused. what i’m saying is, there should be some kind of self-regulation w/in your ranks.
grd, a reporter has to get all sides. a columnist, if presenting something and later someone onjects, should then accord the other side a chance to rebut if they want to.
you have to presume that ellen didn’t print the letter without doing her own checking to see if the matter was sufficiently important to publish. where ellen would be culpable is, if after her column came out, she refused to give the side of the principal. there’s also the possibility that informing the principal beforehand might have led to reprisals against the student(s).
ok manolo, got it and thanks for the clarification. appreciate it.
Grd,
OK, Re “As for Europeans being corrupt, okay, I’ll qualify my statement. Could it be that only when they are overseas? ”
Maybe so, can’t honestly be categorical but has it ever occurred to you that they may just be following the old rule “When in Rome do what the Romans do?”
Also, as to your “being prim and proper” resentment, are you happy about that or unhappy? Besides, I believe you should look back at hundreds of my comments in Mlq3′s blog so you can properly determine what you really mean by being prim and proper.
Let’s say that I’m perfectly capable of throwing you turd if you start going overboard but again, that would be useless. I’d rather focus on throwing turds at corrupt politicians, corrupt powers that be, etc. I wouldn’t want to waste my time on you unless you are one of those powers that be. (As it is, I should be reading the latest blog thread by Manolo here more seriously – instead of typing away to exchange “pleasantries” with you, talk of wasting time!)
So till the next time, I propose we agree to disagree.
mbw, agree. i wont fan the flames any further. sorry for wasting your time. not for me though. i’m just one persistent person. my only regret, the response did not reach 200.
till the next time and peace.
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archive
Books from my library
Most Commented
Recent Comments
Categories
MLQ3′s Social Network Profiles