War freaks (updated)
December 3, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
My column for today (after a long absence due to illness) is War freaks. It features this photograph courtesy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (update: so this is who he was!). Talking about photos, there are truly amazing panoramic shots (from right after the end of the whole thing) here (note the curious sight of bananas and a water bottle hidden in the wheel well of a Philippine Marines APC), and here (with everyone, media, cops, and soldiers, texting with wild abandon), and here (with Ricky Carandang looking dazed), in Inquirer.net.
Two stories I heard:
First, an anxious Filipino called up Singaporean business contacts who were in Manila, expecting the Singaporeans to be freaked out. The Singaporeans were, apparently, nonplussed: “We went into a meeting when it began and when the meeting ended, it was all over.”
Second, one person apparently overjoyed over the mayhem was someone who, a few months back, had had his laptop stolen out of his car while it was parked in the Peninsula parking lot. Upon inspection of the CCTV film, the person determined that the break-in into his car had been taped from beginning to end. The hotel refused to reimburse the man for his stolen laptop. So when the APC smashed into the hotel’s lobby, the person and his lawyer exchanged gleeful texts.
Let me repeat what I’ve said often enough in this blog and elsewhere. After the Marine standoff in Fort Bonifacio last year, a colleague said to me, “the country can’t afford more of this.” Much as it involves consciously tying one’s hands when officialdom feels no such qualms, I do think a national consensus of sorts exists. It’s a simple one: whatever resolution to the political problems of the country takes place, it can’t involve force of arms. The corollary to this is that even if it places an unfair burden on the opposition, the public’s expects that if the President is to go (and no, I don’t think many will really weep for her), she must be made to leave according to constitutional means. If that can’t be achieved, then by all means, hem her in, keep her on her toes, and narrow her options so that even if she wants to prolong her stay, she can’t. Anything beyond these parameters and a national consensus not only doesn’t exist, but no one will budge (the consensus being built on the understanding that the majority of people think they have better things to do than be engaged actively on either side, anyway).
You can either be impatient and rail over the limits this consensus has imposed, or take the longer view that well, maybe we have to wait until 2010 when the President will either leave no room for doubt she intends to stay, or she’ll go, and that relentless pressure on the president and her people will make it much more likely she will go in 2010 than try to stick around. In which case after six years of lost opportunities maybe the country can actually accelerate its improvement. That’s the price of democracy, no? Some may want to move faster, others, slower, but in the end we all must move at the pace the majority dictates.
So my first reaction to Trillanes’ move was, we can’t afford this sort of thing, again. I understand why he did what he did and why it may be that he had to do what he did -think of the scorpion and the frog. As Ricky Carandang wrote in his blog,
In the above cases, the systematic suppression of mechanisms to peacefully resolve legitimate grievance led people to look for extralaegal solutions. As the grievances accumulate, the demands for restitution escalate. In cases where the processes provided resolution quickly within the law, the public was largely appeased and extralegal solutions were not resorted to.
But I don’t like it, I think he betrayed his mandate as a senator, which was to take his fight from the periphery into the heart of government, and I think he was foolish and those with him did the President a favor instead of doing anyone else any good. But I am equally upset with the fire-breathing statements of people who refuse to see why the clusterfuck was inevitable, and that the whole thing could have ended up far worse, if some cooler heads somewhere hadn’t prevailed.
I think the Inquirer editorials had it right: in saying Trillanes committed political suicide, but also, that the administration’s proven itself incorrigible. In his blog, Mon Casiple points out something interesting:
Oakwood has now come a full circle. However, the political context of the present Manila Pen is different than the one in 2003. Then, GMA was at the height of her power, with a comfortable positive public opinion, the support of the majority of the middle class, and with considerable international goodwill. Now, she is facing an increasingly lameduck presidency, a deep distrust of her government among significant sectors, including the middle class, and buffeted by accusations of human rights violations abroad.
The country has entered the period of the transition to the post-GMA political situation. The immediate struggle revolves around the question of who will manage this transition. Logically in our democracy, the president–holding the reins of power–presides over this transition. However, in GMA’s case, this is forfeit because of her political weaknesses.
The Manila Pen incident follows closely on the heels of dramatic and violent events such as the Batasan bombing. A case can be made that incidents such as these fit into the present context of the political transition. Including nonviolent political events such as the LP and NP mediamatic non-proclamation of presidential candidacies, these collectively affirm that relevant political forces in the Philippines are on the march and are staking out their various positions.
I do not think the Manila Pen incident itself meant the end of the military rebels’ own plans; it may be the beginning. However, a much more interesting possibility is the use of their movement for political maneuvering vis-a-vis the contest for the role of transition manager.
On hindsight, what Senator Trillanes and company did in Manila Pen was either a stupid and unrealistic bid for a people-powered downfall of the GMA administration or a brilliant probing attack in a much more complicated strategy. There were simply many disconnects in the event that prevented the achievement of the announced objective to topple the current power in Malacañang. Firstly, there was no evident pre-synchronization of various potential or actual sympathetic forces. Secondly, there was no provision–either in warm bodies or logistics–for a long-drawn siege. It seems, they want to end the drama as it actually did–when the government forces started its counterattack in earnest. Thirdly, there were no observable mobilization of sympathetic military forces beyond the small group that accompanied Senator Trillanes to the Manila Pen. AFP chief of staff Hermogenes Esperon’s assertion of having prevented this from happening cannot simply be be taken at face value given the extent of discontent and ferment in the camps (as shown in the Trillanes protest vote in the last elections).
Let me jot down some notes about what took place last Thursday. A good digest of the day’s events, and various reactions (official and private, including the statement of Manila Peninsula’s PR guy; what no one will say on the record, is that the hotel only got control of the property back on Friday morning, and there are allegations of the cops looting the hotel and partying it up in the rooms: the rebels had occupied only one function room and brought along their own provisions of bread and sardines; it would help if the authorities could debunk these shocking allegations) can be found in Wikipedia’s Manila Peninsula mutiny page. Entertaining live blogging took place at Uniffors. Minute-by-minute account in The Philippine Experience. A journalist’s account is over in Newsbreak.
1. WTF?
So, as reason is the reason eloquently asked, WTF was Trillanes thinking? After the fact, it’s easy to think it was a cockamamie scheme, but I’m not so sure it was, at least from the start. Definitely, it unraveled quickly.
The whole thing could have been nipped in the bud but it wasn’t. A week before (November 20, page A18 of the PDI and also, in the Star) , full-page ads had been taken out in the papers by a certain “Filipino Democratic Nationalist Reform Movement” which has a website and which basically urged the armed forces to rise up; and ominous statements were issued the day before. So no one can doubt there was premeditation here, but that unlike previous efforts, the whole thing was cooked up by a relatively small group, which managed to remain uncharacteristically tight-lipped until the walkout actually began.
Definitely, what Trillanes and Lim were after was the tearing down of the constitutional order, and its replacement with a junta. And they seem to have done pretty complete staff work in that regard (see also Transition group eyed had Trillanes succeeded, says document). The problem is, their plan scared the bejeezus out of people in 2006, why wouldn’t it scare the bejeezus out of people in 2007? And it seems obvious enough that if they wanted to score publicity points for taking something over, why didn’t they take over the Batasan Pambansa? Or hole up in the Department of Justice? See The Journal of the Jester-in-Exile with regards to the tactics (or lack of them) demonstrated that day.
Anyway, as I wrote in my column, the moment I saw that guy with a wig, I knew it would fail, and when some friends texted me at the time, I told them as much. But there were two or three things that made me wonder if Trillanes and Lim actually had some sort of method behind their madness.
The first thing that struck me was something virtually unprecedented, and that was, the eery silence on the part of the military’s top brass. Never mind Esperon seemingly being caught by surprise, and having to rush back to Manila (the President, too). It was the hours that passed without the expected parade of generals vowing loyalty to the government taking place on TV. At the height of it, the best that government could do was allow reporters to broadcast from an unusually quiet Camp Aguinaldo to basically say, the armed forces could be counted out of the whole thing.
This was something Randy David caught onto, in his Saturday column:
But, if indeed they were alone in this doomed and foolish adventure, how do we explain the fact that, at the height of the standoff, no military commander, apart from the chief of staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., came out or was presented to reiterate support for the Arroyo government? Why did the government rely exclusively on police forces to deal with what was openly declared as a bid to remove the existing government? Was Ms Arroyo afraid that, if compelled to declare their loyalty, a good number of the nation’s soldiers might actually side with Lim and Trillanes?
In short, what did the silence of the camps during this six-hour siege signify? I doubt if General Esperon or Ms Arroyo knows. Perhaps if they know anything at all about the state of mind of the soldiers in the camps today, it might be something that is likely to give them sleepless nights in the next few weeks or months. Could this be the real reason for the sudden imposition of a midnight curfew — that they are seriously spooked by the possibility of troop movements quietly taking place in the coming days?
For it is hard to believe that the soldiers barricaded in their barracks would not care less about what was going on in Makati City last Thursday. If they saw what the rest of the nation saw, and they remained silent, I would consider that a meaningful silence. In a time like ours, when images from live media pack more power than the most stirring statements, what might the silence of citizens and soldiers possibly indicate? Are their senses stunned and their will paralyzed? Or are their souls shaken and courage awakened in their hearts? Who knows?
Whenever an event of this sort takes place, the public takes a wait-and-see attitude, but what’s unexpected is for the military to so obviously adopt the same posture. And it was a posture that, on the whole, they maintained: permitting the military to do so betrayed the disquiet and unease the government felt. Loyalty checks are par for the course; what’s not is that no obvious result could be announced until crucial hours had passed. This is significant because of something I’ll get into, in my next point.
2. War freaks
The President herself is reported to have insisted the hotel should be invaded by 2:30 pm; I can only surmise that people within the administration undercut their commander-in-chief and calmer heads prevailed. Utak pulbura is objectionable whichever side succumbs to it: if you will castigate Trillanes and Lim, then castigate, too, all the chest-beating people demanding that the whole thing should have ended in gunfire. For if it had reached that point, then a vicious spiral would have been the inevitable result. We should recognize that if reports are true, that the President was demanding a swift and violent end to the whole thing, the armed forces declined to do so, and that the police, despite their bravura, also held off using maximum force and allowed things to deflate on their own.
As Roby Alampay, a Filipino journalist based in Bangkok wrote,
Trillanes is not the charismatic personality that the international media may have perceived. For someone who graduated near the top of his Philippine Military Academy class, he’s perceived by many Filipinos as reckless, unthinking, and – worst yet for someone who holds hotels hostage just for the moral victory of having a press conference – he’s fairly inarticulate.
It takes everybody who appears around him – priests, actors, the media, activists – to express the moral campaign that Trillanes offers himself up for, but ultimately cannot lead. Given this assessment, the government made a quick call based on the bet that, even in the worst case scenario, Trillanes, who may have the sentiment of certain junior officers, has never been able to muster crowds, was not going to be martyred…
…Trillanes on the campaign trail represented pure unadulterated contempt for her administration and everything that makes people exasperated with her presidency: corruption, ambition, a thick hide to criticism.
To this day, that’s what Trillanes stands for, and in the aftermath of Thursday’s events that’s all he still represents. Regardless, however, of how small a player Trillanes really is in the grand scheme of things – at best, he’s been seen as an unwitting pawn – what he does symbolize is nothing to totally scoff at. Indeed what makes him dangerous is that he’s the stubborn voice for what people have frankly gotten tired of wailing about.
And yet most Filipinos are now simply resigned to riding out her term until the next elections are held 2010. Two impeachment attempts against her have failed thanks to the corrupted politics and politicians she’s co-opted – some say threatened – in Congress. Last week former president Fidel Ramos, formerly an Arroyo supporter said for all to hear: “Nobody likes Gloria, but what choice do we have?”
Many Filipinos grudgingly take that as a valid point. There are indicators that Arroyo has the economy – or at least the business community – on her side. The Philippine peso is the second strongest performing Asian currency this year, next only to the Indian rupee. The day after Trillanes was arrested, the government announced that Philippine gross domestic product growth for the whole of 2008 would likely hit 7%, overshooting all predictions at the start of the year.
What festers, however, is the feeling that democracy-crazy Filipinos are selling their souls for long-missed stability. Trillanes will never be the center or leader of any new People Power movement. But whenever he’s on the news, Filipinos are reminded that as inconvenient and unsophisticated as this soldier is, the people’s bigger moral issue will still be with Arroyo: the president who they believe was caught red-handed rigging her own election; whose husband they believe was caught red-handed rigging his own multi-billion-peso government contracts; whose government has shown contempt for free expression, human rights and, yes, democracy.
To be sure, it was appropriate and necessary, from government’s point of view, to keep up the pressure, and it was a brilliant move to send in the APC’s to trundle around the Peninsula lobby while refraining from spraying the lobby with high-caliber bullets. The use of tear gas was, tactically speaking, absolutely correct, too: if you can smoke ‘em out, why expend ammo? Not least because, if anyone had died, the fence-sitters in the military might just have decided to move, either way.
Yet the inconclusive results of the government inquest also points, I think, to insecurity on the government’s part, it’s still feeling its way to see how far public opinion will let it go. To be sure, I think even during the whole snafu, attempts were being made to lay the case for the prosecution: the firing of warning shots complete with claims the rebels fired back, established the basis for charges of rebellion and not just sedition to be filed.
What was truly frightening was that on one hand, Trillanes and Lim obviously believe a junta is desirable, but also, that the pressure to bomb the rebels to Kingdom Come or have sort of slaughter to end the whole thing, was so intense on the government side. Even more discouraging is that at the moment of success, the administration set about skillfully snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It flexed its muscles, against easy targets (the media, by rounding them up; the public, by imposing a curfew) when the lesson of the day was how a senator, a general, some loyal soldiers and some geriatric fans, had the entire country guessing if the government might fall like some overripe fruit from the tree.
Amando Doronila I think has it right, when he wrote, today,
The Peninsula insurrection may have collapsed, but the grievances that drove the rebels to desperate action remain smoldering underneath unless addressed seriously. The crisis has revealed Malacañang had lost control of coping with emergencies to security forces which determined how to crush rebellions their own way.
There are more than enough grievances to feed plots inside the military to seize power. The more serious plotters have learned the lesson that they can’t seize power by turning their guns at hotels. The next time around, the guns will be blazing at Malacañang.
That’s what the failures of Trillanes and Lim at the Oakwood and Peninsula mutinies have taught us. Ms Arroyo is hostage to the guns of her praetorian guard which she had unleashed at Peninsula.
Doronila’s warning can be made, because cooler heads prevailed and prevented a blood bath; had any killings taken place, there wouldn’t be time or opportunity to even make such a warning, an insurrection would already be taking place. And it’s worth pondering just how eagerly not just some officials, but members of the public, wanted it to come to that. Though Torn and Frayed says maybe the hard-liners have a point:
Yet, although I’m glad that Ayala didn’t run with blood yesterday, maybe the “hang ‘em high†mob at Carlos Celdran’s blog has a point. If life in the Philippines was more “seriousâ€, if people faced real consequences for their actions, perhaps they might think twice before doing these things, and surely you wouldn’t have to think more than that to realize the how absurd and ridiculous yesterday’s events were.
Tales of a Backpacker said it well:
The Manila Peninsula siege has elevated civil rights violations to a higher degree, and we all forgot to raise our voice against it because we were so busy demanding a state-sponsored human rights violation – the killing of Sen. Antonio Trillanes and his supporters. We even heckled the media for crying foul over their arrests. Crybabies! Wimps!
We all lost our freedom to travel for five hours (or imbibe alcohol till the wee hours on a Friday night), and none of us complained.
3. On the media
Everyone loves to hate ABS-CBN and nothing riles up the public more, than to be reminded by the media, how essential media is. All the grousing about how media overreacted -or that government overreacted to media’s stubborn refusal to vacate the Peninsula- is essentially an insular discussion. Even if ABS-CBN had left, there would have been, at the very least, up to ten journalists affiliated with foreign news organizations who’d have stuck it out to the bitter end. They included, the Philippine correspondent of the Japanese NHK, of Bloomberg News, a member of a TV news crew of the Associated Press, etc. This is a crucial point: even if the natives had fled, the natives working for foreign media outfits would have remained, which only goes to show their staying was, from a newsman’s point of view, anyway, the legitimate thing to do. By all means, if you have a bone to pick with media at home then what about those who operate according to international standards of the profession? They stayed. See Torn and Frayed’s thoughts on this score:
The original response to the latest stunt from Trillanes and his Magdalo group could easily be justified—meeting violence (and despite what Trilllanes claims, armed men taking over a hotel seems like violence to me) with overwhelming force. If the government had allowed Trillanes to dictate terms—as Gringo Honasan has so often tried to do during similar capers—it would have been disastrous.
Ramming a tank into the hotel entrance and firing off rounds of machine gun fire that could be heard a mile away seems over the top, but the officers charged with ending the siege had to make a lot of difficult on-the-spot decisions so perhaps they deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially as the three main objectives—the end of the siege, the arrest of Trillanes, and no bloodshed—were achieved.
However, the government’s reaction since the ending of the siege a couple of hours ago seems loopy. What is to be gained by arresting and handcuffing a bunch of journalists and members of the ABS-CBN technical crew and carting them off to Bicutan? No-one on TV has come up with a plausible explanation for why such an apparently counterproductive move might be a good idea. As Maria Ressa just said on air, these arrests were illegal and inconsistent with democracy.
If that was bad, Interior and Local Secretary Ronaldo Puno’s announcement of 12 midnight —5am curfew is incomprehensible. All it will achieve is to invest Trillanes’s weak and self-centred band with much more importance that they deserve and to add to the feeling of uncertainty in the capital, rather than helping to dissipate it as soon as possible.
But did media cross the line, in going from covering the story, to becoming the story? And what about the obvious sympathies held by some media people there, for the rebels? Here’s a memo Hunter S. Thompson wrote in 1972, and recently republished in Harper’s Magazine (November 2007):
I still insist “objective journalism” is a contradiction in terms. But I want to draw a very hard line between the inevitable reality of “subjective journalism” and the idea that any honestly subjective journalist might feel free to estimate a crowd at a rally for some candidate the journalist happens to like personally at 2,000 instead of 612–or to imply that a candidate the journalist views with gross contempt, personally, is a less effective campaigner than he actually is. Hubert Humphrey, for instance: I don’t mind admitting that I think sheep dip is the only cure for everything Humphrey stands for. I consider him not only a living, babbling insult to the presumed intelligence of the electorate, but also a personally painful mockery of the idea that Americans can learn from history. But if Hubert meets a crowd in Tampa and seventy-seven ranking business leaders each offer him $1,000 for his campaign, I will write that scene exactly as it happened-regardless of the immense depression it would plunge me into. No doubt I would look around for any valid word or odd touches that might match the scene to my bias. If any of those seventy-seven contributors was wearing spats or monocles I would take care to mention it. I would probably follow some of them outside to see if they had AMERICALOVE IT OR LEAVE IT bumper stickers on their cars. If one of them grabbed a hummingbird out of the air and bit its head off, I think it’s safe to say I would probably use that-but even if I did all that ugly stuff, and if the compilation of my selected evidence might persuade a reader here and there to think that Humphrey was drawing his Florida support from a cabal of senile fascists, well, I probably wouldn’t get much argument from any of the “objective” journalists on the tour, because even the ones who would flatly disagree with my interpretation of what happened would be extremely reluctant to argue that theirs or anyone else’s was the flat objective truth. On the other hand, it’s also true that I will blow a fact here and there.
That being said, was media being petulant? Yes. But only if past precedents shouldn’t matter; not in 1987 or 1989, or in 2001 or 2003 was media rounded up in this way. But of course government can change its mind, the way it’s kept scrapping all the past conventions on what was permissible behavior -but since it unilaterally scrapped the old rules, don’t expect anyone from the profession to thank government.
Might, after all, makes right. That’s the only lesson here. It would be wrong, I think, to confuse that with the “rule of law,” because the official excuses were insulting to the intelligence (much as media’s screeching was offensive to the law-and-order types who later hailed the curfew because, God darnit, it kept them thar people from goin’ a drunkin’).
If the idea was, as proclaimed by the police, to separate the rebels from the everyone else, then by all means round up all the men, but there was really no reason to round up the women and confiscate everyone’s cameras and tapes. Again, obviously the government was frustrated it couldn’t control information, and part of it was it’s own ambivalence over what to do. A kick-ass president would have sent shock troops to the stations to deliver an ultimatum, and quite possibly the public would have cheered; a more sagacious president would have thanked her lucky stars and crowned victory with sending biscuits to the reporters; a flip-lopping president leaves the law-and-order types frustrated that the media simply weren’t exterminated, and the media with its hackles raised: and, in terms of government p.r. purposes, the story being sidelined by media’s very public exploration of its navel.
Anyway, with the New Order it’s just as well Gov’t, media to meet over ‘rules of engagement’ in coverages.
4. My personal view
Something I quoted from Rizal in my column on May 1, 2006, comes to mind:
All the petty insurrections that have occurred in the Philippines were the work of a few fanatics or discontented soldiers, who had to deceive and humbug the people or avail themselves of their powers over their subordinates to gain their ends. So they all failed. No insurrection had a popular character, or was based on a need of the whole race, or was fought for human rights or justice; so it left no ineffaceable impressions … when they saw that they had been duped, the people bound up their wounds and applauded the overthrow of the disturbers of their peace! But what if the movement springs from the people themselves and based its causes upon their woes?
What strikes me is not that the enterprise ended up failing, but that there seemed a moment when they actually seemed poised to carry it off. Personally, much as my instincts were that it was doomed, in retrospect I think the thing wasn’t doomed to failure until it became obvious that what Gen. Lim et al. had in mind was a junta. At that moment -when Gen. Lim made cryptic comments about a new leadership arising- the scheme’s chances for success, already slim, swiftly collapsed. If national salvation, as Lim and Trillanes saw it, would be in the vanguard hands of the armed forces, then no one had any further incentive either to risk their necks or offer support: live by the sword, die by the sword. As far as this is concerned, I think Uniffors said it best:
I didn’t go rushing to Makati to demonstrate my support for the group because I don’t support juntas. And both Trillanes and Lim were strangely quite about what sort of government would replace Mrs. Arroyo had they succeeded in overthrowing her yesterday.
The presence of junta advocates like former UP president Dodong Nemenzo at the scene turned me off.
The most dangerous threat to democracy is a coalition between ideologues and men in uniform, no matter how pure of heart they are.
When a group like that takes over government, civil liberties and human rights take the back seat…
Trillanes and Lim could have drawn the crowds if only they used the occasion to call for a snap election following the resignation of Mrs. Arroyo and Noli de Castro. Unfortunately, they chose not to.
Of course this is just my opinion, but my column stemmed from my belief that there’s a lot of after-the-fact chest-thumping from born-again supporters of the administration: born again, because they were shitting in their pants when things seemed unclear. Kudos to those who made up their minds for or against, early on, and have stuck to their guns, whether in derision or admiration for Trillanes and Co. But I don’t think they represent, either way, the majority view. And that was: while no one moved to support the rebels, no one moved to defend the administration, and for the hour or so things could possibly have gone either way, the overwhelming public response was a deep ambivalence.
As The Economist commented,
In hindsight the mini-coup seems ridiculously ill-considered, but its failure to pose a real threat was mostly due to public disinterest rather than any dramatic improvement in the government’s popularity….
But it would be a mistake to interpret the failure of the mini-coup as a popular vote of confidence in the government. The problems facing Ms Macapagal Arroyo have actually increased significantly over the past couple of months, largely owing to allegations of corruption surrounding the negotiation of a contract for a national broadband network. For reasons that have not been fully explained, an agreement between the governments of China and the Philippines awarded the contract to the ZTE Corp of China―even though companies from the US and the Philippines submitted substantially lower bids. Ms Macapagal Arroyo cancelled the contract in October, but the negotiations raised questions of possible graft that still have the potential to trigger her removal from power.
The failure of what was probably their final bid to remove the president from power using legal means has also infuriated the president’s opponents. In October a third attempt to impeach Ms Macapagal Arroyo fell at the first hurdle―as did the two previous ones, in 2005 and 2006. The administration, through the dominance of pro-government parties in the House of Representatives (the lower house), has a comfortable majority on the justice committee that vets any impeachment file before it is presented to the full lower house. Owing to the fact that the constitution bans consideration of more than one impeachment charge within a 12-month period, the president will not face another charge until October 2008.
With their legal avenues of opposition now effectively blocked, increasingly frustrated opposition groups may be more likely to take to the streets. Eventually, one such attempt could pose a serious threat to the government. For now, though, the failure of Messrs Lim and Trillanes to spark a popular rebellion suggests that the country is far from being a dry tinderbox of discontent.
Disquieting, too, are murmurs that the problem was not what Trillanes did, but that he literally jumped the gun. As Asia Sentinel reports,
But as silly as seizing power via hotel lobbies may seem, it was not a spur of the moment action, but rather a well planned move, political analyst Earl Parreno told the Asia Sentinel, judging from the fact that the detained soldiers found quick access to high-powered guns.
“Their goal was the same as their goal during the mutinies of 2003 and 2006 ‑ a military action supported by civilians to topple the government. People power, in other words,” says Parreno.
However, “the move was premature.” The analyst says that, based on his informants, an action such as what took place Thursday was being planned for the first quarter of 2008. This would have given the opposition time to create further social unrest so that their move would generate sufficient civilian support, which would, in turn, encourage the military top brass to withdraw their support from the government ‑ the tipping point in Philippine-style uprisings.
Oh?
5. Other views
And there’s a kind of raw nerve the failed caper struck: my choice for book for the week suggests that we’re not far off from the Japanese, in at least admiring those who fail but go down, guns blazing. In a country starved for heroism, Trillanes couldn’t even commit hara-kiri, and I think quite a lot of people are madder about that than over anything he specifically did.
Tongue in, Anew, however, takes a different look at the whole thing (and a fascinating exploration of the military mentality, too):
Any marketing professional knows his AIDA: Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action. The four stages are carefully designed, complete with fall-backs, auto-responses and scripted pitches very much like those annoying telemarketers who drive you crazy because they are saying all the right things you are left with just all the lame excuses, if not buying their products right then and there! In the end, you may not realize it but you find yourself agreeing with them.
This is the pattern I read in these activities. Why repeat where you failed before? The idea is not that you are expected to act immediately, the Trillanes-Lim plan works much like a raingauge. It is a method of measurement, at the same time it rubs in, or more significantly, nails in, in a calculated manner the ideals of the movement, what it aims to achieve, how it plans to get there. Later, it provides the details how your personal involvement will make it necessary for the movement – the social transformation of the country – to succeed with everybody else in. Not just the elite politicians.
The reactionary government saw it the way I did, they know the unheeded call to gather at Manila Pen was not the end of it. They knew the act had to be sustained by forces not limited to the incarcerated officers or the commands they previously held. The “A” has been achieved and the “I” is about to begin. What keeps Malacañang guessing is the timetable of the execution. Is the “Interest”-soliciting group coming out hours after Peninsula? Or the next day? Or the next month? They didn’t have many choices so they took the more conservative option, also the less-riskier one: to assume that the next wave will happen in the next hours or probably coincide with the next day’s Bonifacio Day rallies, hence, the declaration of curfew and setting up of roadblocks and intensified checkpoints.
It would be foolish to assume Trillanes and company didn’t know how gov’t would react, blockade of absolutely all roads leading to Manila Pen IS the elementary response!
What they didn’t know is that, in the ongoing word war between the incarcerated officers in Fort Bonifacio and Tanay on one hand versus Esperon and his camp on the other, it was jellyfish Esperon who will turn sissy first and hide his tail between his legs.
A few weeks ago, Esperon had been provoked by the Tanay group of Querubin, Miranda and Lim to tell all about Hello Garci and his cheating participation as a response after he tried to scare them that he will come out with the video of Lim’s supposed announcement of declaration of their withdrawal of support in February of 2006. Nakakalalaki na ang hamunan. Who will blink first?
Lim did it again, this time live on national TV while clueless Esperon was watching (adoring?) his new recruit, Manny Pacquiao, on the latter’s first military service day somewhere in Mindanao. Lim’s act in Peninsula, therefore, was a continuance of their challenge to Esperon to come clean with the charges of cheating in Hello Garci. Lim et al have done their part, it was now up to Esperon to do his. Esperon defaulted. As far as Lim and Trillanes are concerned, their score with Esperon has been settled, they are the macho soldiers, Esperon was the weakling. And they did it even if they were under heavy guards. A big open-palm slap on Esperon’s face.
Anyway, a roundup of other bloggers’ opinions is in Global Voices Online.
And for those upset with Trillanes, here’s not one, but two, online petitions: Expel Tonyo Trillanes From The Senate (42 signatures) and Condemn the Mutiny at the Manila Peninsula (132 signatures), via Now What, Cat?. Get clickety-clicking if you’re mad, because so far many more signed the Calling for the immediate resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Noli de Castro and for the Holding of Special (“Snap”) Elections within 60 days petition (3,469 as of this posting; apparently. Ang Kapatiran added its voice for resignation around the time of the Peninsula Caper).
And a student leader’s view: Ateneo de Manila Sanggunian President: Statement on the Manila Peninsula Siege.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, president, society
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
cvj on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:30 am
Welcome back Manolo! Take it easy.
So that’s the guy in the wig.
ay_naku on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:31 am
Welcome back to our Dear Host. Hope you’re feeling much better.
Kelvin on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:35 am
Good to have you back!
There was a lot of stuff that happened while you were away and we were waiting for your thoughts on the matter hehe… (i.e. Trillanes standoff, Media arrests, etc.)
ay_naku on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:41 am
Agree about the galling statements of Vivian Yuchengco. Gusto kong batuhin ng sapatos nung naririnig ko sya magsalita sa TV.
mlq3 on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:59 am
thanks, all. i’ll be expanding this entry as the day goes on.
sparks on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 12:01 pm
i was getting worried about you. relieved you’re back!
mari on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 12:18 pm
looking forward to reading your write up on the recent coup attempt.
qwert on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 12:31 pm
Welcome back Manolo and good health to you!
vic on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 1:01 pm
Nice to see you good and healthy again. Just recovered from a nasty cold myself and we’re having an early burst of “la nina” and very cold early winter.
As for the habits of kicking one while being down, that also demonstrates the helplessness of the people, hence the opportunity and also the tendency of most the go with the wave, lest they get drown going against.
But to me, Trillanes is one of the symptoms, there are many others of the sickness. To cure the illness, follow the symptoms and will lead you to the patient.
amee on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 1:11 pm
Hi Manolo.
Welcome back.
I was wondering if you were on vacation since there was no entry about the Manila Penn drama. I hope you’re feeling much better.
Joselito Basilio on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 1:41 pm
Welcome back, Manolo!
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 1:43 pm
(taas kilay) Mmmmreally? Maybe you should check with other sources before saying something so patently easy to debunk. On my end, the hooting began long before the siege ended. (On text and YM both!)
Rina Jimenez David said something almost equally myopic – that people “rarely” reacted with anger to the news. At least she qualified her statement by saying that “it might be indicative of the circles I move in.” So true.
Might the lateness of the “hooting” you heard be more indicative of the circles you move in, Manolo, not of society in general?
coward on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:06 pm
Might the lateness of the “hooting†you heard be more indicative of the circles you move in, Manolo, not of society in general?
certainly, shows that you can not be in two places at a time and you can not be biased towards the same two opposite sides and you can only express opinions and views you can honestly vouch for no matter if others can debunk them easily… meaning stand by your principles and humbly accept your mistakes when proven wrong instead of stubbornly staying put using all the power that be and mocking others while they are down.
History were not kind to those that were arrogant in their heights of power like the Marcosses, The Eraps, Nixon, Mary Antoinette, Sadam, etc and you may add a few in the future right in the “ang Bayang kong Pililipinas” sooon!!!
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:15 pm
Hanep sa segue ah. Ano naman ang katuturan ng mga Marcos sa timing ng “hooting” na narinig ni Manolo?
R.O. on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:26 pm
Hello mlq3! The local political blogging world is so empty without you. So please stay alive and well and keep on blogging.
coward on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:40 pm
Hanep sa segue ah. Ano naman ang katuturan ng mga Marcos sa timing ng “hooting†na narinig ni Manolo
nothing…nothing, but the same hooters will quickly hoot different tunes or will be silent like the lambs if and when the “other side” suceeds or they will hoots for the other side this time. like Erap said wether, wether lang ang manga yan…
BrianB on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:45 pm
For all Trillanes’ fuming, the only honorable thing to do is die there at Manila Pen. Why even bother one more time when you only end up back in jail. We were humiliated as a nation because he surrendered.
mlq3 on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 2:57 pm
mickety, possibly. but you can also look at time stamps from comments people were leaving all over the place, during, and after. bully for you if you expressed yourself during the goings-on but a lot of chest-thumping i think took place to over-compensate after the fact.
Willy on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:00 pm
One look at the guy with the wig gives gives me an idea dying was not part of the plan. Or maybe its just the new thing in protective headgear?
BrianB on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:12 pm
Wouldn’t it have been more effective if Trillanes went to Edsa instead? Not out in the open where they would’ve been shot but in the chapel.
The Equalizer on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:14 pm
Welcome back Manolo! ingat!
The Equalizer on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:17 pm
“For all Trillanes’ fuming, the only honorable thing to do is die there at Manila Pen. Why even bother one more time when you only end up back in jail. We were humiliated as a nation because he surrendered.Brian B”
True! He was no Ninoy!
Jeg on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:20 pm
For my part, I did my ‘hooting’ when I first heard of it and stopped after it all fell apart. There was this whole Don Quixote-ish tilting at windmills about the whole thing that was easy to hoot at while it was going on, but the tragedy was also easy to recognize when it was over. That was the general trend here in the place where I work. Now nobody here even talks about it anymore.
(Welcome back, MLQ3.)
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 3:25 pm
“you can also look at time stamps from comments people were leaving all over the place, during, and after.”
You make it clear in your column that you’re not only referring to blog comments, but to text messages too. Trust me, the text messages and YM’s I was getting before the siege were anything but complimentary. Lots of us who weren’t fooled by Trillanes, Manolo, were “hooting” long before the government “proclaimed victory”.
“a lot of chest-thumping i think took place to over-compensate after the fact.”
That’s a matter of opinion, Manolo, and unless you can substantiate that, I think it’s a statement that falls squarely within Harry Frankfurt’s field of expertise.
The Equalizer on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 4:31 pm
In a resolution that she plans to submit for action , Senator Santiago said: “The Senate committee on ethics and privileges should meet immediately and recommend the proper punishment for Senator Trillanes for disorderly behavior and unparliamentary acts and language, including, if necessary, his suspension or expulsion from the Senate.â€
(Today, the police arrested Ernesto Maceda, a former ambassador to the United States and intensified a hunt for two other opposition leaders, Senator Gregorio Honasan and Panfilo Lacsan, a former police chief. Another senator, Miriam Santiago, was added to the list of those to be detained,for inciting people to revolt in EDSA 3 .New York Times,May 3 ,2001)
coward on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 4:40 pm
Is Trillanes a Brave Man, A Coward (like my handle) a Hero, A Goat, A Fake, a Genuine, A Pretender or for Real. Take your pick, only him knows who he is. But not a single person in the country will dare as of this moment take the Lady and risk his balls for getting shot, going to jail or he is lucky offered a handsome sum to keep his peace and disappear in some foreign land and let the lady President go on unhindered with her march to the First World, eradicating Poverty, and getting rid of the NPA insurgency by 2010 and also going abroad procuring loans for the “economic development†of the country with l50 “muchachos and muchachas tagging along.
Dying for a cause? We can give an example of Ninoy, Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, but these heroes had no choice, so is Trillanes, he could had been dead too for not being brave, only fate let him alive and nobody knows only to come back another day…
BlogusVox on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 4:45 pm
Miketymoc, dahan-dahan lang. Keep in mind MLQ3 is still recovering. His not yet 100% focus.
“I think it’s a statement that falls squarely within Harry Frankfurt’s field of expertise.†That’s a gasser. LOL!
Silent Waters on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 4:59 pm
Welcome back MLQ3.
I think in the end, the whole problem really started with one simple problem, Trillanes AGAIN took over another building. He has the right intentions (saying GMA is corrupt which by the way is an exercise of free speech) and the wrong means (taking over a building forcibly from the onwer’s and/or the owner’s caretakers). It was really the seond part that bothered me.
He’s asking a lawbreaker to step down and yet he broke the law in the process of asking the lawbreaker to step down? Bakit ko siya paniniwalaan then?
sparks on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:09 pm
If it were any other figure other than Trillanes who called for people to come, I think the outcome would have been different.
The fact that it was a man in uniform whose political ambitions are there for all to see, must’ve turned a lot of people off.
We’ve done the quasi-military junta thing before.
I think Filipinos want something new. For the moment, the status quo is maintained. But that doesn’t mean the we don’t want change.
coward on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:10 pm
He’s asking a lawbreaker to step down and yet he broke the law in the process of asking the lawbreaker to step down? Bakit ko siya paniniwalaan then?
Silent Waters, you don’t have to believe in Trillanes or his antic of resolving his grievances, but if you were in his shoes, granted started when he staged that Oakwood Mutiny and presented his group original grievances, were those been attended too? And were their trial been fair and reasonable? And even his own petition to seat as a Senator been speedily process so he can air his grievances in proper venue in which the people voted him to? Desperate people do desperate things. Some even take their own lives out of desperation and there are people who blew up themselves along with scores of innocents along out of desperation. You don’t have to agree with them, but they do happen, and it will continue to happen, mark my words…
Jon Mariano on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:10 pm
If there’s no “deeper” reason for the rebellion in Manila Pen, I say that Trillanes is muy loco, sloppy, and careless. But who can question his bravery in instigating such a childish caper? Not many can express their dissent; most just keep quiet. e.g. pag may problema sa trabaho, most would just keep quiet dahil takot mawalang ng trabaho!
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:11 pm
I just had a thought – it would have probably ended differently if Trillanes had walked to the Senate building instead and attempted to exercise his rights as a Senator. If he had even attempted this, I bet the hooting wouldn’t have been as loud.
(Although, due to the distance from Makati RTC to the GSIS bldg., baka sira ang byuti niya pagdating doon!)
Silent Waters on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:46 pm
Micketymoc
That would have been really a better idea. For some reason, they like Makati a lot better. Siguro mas masarap ang food sa hotel if they are planning to stay for a few days…haha
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 5:58 pm
Hindi siguro sanay si Trillanes na magrebolusyon kung walang room service. Hoot hoot!
sparks on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 6:03 pm
I think the reason they pick these “high profile” places to hole up in is completely for strategic reasons. The fact that its in the heart of the country’s financial district makes it that much more difficult for the government to just blow them up. I think this may have been the reason why that APC was ordered to destroy the hotel’s doorway and shower the damn lobby with bullets. It may have been a signal to everyone who was watching that the fancy surroundings won’t deter government forces from doing their job.
That, and, well – the Pinoy blogosphere is now rife with haka-haka about certain opposition personalities also hovering nearby at the time….
micketymoc on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 6:18 pm
Honga pala, sparks, while I have your attention – super thanks talaga for selling me the Steven Pinker book. I liked it so much, nanganak na sya – I already have his best 3 books (of which the Blank Slate is one of them).
Old Spice on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 6:18 pm
Welcome back Manolo.
No matter how you look at it, the plot was doomed to fail. Even Rex Robles asks: Is Trillanes really an enemy of Gloria? Look at the sundalo website and you’d find the name of Ramon Montano. The poor fellow was at the Pen anxious about a wedding reception for a relation.
The Equalizer on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 6:26 pm
Section 97 of the Rules of the Senate state: “Upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the Senate may punish any Member for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the entire membership, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) calendar days.”
How I Expect Senators to vote on the Proposed Expulsion of Senator Trillanes from the Senate:
YES:
1) Angara,Ed
2) Arroyo,Joker
3) Defensor-Santiago ,Miriam
4) Enrile,Juan Ponce
5) Gordon ,Dick
6) Honasan,Gringgo
7) Lapid,Lito
9) Zubiri,Mike
No:
1) Aquino,Noynoy
2) Biazon,Rodolfo
3) Escudero,Chiz
4) Lacson,Ping
5) Madrigal,Jamby
6) Pangilinan,Kiko
7) Pimentel,Aquilino
It depends:
1) Manny Villar (depends where the political wind blows)
2) Estrada,Jinggoy( depends on Erap,who depends on GMA)
3) Cayetano,Allan Peter (depends on Manny V.)
4) Cayetano,Pia(depends on Allan Peter)
5) Legarda,Loren (depends on Ed)
Note:There are 23 Senators in the 14th Congress.Senator Trillanes obviously cannot vote.
“Hints” from Manny Villar:
The Senate president said some senators were sore at Trillanes for what he did. Di lahat na senador gusto tumulong. May nagalit sa ginawa niya (Not all senators want to help him. Some are still sore at him for what he did).”
“Mahirap ang kalagayan niya. Kami ay handa umalalay, pero wala kaming choice dito, di namin pwede saklawan (He is in a tight fix. But as much as we want to help him, we cannot claim custody of him at this time),” he said.
The Ca t on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 6:44 pm
I agree with Mickey. The hooting was before, when people were being invited to join by text to go out and support Trillanes.
EDSA 2 crowd was also converged by the Text brigade.
So if the people were really for Trillanes, not even the rain can stop them.
Remember Ninoy’s burial? The rain was pouring hard and yet majority of the people stayed.
I still believe that whoever is mastermind of the Oakwood mutiny is still the mastermind of the Manila Pen failed coup.
New leadership?
Why were Erap and Binay together?
cvj on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:00 pm
I think we should rename this the ‘hooters’ thread.
Of what use is another Ninoy? I agree with Coward. It’s time for the heroes to stop dying ahead of the villains.
The Ca t on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:03 pm
It is worth mentioning also those people who lost their balls when teargassed and arrested.
Bishop Labayen said that he did not know of the plan of Trillanes et al. One bishop on the other hand commented that days before they were already being invited by this group for the plan. Lying is a sin.
I used to admire Robert Reyes but when he was featured in a magazine with all his exotic pets that eat better than homeless people, I dropped him from my list.
Then his mother came to ask for his release because he was only in Makati to say mass. Gawd. Isn’t he in always in the scene where protests/demonstrations were being held. Coincidence. My foot.
Then the wife of Guingona came to ask for his husband’s release for humanitarian reason. He’s sick. He knows he’s sick why come to the place. Old habits die. They always wanted to be in the limelight. In the absence of cameras and lights, they are the most coward people using so many alibis just to avoid incarceration.
Ninoy did not do all these things. He remained in prison even when he was the last one released.
So don’t judge the Filipino people why they won’t brave the rain. They know who are real heroes and who are not.
People power is dead and so are heroes. These people pretending to be heroes are just working for the few people who like to take control of the Philippines. Nothing more. This is not even about GMA. This is about getting control before a new President is elected in 2010. There is an urgency to do this. And GMA haters just can’t get this because of their hate to Gloria. This is not even hate for Gloria. This is hate for her guts. And everytime any action against GMA failed, that hate doubles.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:26 pm
Funny that Gloria tried to outdo Vivian Yuchengco. I guess the rivalry between the two women runs deep.
benign0 on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:31 pm
I don’t know what all the fuss is about.
From my simplistic perspective, Trillanes is just another misguided moron, and like most misguided morons in the Philippines — a popular one; the kind that wins elections.
In most societies, people who do such things get put in front of a firing squad.
But this is the Philippines — land of suckers where ex dictators’ families, plundering ex presidents, and statutory rapists hobnob in high society.
People should just leave this to the criminal justice system and get on with it. Then again, there isn’t really much in the way of worthwhile activities in the Philippines to distract from moronic tabloid fodder.
elac on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:42 pm
Manuel,
Are you implying something? Like the Bee Gees “How Deep is your love?”
sparks on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 7:52 pm
For a supposedly “apathetic” Filipino middle class, there’s certainly a lot of colourful reactions in the Pinoy (middle class) blogosphere. *Chin stroke*
Mickety,
Times like these, you do wonder whether we can overcome our animal instincts. We are, at bottom, chimps. But I think what separates us from the rest of the earth’s creatures is the reflexive knowledge that we do have these tendencies and that we have the capacity to channel, if not resist them entirely.
So here’s to humanity – far from perfectible. And here’s to the journey towards approximating perfection – always bumpy but worth the ride. Woohoo!!!!
The Equalizer on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 9:25 pm
“It’s time for the heroes to stop dying ahead of the villains.CVJ”
true!
cvj on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 9:38 pm
The Pinoy (middle class) blogosphere never lacked snark especially when they feel alluded to.
Madonna on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 9:48 pm
I perfectly agree with Equalizer that Trillanes is no Ninoy definitely! We live in crazy times and a crazy situation where the only ones who are “brave” are those with delusions of grandeur like Trillanes. God have mercy on our nation really for crying out loud!
re: hooting, i have to say that even before the trillanes-led caper ended at around 6 that night, i felt that it was bound to end like Oakwood – and I made this judgment based on what he did and said in Oakwood — and a lot of people i knew were saying the same thing befor the fiasco ended. trillanes among the officers who were at oakwood struck me as someone who wanted to be a politician from the outset. i did not get the same impression from the other leaders such as gambala or maestrocampo. i never liked trillanes personally but my wish for him when he won in the last senatorial elections was that he be allowed to serve his madate.
he’s no longer a soldier officially –and he should decide which he wants to be — a soldier or a politician. he can’t make up his mind. that line he said “like soldiers, we’re going to face this” was really the height of hubris — he kept on harping that he’s ready to fight and then drops his tail. what does he really want? it struck me judging from his statements made last thursday that the caper he led was more about himself, rather than about the country. That cannot be said about general lim who said “dissent without action is consent†– I have more respect for him than trillanes. by golly, lim made more sense than trillanes!
I think Trillanes should be allowed to serve in the Senate even after his foolishness, but if this happens i think gma will take the opportunity to neutralize him in exchange for letting him serve.
And I beg to disagree, it was not about success or losing that people were hooting, it was because Trillanes displayed character that could not be respected. Even if a person loses, he still retains the respect of the public – like Roco, when he lost not once but twice to GMA, people still respected him in general. That cannot be said of Senator Trillanes.
baycas on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 10:15 pm
more entertainment with this forthcoming book…
“Chronicles at The Pen: The Bottle, the Wig, and the Banana Peel”
by Geary Lewis
baycas on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 10:28 pm
the caper could actually be a happenstance…
hapPENstance…aptly…
—–
choice of The Pen is really not coaccidental…
it’s closer to home…as in…PENitentiary…
Carl on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 10:58 pm
I don’t agree with Randy David’s assessment that the absence of a military roll call and the delegation of the assault to the police implied the administration’s uncertainty over the military’s loyalty. The professor underestimated this administration’s skill at inducing loyalty where and when it is needed. But by not doing the roll call and delegating the assault to the police, the administration sent a message that Trillanes et al was simply a fly in their face. This explanation is consistent with the confidence with which they set a deadline for surrender and executed the assault.
Given the public support for the ideals which Trillanes et al stood for, one would imagine that the administration would at least waver in carrying out a swift and forceful attack. However, the decisiveness of the attack is indicative of the government’s confidence stemming from their assumption that while the public may be sympathetic to the rebels, they would not stick their necks out to support an armed uprising. That is the lesson the administration learned in Oakwood. Hence, the administration correctly read public sentiment, thereby setting the stage for a display of their competence at mowing dissent and the opposition.
Trillanes’s afternoon tête-à -tête succeeded in two things: (1) further polarizing the debate about whether this government should prematurely end its term; and (2) making the majority resigned to the idea that to hope for change, one would have to wait for 2010.
Silent Waters on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:10 pm
he he…kaya pala….sabi ni Trillanes…to the Pen(itentiary)…akala ng mga escorts …to the Manila Pen…;-)
Silent Waters on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:12 pm
sparks
I so so agree totally with your last comment….this just proves my point…people have different ways of thinking…
BrianB on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:30 pm
“So here’s to humanity – far from perfectible. And here’s to the journey towards approximating perfection – always bumpy but worth the ride. Woohoo!!!!”
What are you one of those Forbes Park philosophers? Wait till you run out of wine.
BrianB on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:46 pm
“I don’t agree with Randy David’s assessment that the absence of a military roll call and the delegation of the assault to the police implied the administration’s uncertainty over the military’s loyalty.”
yes, it’s not like the military has to reaffirm their respect for the chain of command. Tsk. Mr. David don’t know military men.
Anyway, I fear that the fight against Arroyo and the bigger fight against the culture of corruption is heading downhill.
Mita on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:48 pm
why would you hoot if you were concerned for the country? GAWD, that is pathetic talking about whether the hooting was done “before or after” …..SHEESH…does it really matter? I mean REALLY matter.
the military may have just been gathering info and strategizing before making their move…isn’t that the way to do it so you’re not caught flat-footed. unlike some people who have just demonstrated how NOT to do things if you want victory. now if all you want is airtime…then….
what surprised me was Mayor of Makati’s absence…but I just thought he was probably out of the country or something.
Trillanes betrayed the Senate with his act, I think he should be expelled. The mere presence of his name on the roster of Senators weakens that institution further…forever.
Benigno, lol! i like that “misguided moron”…who guided him kaya? The bigger question is “Does a grown man need guidance?”
BrianB on Mon, 3rd Dec 2007 11:51 pm
Hot damn, Benign0 is back!
Mita on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:07 am
re hooting….i was being sarcastic nga pala.
Brian, yung reaffirming loyalty by generals reminds me of the early days of martial law. BTW, bata-batuta pa ko nun! Smart kid lang…it’s been downhill since though….
Sparks, there comes a point when tender asses don’t like bumpy rides…not anymore anyway…
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:07 am
and I suppose (Loi and Jinggoy)Estrada, Santiago, Lapid, Sotto strengthened that institution more. forever…
a fly in the face does not deserve attention, right? and how can you be so sure the admin did not do the roll call? perhaps it did, and no one answered.
they were so afraid of what Lim and Trillanes may accomplish, hence the deadline. and even that was botched.
if indeed Gloria has lost control over the military, and only Puno keeps PNP loyal to this admin, this bodes ill for the Phils.
this has the makings of a civil war. between army and police personnel and their backers.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:20 am
btw, if you would watch the replays, you’d notice BGen Lim had no idea abt Trillanes’ plan. It took him by surprise and he had no choice but to go along after Trillanes announced the walk-out.
Watch as he was given the statement to read, he pauses and swallows as if he has never read it before, and is actually hard put to read the statement wholeheartedly.
I think it was BGen Lim who persuaded Trillanes to surrender. You can see in Trillanes’ eyes the disappointment as he announced their surrender. I think this guy really had planned all along to let govt kill them. Along with media men.
I think this was the plan all along. Force this admin to a bloodbath. which will of course result in a groundswell of protests, and ultimately GMA’s downfall.
Why does Trillanes like Makati hotels so much? Why was Binay missing during that day? Who owns Oakwood and Manila Peninsula?
I think this admin’s mistake is in prosecuting BGen Lim. Unlike Trillanes, Lim is very much respected throughout the AFP. you can infer that many of the officers today went under his tutelage.
The AFP as an institution is also more credible than the PNP. I guess that’s bec soldiers have a differenr sense of honor than policemen.
Bencard on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:45 am
in most modern rebellions, among the first targets, more often than not, is the media, broadcast media, in particular. seizure of national radio/tv stations is a primary initial mission. rebels need a means to mobilize their sympathizers, a communication network to coordinate their deployment, and relay instructions from their leaders. broadcast media is also necessary to spread out propaganda to maintain the morale of the rebellious forces and supporters; to claim their victory and the defeat of their enemy, true or not. it is a potent weapon in a psychological warfare for the people”s heart and mind.
in the trillianes’ latest caper, there seemed to be no need to capture communication facilities. the national broadcast media was there voluntarily, apparently eager to cooperate with the bellicose gang and transmit their call to arms to the nation. when requested to leave for their own safety and so as not to hamper law enforcement, many media members refused, insisting that it is their “business” to report the “news”, never mind that they were obviously being used as “human shield” by the rebels (apart from being used as propaganda facility), thus giving the latter aid and comfort in more ways than one.
now the media industry is threatening, or initiating, legal action against the police, for alleged violation of “press freedom”. under the circumstances, i feel no sympathy for them.
Bencard on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:10 am
now, now, devils. i see you are trying to make a “hero” out of lim since there’s no way you can make trillianes one. unwittingly, though, i think you made lim a bigger “coward” than trillianes for not being able to stand up against the latter’s idiocy. sorry, but i really think they are one and the same power-hungry, overly-politicized, military men without cujones, and who don’t know their rightful place in society.
be careful of what you wish for. i think you are also trying to drive a wedge between the military and the pnp in your desire to have a national bloodbath. hope you and your family (your only concern, it appears) are safely tucked in somewhere in the islands beyond the reach of either side’s bullets.
David on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:38 am
“This is a crucial point: even if the natives had fled, the natives working for foreign media outfits would have remained…”
mlq3, is this fact or speculation?
The Ca t on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:47 am
without statement or declaration of withdrawal of support, it is assumed that the military is with the government.
The signal of Military’s alliance to a group, pro and anti can be summarized in this lullaby song.
Rock a bye baby on the tree top
when the wind blows the cradle will rock,
when the bough breaks the crade will fall
and down will come baby, cradle and all.
And that’s the time they will proclaim their loyalty or support.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 4:25 am
really? and i thought all i was doing was demonstrating that perhaps Lim had no knowledge of the plan beforehand.
depends on how you view it, bencard. others may say, Lim was wise, having a cooler head than Trillanes. and as for military men who don’t know their rightful place in society, you can tell that to FVR, who became president, to Enrile and Honasan, now senators, and to the biggest of them all who don’t know his rightful place in society: Angie Reyes. This guy has been in so many govt department di mo na alam kung san sya ilalagay sunod. and all bec Angie was the one who brought down Erap’s regime.
again, victory is what spells the difference of who will be called having cujones and who will not.
bencard, if it is my sincere wish to have a national bloodbath, then why do i keep on issuing warnings agst it if not to prevent it from happening?
of course i am concerned abt my family. if you have family here too, you should be too.
and I dnt need to drive a wedge bet the PNP and AFP. i merely stated an observation. That if it is true Gloria has lost control of the AFP and only controls the PNP, it logically leads to only one conclusion. confrontation bet the two.
inodoro ni emilie on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 6:47 am
what can i say: all this domino-tumbling effect of power struggle and disregard for the ‘rule of law’ began with edsa 2. ain’t no suprise to me–i would still anticipate something more explosive dramas to come.
who started these telepoliticas anyway? look back in 2001.
sparks on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 7:13 am
How I wish. That comment was a response to Micketymoc’s comment about the book Blank Slate which I sold him on Ebay. That’s right, I’m so poor I sell my stuff on the internet.
Here’s to Forbes Park philosophers though. I have no personal knowledge of them, but apparently you do. May they multiply. Salud! *clink*
benign0 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:07 am
“Hot damn, Benign0 is back!”
Yes indeedy. It’s time I updated my little website. But then I’m not gonna write about Erap’s pardon or Trillianes’s moronism.
Nope that’s just too easy, too last week, too pang-masa, and therefore too small-minded.
Instead, I’ll call on the words of wisdom of an eminent expat guest-writer whose broader take on the subject of the past moronic and increasingly-trivial EVENTS would better serve our intellectually-bankrupt minds (ironically, he wrote the article before these laughable stupidities happened — which further highlights the brilliant like minds of the getrealist world).
Stay tuned!
mlq3 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:12 am
david, they were among those rounded up, and so focap protested. so it’s a fact -for exampe, most of the gma7 crew left, they stayed.
benign0 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:13 am
Note how I push the right Pinoy buttons in my above plug:
(1) Appeal to elitist beholdenness (‘pang-masa’ and all that);
(2) Blatant appeal to deeply-ingrained colonial mentality (‘expat guest-writer’); and,
(3) Action prompted by pathetic onion-skinnedness (‘our intellectually-bankrupt minds’).
Sayaw Pinoy sayaw.
And remember:
Small minds discuss PEOPLE;
Mediocre minds discuss EVENTS;
Great minds discuss IDEAS.
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 9:26 am
ha ha ha….benigno….natamaan ata ako dun ah. Anyway, it’s ok always to be reminded about below…..:-)
Small minds discuss PEOPLE;
Mediocre minds discuss EVENTS;
Great minds discuss IDEAS.
Jeg on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 10:29 am
On the ‘rules of engagement’ between media and law enforcement in times like this, it would help if media can arrange the ‘embedding’ of journalists with the police or military undertaking operations like that. That way, the media on the inside can safely leave when the law enforcers ask them to, knowing that the event will still be covered by the embedded journalists.
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:17 am
Jeg
That actually is a good idea. Better than all the rants and raves that are going on. Maybe sakit natin talaga mga Pinoy….reklamo lang nang reklamo, ayaw naman gawan ng paraan.
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:26 am
Someone emailed me this URL. Not sure if it has been already posted here before.
http://www.angtagalnaman.blogspot.com/
Let’s start the countdown!
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:32 am
My post is awaiting moderation. Here it is again (though I’m re-writing the link):
“Someone emailed me this URL. Not sure if it has been already posted here before.
ang tagal naman blog spot dot com ”
Let the countdown begin!
Jeg on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:47 am
By all means, if you have a bone to pick with media at home then what about those who operate according to international standards of the profession?
Regarding ‘international standards’, I heard some general or other saying on TV that accepted international standards in covering things like this are that the media is allowed to record law enforcement actions (their movement and positions, etc.) but they shouldnt broadcast them live. I dont know how true that is, but it would make sense from a law enforcement point of view — you wouldnt want to give the enemy any information about what youre doing unless you want them to have that information.
I was in the midst of reporters covering them event last Thursday and a lot of them were indeed reporting on what was going on and from the looks of it, they were airing it live on TV and radio.
Perhaps this is another thing that ought to be cleared up during the gov’t-media summit on rules of engagement.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:53 am
Catchy, but simplistic.
mlq3 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:12 pm
jeg, that’s a valid point, i guess. i remember during the 1989 coup reporters were asked not to be specific about troop movements and they complied.
lee on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:21 pm
thanks for colon’s (the rebel with the funny wig) photo. that’s going to be my christmas card.
anthony scalia on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:23 pm
“Small minds discuss PEOPLE;
Mediocre minds discuss EVENTS;
Great minds discuss IDEAS”
at ellentordesillas.com ideas are never discussed; events get seldom attention; and its always about PEOPLE!
David on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:24 pm
Speaking of international standards of journalism, here is an excerpt from the BBC Editorial Guidelines. I wonder if the Philippine media abide by similar guidelines.
“Hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking & sieges
In cases of hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking and sieges we must be aware that anything we broadcast or publish may be seen or heard by the perpetrators, both in the UK and overseas.
It is important that we report demands in context. We should also consider carefully the ethical issues raised by providing a platform to hijackers, kidnappers or hostage takers, especially if they make direct contact. We must remain in editorial control of the reporting of events and ensure that:
we do not interview a perpetrator live on air.
we do not broadcast any video and/or audio provided by a perpetrator live on air.
we broadcast recordings made by perpetrators, whether of staged events, violent acts or their victims, only after referral to a senior editorial figure.
we install a delay when broadcasting live material of sensitive stories, for example a school siege or plane hijack. This is particularly important when the outcome is unpredictable and we may record distressing material that is unsuitable for broadcast without careful editing.
When reporting stories relating to hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking or sieges we must listen to advice from the police and other authorities about anything which, if reported, could exacerbate the situation. Occasionally they will ask us to withhold or even to include information. We will normally comply with a reasonable request, but we will not knowingly broadcast anything that is untrue. The police may even request a complete news black-out. The BBC procedure for dealing with such requests must be followed.”
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:37 pm
David
That looks fair to me….maybe that should be passed on to the media summit
David on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:40 pm
And this is from the Association of Electronic Journalists:
“Guidelines for Covering a Law Enforcement Action
In covering a developing raid or law enforcement action, journalists are advised to:
Be extremely cautious to not compromise the secrecy of officials’ planning and execution. If staking out a location where a raid will occur or if accompanying officers, reporters and photographers should demonstrate great caution in how they act, where they go, and what clues they might inadvertently give that might compromise the execution of the raid. They should check and double-check planning efforts.
In covering an ongoing crisis situation, journalists are advised to:
Always assume that the hostage taker, gunman or terrorist has access to the reporting.
Avoid describing with words or showing with still photography and video any information that could divulge the tactics or positions of SWAT team members.
Fight the urge to become a player in any standoff, hostage situation or terrorist incident. Journalists should become personally involved only as a last resort and with the explicit approval of top news management and the consultation of trained hostage negotiators on the scene.
Be forthright with viewers, listeners or readers about why certain information is being withheld if security reasons are involved.
Seriously weigh the benefits to the public of what information might be given out versus what potential harm that information might cause. This is especially important in live reporting of an on-going situation.
Strongly resist the temptation to telephone a gunman or hostage taker. Journalists generally are not trained in negotiation techniques and one wrong question or inappropriate word could jeopardize someone’s life. Furthermore, just calling in could tie up phone lines or otherwise complicate communication efforts of the negotiators.
Notify authorities immediately if a hostage taker or terrorist calls the newsroom. Also, have a plan ready for how to respond.
Challenge any gut reaction to “go live†from the scene of a hostage-taking crisis, unless there are strong journalistic reasons for a live, on-the-scene report. Things can go wrong very quickly in a live report, endangering lives or damaging negotiations. Furthermore, ask if the value of a live, on-the-scene report is justifiable compared to the harm that could occur.
Give no information, factual or speculative, about a hostage taker’s mental condition, state of mind or reasons for actions while a standoff is in progress. The value of such information to the audience is limited, and the possibility of such characterizations exacerbating an already dangerous situation are quite real.
Give no analyses or comments on a hostage taker’s or terrorist’s demands. As bizarre or ridiculous (or even legitimate) as such demands may be, it is important that negotiators take all demands seriously.
x x x”
It would be interesting to know how many of these guidelines were breached by the Philippine media during last Thursday’s “Makati Standoff”.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:41 pm
Anthony Scalia, which goes to show how simplistic that bromide is. That statement ignores the reality that people’s actions drive events and are motivated by ideas. Taking these three elements in isolation and placing them in an artificial hierarchy of values restricts the normal flow of conversation and therefore makes it less productive.
rego on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:42 pm
No matter how the political pundits put it, I believe its really about Trillanes and Lim and not about Gloria.
Lim has been at it even before Gloria is in power. And he found a very good recruit in Trillanes.
These two , is simply exploiting Glorias weaknessES and use it as an alibi to further their SELFISH AND HYPORITICAL cause. A sham cause actually. Duh!
lee on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 12:46 pm
“Small minds discuss PEOPLE;
Mediocre minds discuss EVENTS;
Great minds discuss IDEASâ€
that’s going to be my statement shirt.
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 1:01 pm
welcome back, manolo!
if trillanes was really serious about winning, he should have given the police and military an excuse to end the stand-off with a bloodbath. that way, all those fence-sitters would be forced to act, one way or the other. but his ‘we’ll-surrender-so-no-one-gets-hurt’ line made him lose the initiative. us pinoys love the underdog. he and lim might be thinking of a junta, but the images of this pathetic group falling down in a hail of bullets would have inspired a genuine people power and sent gloria out of malacanang. trillanes should post a memo to himself: heroes and martyrs are no pus*ies.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 1:02 pm
people, events, and ideas are inter-related. i wonder how Benign0 thinks we can discuss people w/o discussing the events they made happen or the ideas they stood for.
David, reading from the BBC editorial guidelines, we can safely say that NO, the phil. media does not practice these guidelines.
i remember one instance when footage of a beheading was aired in the morning show and was only edited later when shown during the evening news.
in this regard, phil media is not so different from the police. shoot first, think later.
hvrds on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 1:19 pm
It looks more and more that the events of last Thursday was a planned PR event that failed to materialize so when the main event did not happen the players had to improvise.
There were two main mobilizations planned for the next day. Everyone from the usual progressive sectors were busy preparing for the next days event.
The curfew was intended to stop movements from the South and Central Luzon that are usually brought in during the night before a mass mobilization.
What happened and was there a main event to happen in Makati? Everyone from all the shades of the political spectrum were caught with our pants down so to speak.
What the hell happened last Thursday? Where did the armed MP’s disappear to?
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 1:19 pm
Devils
I think Benigno was not really saying that people and events are not discussed when ideas are discussed…what’s he’s saying really is that discussions focusing only on people and events without even bothering to discuss the ideas behind them have small and mediocre minds.
In that regard, you guys (CVJ, Devils, everybody in this forum have great minds then…even if we disagree…:-) )
hvrds on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 1:50 pm
Anyone here who thinks that the both of these officers have no balls should try walking in public for an hour right after breaking out of jail so to speak.
Any law enforcement officer would have had the right to shot them on sight. They were sitting ducks out on the street for almost an hour.
Does it mean that the entire Makati police contingent of the PNP simply ignored them?
A bank robbery happens and police respond but this jail break and no response.
The Chief of Staff explains that the MP’s were told to accompany the jail breakers as they knew of the plan. Huh?
As my old Jewish friends used to say, something is not kosher here.
A noted columnist who is perceived to be very close to the powers that be explained that the order to finish off the trouble makers was given but for the presence of the media and religious personalities.
Who can ever forget the films of the Tet offensive one of which showed a police officer shooting a VC fighter in the head live on TV in the streets of Saigon.
The firefight in the U.S. Embassy during the height of the offensive. In those days the Vietnam war was brought into everyone’s living rooms.
Bravo to those unsung heroes in the media. As for the women anchors I still think they should be in a thong bikini contest. Pinky Webb rocks.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:12 pm
Benign0’s mental habit is to simplify. Note his comment above (at December 3 7:31 pm) which he prefaced with “From my simplistic perspective…“. He always does that. Simplifying is normally a good thing as long as you don’t overdo it.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:25 pm
Why do we need the blood of a martyr to make us do what is right? For what, vivid imagery?
benign0 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:38 pm
Just a little cavaet here, i can’t claim to have come up with those three phrases. Like ‘lee’, I just came across it once (in another blog or forum — i forget) and decided to wear it on my shirt.
And Mr. cvj, I do tend to simplify. But I believe the best simplifiers are those who understand the complexity, are able to build a framework to manage it, which then enables them to better step back from it and regard it whollistically.
Windows and Mac OS/X are delightfully simple to use. But underneath that veneer of simplicity is monstrous complexity that the brilliant engineers of those venerable companies managed to tame.
Look how Pinoys continue to slog through the monstrous complexity that is the Pinoy condition. Perhaps it is about time that people with a talent for simplifying what are essentially moronic problems be given the floor.
ricelander on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:41 pm
Credit where credit is due: GMA has learned quickly from recent history. Marcos met his defeat in EDSA 1 because, among other things, he allowed the massing of people at EDSA until it was no longer possible to shoot without causing a massacre. Erap too did not lift a finger to prevent the gathering of a critical mass at the EDSA shrine. Note how quickly they closed the avenues going to the metropolis and they even barricaded the gates of the military camps. Very smart.
There is another thing: the one who shies away from shedding blood will lose when confronted with an enemy who doesn’t (or doesn’t seem to be), even before the shooting starts. Try imagine GMA if she is the kind who would say “Enough, I don’t want blood in my hands.” That’s GMAs ace, she’s a picture of ruthlessness should shoving comes to elbow digging. No, she wouldn’t hesitate (or seems wouldn’t hesitate) a Tienanmen Square massacre if need be.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:44 pm
SW, in that regard, he can go to Ellen’s blog and be greeted by small minds with great earnest. dissent with the regulars there is an automatic invitation to ad hominems.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:47 pm
Benign0, i’m aware that you are not the originator of that phrase, although you seem to be one of its most avid promoter.
I agree, so why don’t you try doing that for a change?
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:47 pm
Why do we need the blood of a martyr to make us do what is right? For what, vivid imagery? – cvj
to wake us from stupor.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:48 pm
the floor is yours, Benigs. please do simplify some more. i have been to your website countless times. have read a lot of the articles. a lot of it makes sense, but there’s just too much pointing out what is wrong with the Philippines, and too little of how we can make it right.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:53 pm
gawd almighty. just for that you want someone to die for us? can’t we wake ourselves up? no wonder we keep lacking visionary leaders. we keep asking them to die for us just so we could “wake up from the stupor.”
micketymoc on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 2:57 pm
Ronin’s mention of “ang tagal naman blog spot dot com”, and its accompanying countdown to Gloria’s exit (let’s presume it will push through, humor me, will you, cvj?) made me think about what we individually are doing to prepare for the day.
For the “talsiks” (patalsikin si Gloria), what do you think should the “move on” crowd be doing to prepare for that day? For the “move on” crowd, what should the “talsiks” be (legally) doing to prepare for that day?
I have no “gotchas” hidden behind this question – am honestly curious what each group believes the other should be doing for 2010. What is it, 900 days to go? Enough time to prepare, I think. (Again, cvj, humor me on this one.)
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:06 pm
Devils
Like I said…everybody thinks this is a game from the PC World. May 3 lives ka…maybe more….;-)
Silent Waters on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:07 pm
Miketymoc:
Ako…continue being productive for the Philippines…whoever sits there at the top…
ay_naku on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:26 pm
I think it’s worth revisiting one of Randy David’s essays, written more than a year ago but still very relevant today:
davaotoday.com/what-is-to-be-done
Some excerpts from it:
We are citizens of a state. But we are also, in our daily lives, member of communities. We belong to kinship networks, to neighborhoods, to churches, to schools to civic organizations, to residential villages, to social clubs. We are consumers of goods and services. Our children attend in the same schools, and we go to the same social functions. We even live in the neighborhoods and shop in the same places. In short, we sare the same social spaces. Those spaces are governed not by one law alone, but by moral norms of acceptable behavior. These are the sources of our moral identities, and they are far richer and older than the wellsprings of our common citizenship. We have not consciously mobilized the power inherent in these moral identities. We continue to regard and receive those individuals who cheated massively for Ms Arroyo in the last election and who participate in the continuing plunder of our economy as if their actions were the most natural in the world and do not bother us at all. I hope you are getting the drift of what I am saying here. If we want to stop corruption in our national life, we must begin to show outrage over the loss of decency in our public life.
We have underestimated Ms Arroyo. She has been more clever and more systematic – and also more brazen – on her quest to replenish her rapidly vanishing social and political capital. I am sure all of you have noticed that in the last two months alone, the newspapers have reported her every social visit to Catholic bishops and archbishops all over the country. Photographs of these visits have been published in major newspapers. In some instances, the leaders of the various churches have been unveigled into giving her the “pray overâ€. I am sure they are aware that this formal display of peity is part of a systematic attempt to prop up a troubled presidency.
If religious leaders allow themselves to be used like this, sooner or later they will find themselves being confronted by their flocks, who, while they may accept their bishops’ silence on political issues, would feel revolted by their uncritical anointment of a politically beleaguered president. Ordinary priests and nun themselves may call their bishops to account for their actions. Parishioners themselves, the laity who constitute the core of the church as a community of the faithful, may one day whisper to their parish priests their own misgivings.
What may begin as misgivings could soon ripen into an explicit resolve to avoid any contact with persons who seem in mindful of the imperatives of decent behavior. Such avoidance may soon translate into open ostracism. This is the extreme form of assertion of the power of a moral community. Its intended effect is social isolation. It is the equivalent of a consumers’ boycott in the realm of social relations.
–and–
The Arroyo government is sidestepping all these urgent issues by offering charter change as a cure-all for our problems. It is a clever ruse that attempts to bolster Ms Arroyo’s political legitimacy without risking anything. If she succeeds. She remains president till 2010, and possibly beyond. This is to me is not a viable option. It keeps the trapos in place, starting with the queen of trapos herself, GMA, while promoting the illusion of system change. If charter change through people’s initiative becomes a reality,then we will have a government without an effective opposition. This situation is not sustainable. Sooner or later,the government will be engulfed by an even more radical crisis. This may hopefully pave the way to a new political era of modernist governance led by an awakened middle class. Or it may spawn fresh demands for revolutionary transformation.
Whatever happens, we need to prepare ourselves by nurturing even now a new breed of leaders, in addition to the handful of existing ones who have not been corrupted by the system. More importantly, we must begin to examine all facets of public policy which have so far governed the routines of our everyday lives. Some groups have already begun this process, and the products of their work are now available in different websites.
If we must rebuild this country, we must start by rebuilding the nation in ourselves. We must get organized, we must prepare ourselves for a long fight, a fight beyond Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a fight that will take us to some election, and beyond, to a future we can all be proud of, to a nation we can proudly bequeath to our children. That nation has to be free, prosperous, just, decent and competently governed. We can start building that future here and now.
Jeg on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:26 pm
You have to hand it to benny. Simplifying complexity always looks good on paper (and websites). You always get that sense of ‘Oo nga ano’ when reading a carefully prepared simplifying analysis and youd be hooked into that ‘that’s all there is to it’ mindset if youre not careful, or if you dont have a mind of your own. It’s when it runs into the real world that you get into trouble. Plus there’s also the problem of being sure you have your finger on the problem’s center of gravity. If one exists, that is. More often than not, you run into a problem of infinite go-around: to solve A you have to solve B which in turn is dependent on solving C, and so forth and so on, which is dependent on solving A. But no matter. I find benny’s visits entertaining. Welcome back, benign0.
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 3:40 pm
gawd almighty. just for that you want someone to die for us? can’t we wake ourselves up? no wonder we keep lacking visionary leaders. we keep asking them to die for us just so we could “wake up from the stupor.†– devils
hi devils! pls don’t get me wrong. my answer to cvj’s query is a sarcastic one directed to…well…yes, the stupor that we (i mean collectively) are apparently in nowadays. we know what is wrong…have done a lot of things to address it (impeachments, demos, ranting in this blog
) and still nothing happens.
am i bloodthirsty? no. my point is, something is needed to galvanize everyone into action and do the right thing. remember when the marcos regime overreached itself and assassinated ninoy aquino?
it’s not so much about bloodletting as injustice writ large. ninoy aquino came home to confront marcos about martial law, and he gets a bullet in the head instead. the injustice, the brazenness of the murder, all these galvanized filipinos and woke us up from the stupor we had been for close to 20 years.
of course, trillanes is no ninoy, far from it. but consider this: this pathetic and inept army-officer-turned-mutineer-turned-senator and his merry band occupies a posh hotel and calls for a people power to end arroyo’s reign, and in turn gets cut down in a combined military/police assault right in front of tv cameras. the issue of whether he’s just a wayward and hallucinating mutineer or a puppet of trapos in the wings would become moot and academic, replaced by the realization among us that this regime would willingly and ruthlessly shoot down a bunch of wackos and in (to use cvj’s word) vivid color, that this same administration has finally crossed the line dividing democracy and authoritarianism, that i believe, is the tipping point. that, i believe, will finally wake up the fence-sitters from their stupor and would pave the way for a genuine people power.
yeah, it’s ironic if someone like trillanes would become a martyr, but heroes and martyrs are not necessarily saints. what sets them apart is their willingness to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause. trillanes was given this chance last thursday. he blew it. what a pu*sy!
benign0 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 4:51 pm
“But no matter. I find benny’s visits entertaining. Welcome back, benign0.”
Thanks Mr. Jeg. At the end of the day, it’s all about what entertains. Pinoy dysfunction can, in fact be entertaining — specially when you dot it with colourful imagery and lots of bells and whistles. ABS-CBN makes billions on that reality. Their BAndila news format is a testament to that.
Moron’s like Trillianes are not the ones that turn the Philippines into global laughingstocks. It is Pinoys’ reactions to the moronisms of these morons that do that job for them.
Kaya nga my favourite taunt to Pinoys at the moment is “sayaw Pinoy sayaw”. All we do is dance — and write, and blog, and comment — to the tune of the moronic antics of politicians. We cheer — and jeer — on command (with the ironic twist that we foolishly imagine this privilige to cheer and jeer them as ‘democracy at work’). Far from that, even the cheering and jeering around us are engineered by the very politicians that are the object of these. Pinoys are just too small-minded to realise this.
-
BlogusVox on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:20 pm
Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
sparks on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:30 pm
Perhaps the same can be said for Australia’a A Current Affair, a very popular evening program? Some of the topics include:
Online shopping
Post baby weight
Five cent flights
Mortgage saver
It’s not news, but even then, “serious” news programs can’t stop obsessing over Brtiney and Lindsay. Probably the only channel that consistently shows anything substantive is SBS.
What’s on Australian prime time? Quiz shows, sing-along game shows, reality TV shows, cartoons (Simpsons), Hollywood sitcoms and series.
Manong Benigno is complaining about Bandila because that’s the Filipino news show they air on Aussie free TV.
In general, corporate media is going for infotainment more then serious newscasting of a few decades back. Just look at CNN and FOX.
cvj on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:30 pm
micketymoc, no short answer, but both camps need to think about what they would do given the following scenarios (or combination of) scenarios:
- regular presidential elections
- a coup succeeds, military takes over
- a snap election is called
- campaign & referendum for charter change or new constitution
- parliamentary elections
- populist (Erap-like) president or prime minister is elected
- conservative (Gloria-like) president or prime minister is elected
- anarchy / revolt (Devilsadvc8’s scenario)
Broadly, the actions would range from active collaboration, to tacit acceptance (aka moving-on) to active resistance.
sparks on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:34 pm
Oh and I forgot sports. 4 different footie matches on four different channels all at the same time!
anthony scalia on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:36 pm
cvj,
“Anthony Scalia, which goes to show how simplistic that bromide is.”
referring to the 3-liner of benignO? simplistic?
“That statement ignores the reality that people’s actions drive events and are motivated by ideas.”
very true. but it does not mean we cannot limit discussion to ideas. the ultimate in discussion is the separation of the idea from the person espousing it. we can beat up an idea, but not a person. thats why attacking the person instead of the idea is an ad hominem argument.
“Taking these three elements in isolation and placing them in an artificial hierarchy of values restricts the normal flow of conversation and therefore makes it less productive.”
to echo an earlier post, i dont think benignO meant to make a hierarchy out of those 3 concepts. Remember, he wants to simplify things. Thats his way of simplifying the concepts – making a comparison using 3-lines, as if a writing a poem. if benignO wrote it in paragraph form you won’t get the notion of a hierarchy, but it won’t come across as simplified.
less productive? i differ. “less productive” could very well refer to discussions on ellentordesillas.com where ONLY persons matter. a dissenting idea makes one a paid gloria hack. a different take on the manila pen incident makes one get an invective.
grd on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 5:46 pm
what can i say: all this domino-tumbling effect of power struggle and disregard for the ‘rule of law’ began with edsa 2. ain’t no suprise to me–i would still anticipate something more explosive dramas to come.
who started these telepoliticas anyway? look back in 2001… inodoro ni emilie
so frustratingly true. damn evil society.
Mike on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 6:10 pm
Unfortunately, the sense I get is that most people thought Trillanes’ action was really crazy and could have been just as much about getting out of jail as about toppling Gloria. So while it would have been a “moment of glory” perhaps for him to go down guns blazing, it would probably not have bolstered the anti-GMA cause. A waste, in other words.
grd on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 6:35 pm
no force entry eh?
ronin on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 7:21 pm
“Unfortunately, the sense I get is that most people thought Trillanes’ action was really crazy and could have been just as much about getting out of jail as about toppling Gloria. So while it would have been a “moment of glory†perhaps for him to go down guns blazing, it would probably not have bolstered the anti-GMA cause. A waste, in other words.” – Mike
That’s one way of looking at it, Mike. As I said in my post, it’s not so much about Trillanes going down for the sake of dying for his beliefs (or vested interest, for that matter). It’s actually more about Gloria revealing to one and all her tenacious clinging to power, that she is so desperate to stay in Malacanang that she would ruthlessly cut down the Manila Pen hold-outs, given enough provocation. As it happened, Trillanes backed down and didn’t walk his talk, and so that moment for the tipping point has passed.
Geo on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 7:23 pm
Guingona was just a “spectator”. Ohhhhhhhh, I see.
The Ca t on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:05 pm
What’s wrong with treating these mutineers with what they deserved. No people were hurt.
It’s been kid glove’s treatment all the time for these destabilizers ever since Cory.
Danilo Lim was one of the rebel soldiers during the time of Cory. Soliers and bystanders died. But look, he was promoted to Brig. General.
During the time of Estrada, there was no coup despite the
overwhelming evidence of the corruption.WHY? Because the military were afraid of what he will do. The military had to wait until there are enough people power to back them up to withdraw their support. Sometimes, I think that it is more of a man and woman thing.
They knew that women can be forgiving but wait until Loren Legarda is installed as President.
IS that why this invisible group is desperate to overthrow the government?
grd on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:50 pm
Cat, nothing’s wrong with what they did as what others here are saying. let’s hear it from the other Legarda.
Carl on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 8:57 pm
If politics were amoral, then GMA is one helluva good player. If politics were a game and the objective is to cling to power as long as possible, then an amateur opposition is playing against a pro. GMA’s greatest strength lies with the opposition itself: their incompetence, short-sightedness and utter lack of political sophistication.
Chronicle the events from Edsa 3 all the way to the recent Trillanes’s afternoon tête-à -tête and you get an idea how the opposition thought they got the game with a straight flash, only to be trumped by this administration’s full house.
And how naive of opposition forces to think that by simply having morality and truth (or at least, being perceived by the public as possessing such) on their side, power will come to them like manna from heaven.
This is the age of secularisation. The Church has lost the power to define morality for governing the public. You want to impose your version of the truth, you have to slug it out in the legal courts. Lawyers have become the priests of our times, and the Constitution our bible. That’s the mind that GMA operates. She has successfully clung to power because from the start she has correctly read the times way ahead of her foes.
Notice the opposition’s 7-step game plan:
step 1: uncover as many scandals as possible.
step 2: wait for media to smell shit in the air.
step 3: expect the bishops to issue a pastoral letter.
step 4: form a coalition of civil society groups.
call them with something catchy like black
and white.
step 5: trumpet surveys about hunger, corruption and
(un)popularity ratings.
step 6: when people are so disgusted (based on step 5),
throw a protest action and hope for people power.
step 7: wait for people or the water cannons to arrive,
whichever comes first.
contrast that with this administration game plan: Dodge a scandal. If not possible, fight it all the way to the supreme court.
Get it?
Neil on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 9:34 pm
“What’s an incoherent, posturing senator compared to the parade of government Tarzans whose chief regret is they weren’t able to atom bomb Makati?”
This kibitzer wished the government Tarzans did what they wanted to do with the incoherent, posturing senator.
kimosabe27 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 9:36 pm
So while apologists are snapping off their drivel and smelling blood on the punishments to be meted out (in the spirit of the holidays), GMA and her junket are spreading it large in Europe. While the country is still messed up by natural and man-made disasters, the so-called leaders are partaying away, unmindful of the…what the hell…effin pipz don’t care anyway…
At least Lim and Trillanes have the balls to decry in a very, very spectacular fashion the debased reality we are in…that we are being screwed big time and the majority of us are just jivin’ fine with it…
Heck the late Raul Manglapus was right all along; while being raped, the best that one can do is try to have an orgasm.
The Equalizer on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 9:41 pm
Characteristics of Dictatorships :
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Suharto’s “New Order” and our very own , Marcos’ ” New Society”. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining dictatorial power.
Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
These basic characteristics were prevalent and intense in these three regimes:
1. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
2. Identification of the opposition as the enemies/scapegoats to serve as a unifying cause.
3. Too much reliance on the military to stay in power.
4. Attempts to control mass media.
5. Obsession with national security.
6. Deliberate weakening of political institutions to eliminate check and balance with the Executive.
7. Promoting the idea that there is no better alternative to the Leader .The Leader is the “lesser evil” compared to other leadership options.
8. Obsession with punishment on political “destabilizers”.
9. Rampant corruption.
10 Fraudulent elections.
Should we ring the alram bells? Maybe,maybe not.
the jester-in-exile on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 9:50 pm
as soon as the reports that military camps where standing down, it seemed to me that the game was over even before it had begun, and the outcome was not in doubt.
the show of force of government forces at the pen — not to mention the containment actions made (shutting down the NLEX and the SLEX, as well as taking a roll call of camp commanders) — was made with speed, poise and audacity, and although i sympathize with the feelings of the media people who were inside the pen at the time, i can’t say i fault the tactics demonstrated, and i believe them to have been appropriate.
if trillanes et al had truly planned for a successful takeover, they should have taken malacanang and a few key military installations… so in the case of the manila pen standoff, gma 10, magdalo (?) 0.
manolo is right — it’s not the wait-and-see attitude of the public that’s of note, it was the wait-and-see attitude of the AFP (not high command, but that of the field commanders) that should worry gma and esperon. i think we can expect a shuffling of field commanders and troop units within the next few months to preempt the possibility of a better-planned attempt.
re ronin’s 12/4 1:01 PM comment — trillanes et al didn’t have the numbers nor the firepower to effectively force such a scenario, at least on the street level. at worst, there’d be a CQB inside the manila pen, and the collateral damage (meaning, casualties among the unarmed media and others) would depend on the level of training of the responding SWAT team… and even then i’d guess that the public would not lay blame at the feet of government security forces.
The Ca t on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 10:02 pm
yes, i read this article of Katrina and i agree with her.
My friend in arizona who was asked to check on the house of a friend while they were away forgot the code to deactivate the burglar alarm system. after a few minutes, the police authorities were there handcuffing her for robbery attempt or trespaasing one’s property. they did not need to have a warrant of arrest because she got ‘caught’ in place where she is not supposed to be there.
It took a lot of phone calls to reach the homeowner to verifiy that she was indeed tasked to oversee the property while they’re gone.
can she accuse accused of illegal arrest. Of course not. they have 36 hours to detain her and file charges if she’s not cleared. so what are these media and other people in the vicinity of the crime whining about illegal arrest ?
I wonder.
if the police did not act quickly, they will be criticized. damned if they, damned if they don’t. galit na naman ang mga yan dahil natalo na naman sila ni gma sa larong chess.bwahaha
mlq3 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:06 pm
david, as far as i know, one of the media people rounded up was the bbc’s man over here. he was relying on obtaining video from a local network, but was obviously covering the whole thing from first to last. so he was among those rounded up.
the parameters used by foreign news organizations you posted make for useful reading, though some might quibble over how precisely relevant they are to what took place.
David on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:39 pm
mlq3,
It would be interesting to know ABS-CBN’s, GMA7’s and other media organizations’ Editorial Guidelines, if any, and how these compare to the international standards of journalism.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:51 pm
david, it’s easy to guess. whatever sells is what they show. whatever doesn’t is what they edit. whatever will show them in a bad light is a must-edit footage. whatever shows them up as heroes (or victims) they over-emphasize.
have i said it here before? Lopez and Gozon are the biggest enslavers of Filipinos? bec given the power that they have, they choose to exercise it for profits only. no sense of social responsibility at all.
DevilsAdvc8 on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:51 pm
david, it’s easy to guess. whatever sells is what they show. whatever doesn’t is what they edit. whatever will show them in a bad light is a must-edit footage. whatever shows them up as heroes (or victims) they over-emphasize.
have i said it here before? Lopez and Gozon are the biggest enslavers of Filipinos. bec given the power that they have, they choose to exercise it for profits only. no sense of social responsibility at all.
Mita on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:51 pm
mere attempts to control media and free speech is not enough. every sitting leader anywhere in the world tries to do that. it’s called damage control.
a dictatorship will shut down and take over media. in a dictatorship, free-thinking blogging won’t be possible and internet access will be limited…and we won’t be here writing down our thoughts as candidly as we are doing.
Mita on Tue, 4th Dec 2007 11:55 pm
broadcast is a business. there is currently no industry as heavily taxed as broadcast. if Filipino audiences took themselves more seriously, we’d get better. just look at the broadsheets…puro lifestyle section…
has anyone heard the news about the KBP and government dialogue to address these issues that came up with the Pen incident?
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:58 am
True to form, the very first comment of a self-confessed member of the middle class is that she got stuck in traffic:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_dec4_2007
Bencard on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:19 am
david, thanks for the informative excerpts from the BBC editorial guidelines and the AEJ’s Guidelines for Covering a Law Enforcement Action. It appears to me that the acts of some, if not all, of the media people present in the manila pen invasion, did not conform to most of the guidelines you have cited. aside from trying to be part of the “news” (see how some crowded each other to serve as backdrop while lim was reading his “declaration” beside a morose-looking trillianes) i think their biggest impropriety was in providing the rebels a “forum” to air their demand and obvious propaganda.
as if to underscore the undeserved “power” of the media industry (which, perhaps, give it an arrogant and exaggerated false belief in its own infallibility), pandering senators from villar to pia cayetano, and administration officials from gma herself to raul gonzales, try to outdo each other “condemning” the police action against the stubborn media people. how in the world can anyone expect a fair and just adjudication by the human rights office in the face of all those prejudicial pronouncements from those officials.
the media should know that their “press freedom” is not a license to say or do, or publicize, whatever they want to in the guise of “serving” the interest of the general public. while absolute freedom of thought for individuals (as distinguished from freedom of expression) may be acceptable, absolute freedom of expression for profit or self-interest driven entities is gravely dangerous and should be regulated. no entity, public or private, nor any person, in our democratic society is above the law, and no one should be. the president, as all other officers of the government, are accountable for their actions. why not members of the media? who ever said they are special in our overall scheme of things?
Bencard on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 5:03 am
mlq3, to those who might “quibble” about the relevance of the guidelines observed by civilized press in other parts of the world, i can only say they are planting the seeds of their own destruction. everybody talks about rebellion against the government. how about a rebellion against a megalomaniac media?
micketymoc on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 6:00 am
Maybe you didn’t understand me when I said “humor me”, cvj, but I meant – what are we doing for the most probable scenario, which is Presidential elections in 2010. Let’s set aside our fears for a moment and ponder what each camp is doing/should be doing to prepare for Presidential elections.
At ““ang tagal naman dot blog spot dot comâ€, the clock is down to 967 days. My main frustration with both Nacionalista and Liberal camps is that their sites are chock-full of motherhood statements, but haven’t seized ownership of any clear programs of action for 2010 and beyond. I’d like to decide which candidate to support this early, but neither party is making it easy for me.
Shouldn’t civil society be, at this point, searching for a candidate to support? Manolo boasts of having the online numbers (it remains to be seen whether online support translates to votes, see Ron Paul). Who’s the Opposition candidate for 2010, and what platform will he/she have? In my opinion, anybody can do a better job communicating their platforms than Roxas and Villar are doing right now.
sonny on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 6:03 am
an overflowing anger towards the local media, especially the local broadcast media. okay.
here’s a suggestion: switch channels or turn off your tv. if you hate ch2 or ch7 because of their me, myself and i –megalomaniac– ways… find other networks to support. i saw the mics and personalities of net25, untv and abc5 in all the video shown even on ch2 and ch7, they were there and they seem to have carried their jobs as journalists without being the story, why not tune in on them for a change instead of fixating your anger towards the stations that are rating? puro tayo angal, pag may gumagawa naman ng tama di natin sinusuportahan. it is not as if we don’t have any other options? o nasanay na tayo umangal na lang ng umangal?
and by the way manolo, welcome back and i agree with your point about the foreign media most probably opting to stay put at the pen even if the locals decided to leave.
more power to all of you and our options!
micketymoc on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 6:57 am
Reading Ellen Tordesillas’ version of the events at dub-dub-dub.abs-cbnnews.com/ storypage. aspx ? Story Id=10 12 22.
Incredible, the sense of privilege a media ID can provide! (“Media kami!”) Tordesillas et al refused to follow police instructions and they resisted every move by the police to get them out of the way of the operation! Is this part of our right to a free press – a press that arrogates to itself the privilege to disregard SOP for police actions?
No wonder Katrina Legarda is so pissed off.
benign0 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 8:54 am
“Incredible, the sense of privilege a media ID can provide! (â€Media kami!â€) Tordesillas et al refused to follow police instructions and they resisted every move by the police to get them out of the way of the operation! Is this part of our right to a free press – a press that arrogates to itself the privilege to disregard SOP for police actions?”
Media behave that way because Filipinos put them on that pedestal. We essentially handed over a blank cheque to them to represent our voice.
The media today fill a lucrative niche in Pinoy society by presuming to be the articulation channel of the grievances of common Pinoy folk. They capitalise on the pathetically weak intellectual and articulation faculties of the general Pinoy public by presenting themselves as our only credible mouthpiece.
In the same way that organised religion presumes to be the sole and infallible representative of the word of God, the Philippine media today PRESUMES to speak for the Filipino people, act like some kind of moronic martyr in the name of “freedom of speech”, but at the backstage rake in billions in easy money.
Well, as with everything else, Pinoys deserve each other. We crowned the Philippine press like a prince, and that’s exactly what we got — Prinsipe Aburido.
-
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 8:57 am
bencard, you not only have the right, but the duty to vote with your pocketbook as far as media is concerned. and there’s not a blessed thing media can do about it except respond to angry viewers and readers and try to woo them back.
but see, this is the problem with an undiscerning protest against media. taken to extremes, your only option would be to turn off your computer, and your tv, your radio too and stop reading anything except milk cartons. or, you could restrict your reading to the office of the press secretary website. but i don’t think it would keep you either informed or even stoked up for very long.
but you are right in that media lives at the mercy, not of the authorities, but of the audience.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:00 am
mickety, again it’s a matter of perspective. you consider elections in 2010 the most probable scenario, i’d consider it, for example, a 1/3 possibility, with 2 other possibilities equally high, a last-ditch effort to mount constitutional change being one and some sort of atavistic emergency rule being the other. it will take all of 2008, to my mind, to actively eliminate the 2/3 chances of those other options and only in 2009, if the other two don’t materialize, can we really consider elections in 2010 the most probable scenario.
Bencard on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:33 am
mlq3, fine i can turn off my tv, my computer, and refuse to read misleading “opinions”. but how about the so-called masses, the ordinary folks who are a push-over for anything said or printed by the media? they are like lambs being led to the slaughter house. consider how the media turned the likes of honasan and trillianes into matinee idols and “heroes” for attempting to bring down the government by force.
oh, so you think the media should only be answerable to its audience and not to the authority of the law; that the only sanctions appropriate for it is the rejection by its audience and loss of revenue? that’s a very disappointing point of view even coming from you.
in my view, slanting and manipulat5ing the “news” is bad enough. but interfering with police work and giving aid and comfort to perpetrators by any one, including members of the media, is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly.
benign0 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:38 am
“in my view, slanting and manipulat5ing the “news†is bad enough. but interfering with police work and giving aid and comfort to perpetrators by any one, including members of the media, is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly.”
Last I heard, “martyrs” had blanket immunity to criminal prosecution.
Thing is, the Philippine Media had through the years engineered that image of themselves and ingrained it into the vacuous minds of the Filipino people.
Yet again, tough luck for justice in Pinoy society.
-
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:48 am
bencard, either they are very different from you and i, or not so different. i have met quite a few ordinary people who have boycotted abs-cbn and gma7 and who only watch the government network, nbn, for news. an option, oddly enough, irate middle and upper class people don’t consider. and in the provinces, there are people who tell me they have dropped the national papers in favor of provincial papers, while others shift papers depending on how biased they believe the paper to be (e.g. they will substitute the star for pdi and then maybe bulletin for the star, depending on their mood, the era of the multi-paper subscription family is obviously coming to an end). others read only inquirer online because they find it more sober than the print version (in terms of headlines, organization, captions, etc.).
i don’t know if the majority are pushovers, you’d have to wonder why, for example, the ratings war between the more aggressive abs-cbn news people and the conflict-averse gma7 people seesaws the way it does: this means people vote with their feet in measurable quantities. what is pretty certain, i think, is that what used to be the big three -radio, tv, and tabloids- is rapidly becoming the big one -tv, only- as far as where people prefer to get their news.
but that will sort itself out, not least because no sector of our society can remain as insular as it once was, if only because of the ofw phenomenon.
as always, the romans said it best, who will guard the guardians?
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:58 am
bencard, there is the law of libel (which, however, should be decriminalized), but yes, i don’t think that officialdom which rules by grace of the people and not the grace of god, ought to be intruding on the media. the public should determine who it trusts, and not be told who officials in the hot seat happen to like or not.
then again, our perspectives differ in that you do not question the wisdom, applicability, and relevance of the revised penal code, while for some time now i’ve viewed it as anachronistic, dangerous, and that it should be revoked and replaced with a law devoid of such obvious colonial provisions. it is a law that was already out of synch with the 1935 constitution, it is positively medieval in light of our present constitution and national experience since the penal code was passed in 1933.
therefore i look askance at any effort to uphold its provisions for the same reason that there are malaysians and even singaporeans opposed to their countries’ national security acts, and thais opposed to the lese majeste laws in that country.
i recognize, however, that we are part of the tradition of american jurisprudence and that as far as their first amendment is concerned, the public and the press are all entitled to the same rights, and that if anything, the only privilege media can demand, is freedom from prior restraint.
definitely, prior restraint was not exercised by the government last thursday. everything subsequently can be declared a police action to which the state is entitled -but again, there is the point of past precedents. it was unprecedented, and so, when a precedent is broken and a new one established, of course people unused to it will cry foul.
micketymoc on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:20 am
manolo: I find it interesting that both you and cvj have difficulty considering the possibility of 2010 elections on its own.
My question is simple: what should each of us be doing to prepare for the 2010 elections, assuming it is the future that awaits us?
Let’s leave probabilities behind us; I’m simply asking what each of us is doing to find a suitable platform and a candidate to stand on it come 2010.
Let me rephrase the question: let’s assume 2010 is here and Jinggoy wins the Presidency. Inevitably we will be saying to ourselves, “we had since 2007 to do X to ensure this outcome should never have happened!” What, then, is X?
benign0 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:21 am
“but that will sort itself out, not least because no sector of our society can remain as insular as it once was, if only because of the ofw phenomenon”
Then again, you are talking about a society that elects morons to sensitive government posts, most recent of which is the laughable triumph of a jailed chonic putschist in the senatorial polls.
You cite Singaporeans and Malaysians who are opposed to their countries’ security frameworks. Yet the inescapable fact is that those societies you cite are by any measure societies that have magnificent achievements dotting their history books.
It comes back to that old argument about how to get the balance right between FREEDOM (particularly our society’s moronic regard for it) and STRUCTURE.
coward on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:21 am
Misleading news are not just the domain of the opposition Media but Both sides, the administration and the opposition and the administration has all the advantage on this part, because they have the means to eavesdrop and the have the means to gather the intels of what the other side have and let us not pretend, and maybe madame Mita will again suggests it’s part of my defeatist attitude, but some of the Media entities are either playing the game of the politicians’ “campaign people” or just simply ‘paid hacks’ instead of journalist professionals. It has nothing to do with being the culture of Philippine Media, it’s the culture still of Corruptions that has already taken roots to almost every nooks and crannies of the society…
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:25 am
Benigno
It seems like there are similarities between CVJ’s and your thinking on how our society should evolve into.
CVJ advocates a popular dictatorship. Is that what you’re also thinking?
I can;t remember but I also read somewhere (not in this blog) that some people are willing to give up some of their political freedoms in order to attain economic propsperity. DO you agree to that scenario?
benign0 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:28 am
“can;t remember but I also read somewhere (not in this blog) that some people are willing to give up some of their political freedoms in order to attain economic propsperity. DO you agree to that scenario?”
Yes I do. It is blatantly obvious that Pinoys tend to abuse most priviledges, least of which is our sacred “freedom”.
Would anyone in their right mind give a 5-year-old boy a blowtorch to play with? That’s essentially what we did to Pinoy society when we granted ourselves all these “freedoms”.
sparks on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:29 am
Ideologues are a funny bunch.
I support the Philippine media’s freedom and laud their courage to do their job. I support proactive (if risky and zany) journalism.
Some things I appreciate about our media – there are (so far) no consolidation of media outlets into huge conglomerates the likes of AOL-Time-Warner. Our journalists stay with the action even given the administration’s tendencies to allow them to disappear.
With regard to Manong Benig’s benighted Australia:
Rupert Murdoch (who is Australian by the way) owns 100 newspapers in Australia. Murdoch, as you all know, also owns the Republican mouthpiece FOX news network.
The Australian Press Council seems very worried the Government has been passing legislation that curb press freedom in the name of national security. From the APC’s 2007 report:
Oh, and just to show we Filipinos do not corner the market on vacuousness, here’s the APC’s report on Aussie newspaper Courier Mail using sports analogies to cover the elections:
With regard to blurring boundaries between fact and opinion:
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:35 am
A commenter over at Ellen’s did accuse me of being “Benign0’s brother”.
Silent Waters, i think Benign0’s statement is indeed relevant to our previous discussion. As i told you, my first preference is genuine popular democracy. However, if Philippine Society decides to go the authoritarian route, then the next thing we need to consider is whether it is more beneficial to have a dictatorship which leads to greater social equality (my preference), or have one which preserves the status of the current elites.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:52 am
I suppose the first question the ‘move on’ crowd should ask themselves is whether they would continue to turn a blind eye to cheating just to make sure their favored candidate(s) would win (or at least to prevent a ‘Jinggoy win’) or will they do everything to ensure the integrity of the process.
Jeg on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:00 am
I also read somewhere (not in this blog) that some people are willing to give up some of their political freedoms in order to attain economic propsperity.
Who said that? A vast majority of pinoys dont have political freedoms to give up in the first place. Freedom to travel, freedom of speech, freedom of the press? These are generally freedoms that only the middle class and higher strata have, so I suppose the statement came from someone in the middle class and up. The right to privacy? The freedom from unlawful search and seizures? Are those some of the things theyre willing to give up? Our poorer fellows dont have those freedoms to give up, too. The thing I find wrong with that statement is it’s mostly directed at the ‘others’, as in: “Im willing to give up some of HIS freedoms to attain economic prosperity. Just dont touch my freedoms.”
To attain economic prosperity, I think the focus is on making sure everybody gets to enjoy those freedoms, but that requires economic prosperity in the first place. Where should we begin? The elite won’t give up what they think is theirs just so everybody gets to enjoy their political freedoms. The poor can’t fight for a fair share because they dont have the resources. That task belongs to the State, but theyre allied with the elite. So where do we go?
micketymoc on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:07 am
Haha, “continue to turn a blind eye”, I like that one, it’s like “how long have you been beating your wife”! Nice rhetorical trick there.
I suppose the “talsiks” should decide if any of the “winnable” politicians (not necessarily opposition) share their platform, or if any are willing to see that platform through after winning Malacanang. But what’s the platform in the first place?
I also believe the “talsiks” have not been doing enough homework to see their plans through, and have counted mainly on a “people power” situation to get their way in the end. Problem is that Gloria has consistently outflanked them in every way. I wish the “talsiks” would find better lawyers to see them through the courts.
The “talsiks” have spent the past weekend claiming to be all for “genuine popular democracy”. I hope the “talsiks” would put their money where their mouth is by supporting or creating a viable party with a provably pro-people, anti-corruption slate of candidates.
Of course that’s assuming the “talsiks” do want “genuine popular democracy”, not just hypocritically paying it lip service.
Jeg on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:14 am
But mick, are you saying that cheating in elections doesnt exist? The general impression is that the ‘move on’ people think cheating is OK just as long as their candidate wins (and their candidate is the one that will save us all). It’s the relativism that cvj objects to if Im not mistaken.
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:14 am
Read this from the “Ang Tagal Naman” site. This kind of reflects my sentiments. Sorry if people don’t agree with it. Written by a Ben C.
“The ‘Wala na bang iba?’ Manifesto
People who want change: hear us.
• We scoff at the actions of Trillanes and other stupid politicians, celebrities, church figures et al BUT we are not necessarily pro-GMA.
• You are making a big mistake if you assume so.
• We are also frustrated at how things are going but doubly so thanks to your bumbling idiocy. To the various oppositionists we say– hello? Can you see how funny you appear to us? Do you even know and hear us? Do you know that we just want to live a peaceful life here?
• By criticizing those who don’t care, you fail to win us over.
• Making stupid Trillanic and Guingonic moves doesn’t help either.
• It also doesn’t help that there are too many opposition leaders but all with the collective IQ of a door knob. At least yung door knob may silbi.
• The more you squabble and bungle, the more GMA looks smarter than you. You don’t deserve to lead us if you can’t even lead yourselves.
• Ano pa nga ba ang pwede naming gawin? Sino mang ipapalit nyo ngayon all looked puny compared to how GMA has handled the crisis you’ve been trying to stir since day one. Nung una, okay lang. Pero you guys have all proven your incompetence.
• What really miffs us is every time you disturb the peace, di naman kayo ang immediately affected eh. KAMI!
• So please– we won’t even ask you to get your act together. We’ll just wait. We advice na tumahimik din kayo at baka sakaling may lalabas na better leaders than all you selfish brats.”
anthony scalia on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:18 am
silent waters,
you must be referring to bong austero’s
“We are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.”
benignO,
many people are ‘allergic’ to the statement of Washington SyCip that the problem of the Philippines is too much democracy
they even deny the fact that during the hypergrowth years of the East Asian economic tigers, authoritarianism prevailed.
(of course equally undeniable was the fact that these countries had effective economic policies and a substantial number of entrepreneurial companies during those years)
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:18 am
mickety, on your question.
i am concerned with the problem that if we do manage to have an election in 2010, instead of finally making progress possible, we’ll just go down the tubes and things will get worse. so indeed, let’s ask, how can we put the present behind us, and move towards something better.
in my case, this is why i accept invitations to talk to students throughout the country, and i make a conscious effort not to promote my views about the president. not only because the kids won’t be interested, but it won’t do any good considering most of them are only now gearing up to be voters for the first time. if you believe, as i do, that they have within them the capacity to solve problems our generation and our elders obviously haven’t been able to solve, how can we help?
my column before i fell ill explains my attitudes and what i try to tell them: what leadership ought to be about, and how leadership is best approached by determining what individuals, should seek whether as potential leaders or those whose followership will make leadership effective. and that is, something that’s escaped us so far: finding consensus.
this involves a lot of explaining how, ideally, the interplay between governors and the governed ought to work -checks and balances, how change is achieved both working within the existing rules and how, from time to time, those rules ought to be challenged (peacefully, of course).
i think if you encourage a more discerning attitude -and this includes appealing to people to please understand the logic that governs things like our three branches of government, how they work, and the roles each plays vis a vis the rest and the public- it will naturally help people work out, for themselves, what matters to them and who can represent those things.
in other words, get people to start thinking of themselves as part of a constituency, and how constituencies, in turn, can find like-minded groups; coalition building. so far, the coalitions we have win, by default, because they are engaged while others only engage too little and too late to matter, at least in a democratic framework.
personally i’m not too keen on parties, as primarily, to my mind, parties operate on the spoils system; then again, better a party affiliation then being disengaged; better yet, to join organizations that can represent one’s interests, ally with others, and offer up to the political process what’s needed: significant numbers.
together with that, a lesson that was made clear by the may 2007 elections: ngo’s and other groups almost, but not quite, prevented the elections from going down the tubes, and the comelec and operators discovered they had a tough fight on their hands from groups working for clean elections. there were spectacular failures (such as zubiri “winning”) but on the whole, the batting average was good, it will be harder to circumvent national results with monkey business in mindanao, imagine if the lessons learned are more fully applied in 2010 -and i think they just might.
so this means, even as we encourage people to start thinking of alliances they can be part of, to select and support candidates they like, we should also focus on the supreme manifestation of consensus, which is, to have a credible election so that even if candidates win whom we don’t like, the process was fair and credible enough that we can live with whoever the public chooses. personally, to my mind this includes putting pressure on the politicians so we don’t have too many presidential and vice presidential candidates.
i think people will demand a more substantial presidential campaign, and this will introduce an element of unpredictability to candidates who think they’ve got the electorate all figured out.
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:21 am
Anthony
Sobrang second the motion ako sa sinabi mo na allergic ang tao sa sinabi ni W. Sycip. I said something similar and everybody jumped on me….
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:22 am
In my opinion…
The way to challenge and reduce the elites’ stranglehold on much of the economy is to:
a) Open it up to foreigners…including land ownership,
b) Continue to pave the way for SME businesses (low interest rates, reduced bureaucratic red tape, tax breaks, etc.).
The way to challenge and reduce the elites’ stranglehold of many of the political offices is to:
a) Rejig the system so that more power is decentralized, regionalized and localized (federalism, elimination of national seats, parliamentarism, etc.)
b) Reinforce and implement anti-dynasty laws.
There are a lot of reasons thrown around as to why the above can’t be pursued, but the only other approach to breaking the elites’ control is via extensive blood-letting…which is both inhumane and foolish.
Enable the broad changes legally and non-violently.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:22 am
silent, the manifesto is pretty much correct.
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:25 am
MLQ3
That was what I had been saying all along…that everybody must become more responsible and disciplined, not only for the elections, but for becoming good citizens. This will then make democracy work as it should, not the perverted democracy that we see operating now in our midst. It really takes a lot of critical thinking on EACH individual in our republic to make it work.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:27 am
That’s exactly what i’ve observed Jeg. A few months back, I got into an exchange in this blog with ‘Karah’ and ‘Bibeth’. They were willing to enter into Bong Austero’s bargain and at first it sounded as if they were giving up their own freedoms. After a few more back and forth, it turned out that they meant to give up the freedom of others as well.
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:32 am
Geo
Agree. The problem though is that the people who makes the laws right now are also the same people with varied business interests. ..so medyo malabo yung opening up the economy to foreigners. Then you get the ultra-nationalists who does not believe in even giving up anything….
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:43 am
It is undeniable that these countries started to prosper under authoritarianism. However, other countries also languished under authoritarianism. A key differentiator is what this authoritarianism is used for. The common element among the East Asian tigers including China and now Vietnam is that the State applied its authoritarian powers towards forming a more equal society. After this stage one was complete, then that’s the time they introduced market reforms which led to their economic takeoff. The problem with Washington Sycip’s call is that he does not address the issue of inequality. This will leave power in the hands of the existing elite and will just result in more of the same for the majority.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:51 am
Silent W,
OK, but — touching on what you and MLQ3 have just written — that’s why there needs to be a political force with such a platform to run in the next elections.
The LP and NP (so far) look like the same old tried-and-failed approach as in the past — trapos and rich backers.
Lakas and Kampi look like they will split up and be weakened.
The messianic right and militant left clearly suck.
If ever there was a time for a new party, with a new platform, it’s now.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:53 am
slient, an argument could be made that right or wrong, the ruling coalition has been better disciplined (whatever the incentives for it) than the opposition, which can barely muster the civility to sit around the table to talk, never mind actually plan.
also, that in general the political professionals are lagging behind as far as the broader public is concerned. i do think filipinos are more disciplined now than before, whether in realizing it makes sense to line up to ride a bus, or appreciating the fact that exposure to the work ethics of foreigners means we can’t be the slackers we once were.
as far as that goes, i agree with you. what i still don’t agree with, though, is the attitude that the incompetence of leaders justifies non-involvement, i’d have thought it should serve as an impetus to seize the levers of power from the pros.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:55 am
It’s not rhetoric. Bong Austero, whose Open Letter you endorsed, specifically said:
‘Forgiven’ = ‘turning a blind eye’
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:58 am
geo and silent, i support opening up media to foreign investment, it might stop the departure of so much talent because it would offer up the prospects of decent wages to media people, which in turn would curb corruption.
and this is what’s gotten my goat about some of the charter change debate. if the debate had been restricted to economic provisions, i think you might possibly have a situation where the public would support it.
and if so, in turn, if the public saw the debate was free, open, the proposals limited to provisions meant to expand the economy, and the process ended in a credible referendum, then who knows, public confidence would be enhanced and the public could then turn its attention to the proposals for political changes.
i’ve said it before, part of the problem is we have few opportunities for confidence-building exercises, and part of the blame must be placed, foursquare on the government. much as i oppose the parliamentary system, if it had come at the end of a two stage confidence-building process, well then if that’s the people’s will after a free and fair debate, then by all means we have nothing to lose by trying it out.
Beancurd on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:04 pm
MLQ3, Silent Waters,
I would not say that the Manifesto is “pretty much correct” although there is no disputing the fact that it was undeniably an honest rendering of one’s opinion.
Some of things that were said are reasonable and sensible. But on the whole, it was just a reflection of where the writer was coming from — he is in a comfortable and convenient position right now and although he does not agree or approve with many things in the administration, he appeals to those uncomfortable, inconvenienced and impatient not to disturb his peace.
But the course of action that he proposed shows his insincerity regarding his profession of concern at how things are going or his frustration with respect thereto, and betrays what I have been guilty of for many of my years in life and that is, to look to other people for leadership and deliverance when, nasa ating kamay and pagbabago at pag-asa. He may be doing something about it but that is certainly lost in his message.
Now, since you are with black and white, why don’t you propose to your movement, to the oppositionists, to the well meaning critics and other vocal sectors, to just shut up and leave to the greater majority of the Filipino people, people who are concerned and frustrated like the one who wrote the manifesto, what to do or are capable of doing. You may want to call it the S
micketymoc on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:08 pm
cvj, I’m not bong austero. I’m doing my best not to impute motives where none exist on your part, please extend me the same courtesy.
benign0 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:12 pm
“i do think filipinos are more disciplined now than before, whether in realizing it makes sense to line up to ride a bus, or appreciating the fact that exposure to the work ethics of foreigners means we can’t be the slackers we once were”
The ironic thing though is that I believe that Pinoys never WERE slackers. We are in fact a very hard-working people.
The trouble lies in the QUALITY and EFFICIENCY of the work we do. And that’s because there is hardly any INTELLECTUAL INPUT in the work we do. We don’t work smart. We think small, aim small, and, as a result, EARN SMALL.
-
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:18 pm
benign0, i agree with you to the extent that one of my frustrations is that we put no premium at all, on intellectual work. too many organizations consider bureaucratic work as “thinking” hence an obsession with Gantt charts, etc. But that’s obviously my own bias considering my profession.
Beancurd on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:26 pm
MLQ3, Silent Waters,
I would not say that the Manifesto is “pretty much correct” although there is no disputing the fact that it was undeniably an honest rendering of one’s opinion.
Some of things that were said are reasonable and sensible. But on the whole, it was just a reflection of where the writer was coming from — he is in a comfortable and convenient position right now and although he does not agree or approve with many things in the administration, he appeals to those uncomfortable, inconvenienced and impatient not to disturb his peace.Perhaps, the same is true with you two.
But the course of action that he proposed shows his insincerity regarding his profession of concern at how things are going or his frustration with respect thereto, and betrays what I have been guilty of for many of my years in life and that is, to look to other people for leadership and deliverance when, nasa ating kamay and pagbabago at pag-asa. He may be doing something about it but that is certainly lost in his message.
Now MLQ3, since you are with black and white, why don’t you propose to your movement, to the oppositionists, to the well meaning critics and other vocal sectors, to just shut up and leave to the greater majority of the Filipino people, people who are concerned and frustrated like the one who wrote the manifesto, what to do about their frustrations. Many avenues have already been explored and they have been ineffective so far that it is time to try something new and unconventional. I call it THE SILENT CAMPAIGN which I propose to start now.
You see, the manifesto quoted by Silent Waters, is merely an expression of the frustration by the writer (and those like minded) at the lack of meaningful change despite the efforts of the opposition, trillanes, etc and lays the blame on the opposition, trillanes, et al. except on themselves. So when the time comes when the opposition, trillanes et al, senators, the church and various Christian groups, the left, etc. are no longer voicing out and riling against what the writer of the manifesto is frustrated about in regard to the present administration, it is then that you will see that the silent campaign works.
You see, the vocal critics of the administration are the outlets of the steam coming from these frustrations of the ordinary folks claiming to be not pro-GMA. When that steam is bottled up because the vocal critics refuse to be used as outlets, then you can be certain that the bottle will break or burst. Give it a month or two. Start with your blog. Refuse to blog on anything political. After a few days, you and the regular visitors of your site will feel the effect of the silent campaign.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:41 pm
beancurd, as you point out, of course such manifestos are an apologia for remaining uninvolved, and the bottom line is the marcosian belief that “nothing succeeds like success!” but that doesn’t mean that criticisms leveled by such people have no basis or usefulness.
i won’t speak for organizations i belong to, because they operate by means of consensus. so you can vigorously debate organizational positions, but in the end you comply or leave. so far, i’ve seen no reason to disengage from any of the organizations to which i belong.
that being said, i have my own views and let me share them with you. in opposition meetings, etc. i do speak out and one thing i say often enough is that we shouldn’t engage in fights for the sake of fighting. when the 3rd impeachment complaint was filed, for example, i supported efforts to fortify the complaint, and rescue it from the obviously administration-serving objectives of the complaint. but i also advocated that if there wasn’t going to be any chance for a fair hearing or for the improvements, which any fair-minded person could see were superior to the original complaint, to be entertained, then the opposition should be prepared to simply walk away.
after all, to give credit where credit is due, on the whole the opposition learned from the unsuccesful first two impeachments and realized they’d have to do their homework well, because the public wasn’t interested in half-assed complaints. the problem of course is that the opposition got it coming and going -when they were beaten to the gun, people complained; if they’d tried to jump the gun, people would’ve complained, too. but better to show the opposition was prepared to hold its fire in favor of a substantial complaint, than simply join in the fray.
obviously the discussion in opposition circles got heated; there were some who insisted that if any avenue opened up, seize it and milk it for what it’s worth. personally, i’m happy that on the whole, the opposition decided not to fall into the trap and after submitting a superior complaint, when it saw the administration majority had other priorities in mind, the opposition simply didn’t dignify the disreputable exercise.
which leaves a year to compile the evidence for another complaint, the problem being of course that it also means that the first two complaint’s issues have gone stale and this year’s pretty meaty ones, too. not least, and this was something i also raised, because just when things were heating up, part of the opposition in the senate called off the hearings and so gave the administration a free pass.
it is necessary to pursue confrontation but not for the sake of confrontation, particularly in a situation where too many defeats strengthens the enemy and allows it to summon support from those who believe that success is its own reward.
then again, i also believe that you have to be in it for the long haul, and an elementary aspect of politics is going beyond preaching to the converted and gaining new converts. this means according the skeptical and the uncooperative a basic modicum of respect, including recognizing their desires.
if this means essentially participating in a fight with one hand tied behind your back, because the public wills it, and doesn’t care if the irony is the government not only fights with both gloves but horseshoes in both gloves, then so be it. you’re after the long term and that means recognizing that eventually, all the excuses the tacit and overt supporters of the administration will be proven false. for example, all the yammering about “give her until 2010.” well, you can’t rush it until 2008, 2009 or early 2010 rolls around and they have no choice but to see that oops, she isn’t operating by that deadline, is she?
at which point you have to bear in mind that people will be even more hostile because they were proven wrong, but it would be nice to be able not to wave fingers at them but to embrace them, even belatedly, as they join the fight.
and even if she steps down, at least you kept her on her toes until then, and who knows, it might just be that keeping her off balance prevented her exploring extension options. so, no regrets, either. but at the same time, avoiding culpability for adding to the miserable condition of the country.
so, for example, my advocacy of mailing postcards because first, you have to remind the power-that-be that there are those who dissent, but also, do it in a manner that doesn’t unduly antagonize those who prefer less traffic to checks-and-balances for whatever reason. and why my personal inclination was to denounce the peninsula takeover, regardless of the possibility it would antagonize other opposition forces; but that’s my view and at the same time, i don’t disagree with the position taken by black and white, when the thing was happening and since. there is also a strong point to be made that what trillanes did was brought about by the inflexibility of the administration and that foolishly or not, he let the chips fall where they may which is something other groups don’t want to risk.
but also, that the move unduly antagonized a public already coming to see, via ZTE etc, that the administration has no moral standing and that the “let he who has no sin cast the first stone” is a bogus argument, which may suit the son of god but not participants in a secular political culture. you don’t have to be blameless to cast the first stone, innocence is irrelevant when pursuing such issues. either the issue on its own has merit, regardless whose pursuing it, or the issue is irrelevant, period.
for now, as i’ve pointed out, there is a consensus that governs political action. it is a consensus that serves the administration best of all but for now, we ought to respect is as a sign of good faith and submission to the principle of majority rule. keep it peaceful, keep it constitutional, but knowing that disobedience and defiance can be constitutional too, again, so long as its peaceful… when the rationales run out, then people will know you gave them the benefit of the doubt and then they’ll be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt too.
again, this is my view and one not necessarily shared by other people opposed to the president and her people.
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:53 pm
manolo, if you mean by putting a premium on intellectuals as defined by verbosity and high-fallutedness, then you’re correct. most filipinos idolize memorization more than critical thinking. they’d rather have politicians who knows which RA# is so and so, rather than politicians who appreciate the law’s spirit rather than just mere numbers and letters.
empty politicians is the description.
the BnW movement insofar as asking for reforms, can initiate it by offering us as early as now, alternatives to these TRAPOS. id like to see your group complete a whole slate of candidates for 2010. down to the lowest local elective posn. and id like to see leaders who’ve never held an elective posn before but has been in public service for years, either through NGOs or cooperatives.
bec, my posn as of now, is to vote all ABSTAIN if i see the same faces in 2010. i won’t disengage. id still vote. id just show my unhappiness at all the choices by showing that i choose none of them at all.
sparks on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:55 pm
I wonder why Manong Benig keeps saying “We” when he no longer belongs to “We” and probably has no clue that “We” has changed since he left decades ago.
This sounds like my Australian professor saying the reason why the Chinese didn’t conquer the world as his ancestors did was because the empire, run by small-minded bureaucrats, chose to retreat behind their Great Wall. The reason why Europeans conquered and enslaved so many was because they had BIG dreams and BIG ideas. I sat there thinking, What a racist pig.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:55 pm
No malice intended, i just call it as i see it. We are discussing on the basis of broad oppposing categories to which you and i are members of, what you call the ‘talsiks’ vs. the ‘move-ons’. At this level, you are in the same camp as Austero. I can accept that you may not be 100% in sync with him, but it is up to you to tell me that.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 12:56 pm
beancurd, re: silent campaign, i proposed something similar ages ago in 2005:
http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=0&story_id=51689
but you know, she was like the energizer bunny and kept going… and going… so…
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:01 pm
devils, bnw might, after all we had our black and white list for many positions in the may elections. but right now, in baranggays for example, people are just recovering from that exercise. in the case of alternative parties like ang kapatiran, i think they’re engaging in grassroots activities, such as going to baranggays to explain to people what the local government code provides for, while firming up their membership (i understand dr. bautista will be expelled, or is in the process of being expelled, for his independent position on population control), so they can’t firm up slates if they’re firming up their criteria for membership.
and as for the lp and np, they’re still recruiting, while the other parties have the organization but are shopping for candidates.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:08 pm
devils, also, what i mean is, that in general, knowledge and talent in non trade-specific knowledge workers (by which i mean, in contrast say to i.t. people and so forth) gets nowhere near the remuneration the work’s entitled to. writers are generally underpaid and treated like crap, which is a disincentive to attracting talent. our media, print, specifically, is getting increasingly geriatric, for example. and of course to me it seems what i get paid to write and research a show like the one i have on anc is in no way fair -but then again, better to have a show than none at all, right? so i don’t complain most of the time.
but then this is the market at work; is it an artifical market? i tend to think so, in that why is it pretty much the same skillset and talent gets far better remuneration elsewhere, whether in our own region or the west? one reason there can be such disincentives is precisely, protectionism. maybe, if you opened up the media to foreign investment, it would send such a shock to local media it would both elevate it, forcing it to approach international standards, or perish.
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:44 pm
i’ve wondered this before, but if all those who dislike the admin and the opposition equally should consolidate their forces, we’d have enough to beat both camps. and i think people are ripe to the idea of this.
we have to give independents a chance. and the only way to do this is to band together.
re remuneration and flight of talents, i think its fair to say that low salary or not, talented people leave bec they are hemmed in by bosses of smaller minds. not given enough credit, and stunted (intentionally and unintentionally)
our culture has its own version of the peter principle, esp this one:
compounded by the fact that in Filipino corporate settings, getting employed largely depends on who you know, and not what you can do.
so yes, perhaps opening up our market to foreigners will open our labor economy to internationl standards.
Beancurd on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:46 pm
mlq3, that was a long one and very diplomatically said.
But as you said, she was like the energizer bunny and while the action to be silent has been proposed, i really do not know what happened to it after it was proposed. Did it get going? I have not heard of it, while the energizer bunny just gets on going and going and will probably frustrate any move any other group does until we see another trillanes event, and another because this incorrigible government and the writer of the manifesto have not learned the lesson on how terrorists are made, that when all peaceful avenues have been tried and blocked and tried and blocked, the only other road there is is the path of violence (unless you choose to leave the country) and they will certainly strike however way they can, whenever they can and whereever they can without regard for the consequences on themselves.
The trillanes incident last week is a warning to us all and we may see more of it in the future unless …
BrianB on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:51 pm
MLQ: “also, that in general the political professionals are lagging behind as far as the broader public is concerned. i do think filipinos are more disciplined now than before, whether in realizing it makes sense to line up to ride a bus, or appreciating the fact that exposure to the work ethics of foreigners means we can’t be the slackers we once were.”
Yes, yes, absolutely yes. Politics is decades behind our middle class and even our masses. Many of these governors and mayors and even Congressmen still behave like old school Tatays as an object of fear to their constituents. Politics is definitely rule by conservatives or, based on cvj’s poll, the Authoritarian-Right. The center, however, the administration is so unprincipled we have no idea what its politic is.
I take issue, though, on the word “slacker.” Compare a typical Filipino worker to an Italian or French worker and you will not call the Filipino slackers. They just need more creative work. Hell, I’ll slack to if all I have to do all day is routine, mindless stuff.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:52 pm
Oh sh*t! I was about to suggest that BnW tie up with Ang Kapatiran to come up with alternative Congressional, Gubenatorial and Mayoral candidates. My only worry was that they should arrive at a modus vivendi on Population policy. Oh well.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 1:57 pm
beancurd, nothing happened because she wasn’t interested in unity, and sad to say, unity has eluded the opposition, though there have been times when people came close to getting their act together. still, better to squabble but keep up the fight, than not fight at all. but it also explains why not as much as could have been done, has been achieved.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:00 pm
good point, brian. if the ruling culture in companies is subservience and paternalism, then who can blame employees for spending hours on minesweeper and friendster?
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:02 pm
cjv, much as i respect ang kapatiran and i think some of their new advocacies are in the right direction (such as going to baranggays to inform people on their rights under the law), i can’t agree with their population policy, but hey, that’s why they’re the catholic party.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:04 pm
cjv, incidentally, there was a debate within bnw about whether it should become a party and field candidates, and i opposed it, on the argument that it would discredit the organization and it wasn’t where the organization could remain effective. it functions best as an ngo with political advocacies and which can lend its support to parties, if necessary.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:13 pm
mlq3, i agree with your position on not making BnW a political party. Doing that will take it away from the Public Sphere and bring it back into the State. However, something like an expanded BnW List similar to the one that your group published last May 2007 would be good.
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:23 pm
i disagree. i think more in terms of what Randy David wrote in his column sometime back. that if all NGOs do is blunt the ravaging effects of an icompetent govt, then they might as well be more effective in entering politics, rather than insist on continuing to be a marginal factor in politics.
providing a list? what in effing hell can that do if you can’t even fill that up with names? good leaders have always been present in our country. the problem is in finding them, convincing them to run, and then providing the logistics to give them enough exposure to win. and i think BnW is capable enough to do that.
and no convenor should run.
ay_naku on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:24 pm
MLQ, about your 12:41pm comment, excellent exposition, kudos to you. Must be hard to keep fighting with “one hand tied behind your back” especially when things can get so galling. When having exchanges with the “tacit and overt supporters of the administration” sometimes the urge to trade barbs and hostilities can be strong. And with regards to the GMA administration itself, as Randy David said, “bear in mind that the regime is methodically drawing us into a brawl we can only lose. If we use violent means, Ms Arroyo and her minions will feel even more justified to deploy the coercive powers of the state against us. We have to respond non-violently to the extent that we can, using what is left of the avenues prescribed by the law. But more importantly, we must begin to tap the moral resources that belong to us as a community.” (However, most such avenues have already been co-opted, corrupted, or rendered inutile by the GMA administration. Oh the debased times that we live in!)
sparks on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:34 pm
But isn’t that what we’ve been doing for the last 2 decades?
And in the last 2 centuries capitalist development has been state-led and protectionist. Britain, US, Japan, Germany, the Asian NICs. Unlesss, by some miracle, we can create another developmental model all our own…
mlwnag on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:40 pm
Opposition will have their chance if
-there are long queues in gasoline stations waiting for next tanker delivery,
- rice, cooking oil, detergents and other essentials are not available in the markets and supermarkets
- frequent brownouts
- no water supply
- SMS service not available
- No medical service in health centers
Corruption, poverty and human right issues cannot trigger EDSAn anymore
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:42 pm
Michael Tan on his column today:
(emphasis mine)
BrianB on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:53 pm
Guys, search this keyword on google
“RP wins gold in 2007 World Robot Olympiad.”
Now if we can only get seed money to support inventors and innovators like dem young thangs we’d be a rich nation. I mean, local investment, not foreign investment.
BrianB on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 2:56 pm
“writers are generally underpaid and treated like crap, which is a disincentive to attracting talent.” -MLQ3
He, he, if I hadn’t found investors on my tech blogging sites, I’d be in Singapore right now.
ace on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 3:09 pm
Elections in 2010?
I think I will defer to entertain the question not until after the first quarter of 2008 especially the month of February.
It is in February, 2008 that GMA needs to appoint a new chief of staff of the AFP, a new Comelec chairman (I hope with credibility and integrity). If GMA will spearhead another Charter change attempt through “peoples initiative”,no legal impediment will prevent her from doing so the second time around and as retired chief justice Panganiban pointed out:
“After February next year, three of the eight Supreme Court justices who thumbed down “Sigaw†would have retired. In 2009, six incumbents would also hang their black robes and could be replaced by GMA with “friendly†magistrates.”
The EDSA 2 anniversary in January and the EDSA 1 anniversary in February must also be considered. Indeed, critical first quarter of 2008.
Mita on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 4:26 pm
there are so many who comment here who maintain blogs of their own. whether or not you update regularly, it’s there for the whole world to see. we come from different parts of the world with different professions and views. however, opposing views doesn’t mean our goals for the country are so different….so….
before the 2010 elections, may i suggest bloggers try to get together and start an online campaign for electoral reforms or maybe just a semblance of reform? that way, the time we spend online from now till the next elections is put to good use and our energies channeled to something productive that can actually help the country?
how about SMB – samahang manunulat (or mambobola) na blogista – or something stupid like that to start?
BlogusVox on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 4:52 pm
Mita, SMB would be fine… it reminds me of my favorite pastime.
The Equalizer on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 5:17 pm
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” — Dr. Joseph M. Goebbel, Nazi propaganda ministe
alden on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 5:57 pm
Mita,
enough of those samahan….I really really had enough of it.there is so much hypocrisy about.
alden on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 5:58 pm
there so much hypocrisy about it!
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 7:03 pm
Devils, i remember this as being our very first point of disagreement. This was our exchange then: http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1387
The BnW should make a clear choice, does it want to be part of the State or does it want to remain part of the Public Sphere?
You’re right. The list should be part of a comprehensive set of political actions that you mentioned above.
Carl on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:32 pm
just a question brought by manolo’s insider story on BnW’s efforts to ammend the Pulido complaint:
how come the administration (assuming they were behind the Pulido complaint) was able to file that complaint faster than one that would have genuinely been supported by the opposition? Certainly both sides knew when the immunity from the second impeachment complaint would expire. Was the opposition waiting for more evidence to come from the senate hearings on the ZTE scandal before filing their complaint? Or was there any opposition plan at all before the ZTE scandal broke out to file a third complaint once the immunity period expires? I just find it weird that the opposition got hoodwinked for a third time.
Silent Waters on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:20 pm
BrianB
The winners of the Robot Olympiad is from my high school alma mater…Grace Christian High School in QC
BrianB on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:55 pm
Silent, I really think we’ve wasted decades of engineerings and scientific talent in this country. To the mukhang pera this is at least worth several hundred billions (dollars). To the nationalist this is pride that we dearly need nowadays.
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:25 am
cvj,
comments well-taken. i hope you saw the closing paragraph of my post – that i also noted the other ‘undeniables.’
“The common element among the East Asian tigers including China and now Vietnam is that the State applied its authoritarian powers towards forming a more equal society”
what could “more equal society mean”? China? if we apply the ‘trickle-down effect’ on China, its not yet prosperous. nor ‘equal’. Taken as a whole, China is still poor. 900 million in poverty, 300 million from the middle class up. Unequal! But these 300 million is pulling the country to be an economic powerhouse. China is poised to overtake Germany as the 3rd biggest economy in the world.
for Pinoys, authoritarianism is a no-no. even if used in an attempt towards a ‘more equal society.’
I don’t know how Vietnam will have a ‘more equal society’
“After this stage one was complete, then that’s the time they introduced market reforms which led to their economic takeoff.”
i don’t know if that was the case. as far as i know, in South Korea’s example, the dictator Park Chung Hee had effective policies. it was not a case of ‘equal society’ first then market reforms. they were simultaneous.
“The problem with Washington Sycip’s call is that he does not address the issue of inequality. This will leave power in the hands of the existing elite and will just result in more of the same for the majority.”
well i don’t see the connection of ‘less than too much democracy’ and power being left in the hands of the elite. the problem with critics of his statement is that they focus on what was allegedly omitted. these critics don’t deal squarely with the issue of ‘too much democracy’. take note he did not say ‘democracy’ but ‘too much democracy.’
i’ll say it again. he’s been around for decades, having lived through many presidents and observed Pinoys through the decades. he is speaking from experience.
how do you define inequality? power? is it limited to the exercise of freedoms? his statement does not imply the continued entrenchment of the elite. didnt it occur to you that for SyCip, ‘too much democracy’ could be the obstacle for a ‘more equal society’? Singapore, even if a little repressed, is a ‘more equal society’
if we just focused on job and value creation, rather than exercising freedoms, then many people will benefit economically, which could expand the number of the middle class leading to a ‘more equal society’
Bencard on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:22 am
mlq3, in application, there can be no conflict between the constitution and the penal code. the former is the fundamental law and, therefore, superior to any legislation. a penal code provision that contravenes the constitution has no validity and legal effect.
in a society where the Law is supreme, you cannot create a super class of persons or entities that are immune from its majesty and punitive power. you just cannot pin a label upon any joe or joanna blow that says “journalist”, or “media rep.” and automatically invest him/her with invincibility and immunity.
in every civilized society, every right or privilege has a corresponding responsibility. there’s no free ticket. while you can breath the air or drink the water freely, you are responsible not to pollute it. but how can society make sure that responsibilities are observed and enforced.? it is only by Law that no one, but no one can disregard.
democracy can only work where everyone is treated equally under the law. even the government, and all its officers and employees, from the highest to the lowest, and all its agencies and instrumentalities are subject to the Law.
i now live in a jurisdiction where libel is not a crime but a civil liability. but i don’t agree that it should be decriminalized. to me, the malicious destruction of somebody’s reputation through falsehood is equivalent to premeditated destruction of one’s life.
in any event, the media’s alleged undue interference in police work and it’s apparent complicity with the rebels are entirely different offense from libel.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:30 am
don’t worry Carl, you’re not the only one. in fact, this third time’s the charm made me think we’re watching a moro-moro. everyone is co-opted, for if there was even one genuine opposition, he could’ve filed and beaten Pulido to the punch.
everyone was expecting the admin to pull the same Lozano trick this year. so why was the opposition caught so flat-footed?
it’s the same question that arise, when senators chose to go on vacation, instead of continuing the investigation abt ZTE when it was at the height of public scrutiny.
and is the same reason why I’ve made my stand re the 2010 elections. no vote for old faces. unless his name is Jesse Robredo.
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:58 am
devils, bias ka naman masyado re the 2010 elections. paano taga bicol ka. if that’s the case, kanya-kanyang manok, i’ll only vote then for duterte.
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:45 am
i don’t think, that if one were conscientiously compiling the evidence esp. as coming out of the zte and related matters, one could have put together a meaty complaint and beaten the deadline. it would have been jumping the gun prematurely. a coscientious lawyer would not have filed for the sake of filing, because only the palace considers it proper law to file a bogus complaint merely to get the constitutional clock ticking.
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:06 am
ANthony
I so so agree with your statement below
“if we just focused on job and value creation, rather than exercising freedoms, then many people will benefit economically, which could expand the number of the middle class leading to a ‘more equal society’”
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:11 am
Inequality is measured by the Gini coefficient. Before it embarked on market reforms in 1978, China’s society was more equal as seen by their Gini coefficient of 21.20 (rural). (The comparable figure for the Philippines around that time period is at 45 – the higher score indicating greater inequality.)
Today, as a consequence of the uneven pace of growth within China, it is now more unequal than the Philippines. By this time however, the initial condition of greater equality already served China’s purpose.
Tell that to Washington Sycip.
As Sparks mentioned in my blog, land reform was key to the economic takeoff of Korea. The resulting equality in South Korean society was the basis for its Chaebol-driven industrial policy. As per Alice Amsden:
Going back to Washington Sycip’s comments…
That is because, just like Benign0, he is committing an attribution error, blaming our underdevelopment on ‘too much democracy’ instead of persistent inequality. That’s a failure of analysis. (How can he say that we have ‘too much democracy’ when he sees that the current occupant of Malacanang cheated her way into office and holds on to it there via bags of cash and the military?) A more glaring error is that in the same speech, he wondered why there is lack of unity. If he reflected more deeply, he would realize that the lack of unity is driven by elitists like him who would want to take away democracy from the majority.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:41 am
That’s the main attraction of a popular dictatorship. If we took away the freedom of the elite to abuse the majority and let them focus on ‘job and value creation’ instead, then more people will benefit economically. That has been shown by the experience of our neighbors (both communist and non-communist).
On the other hand, an elitist dictatorship where you retain or expand the elite’s freedom and take away what’s left of the majority’s freedoms, would only be of benefit the elite and their private army (or armies).
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:49 am
Trillanes today stands trial for various “political crimes†against the Arroyo regime. But unlike larger-than-life Rizal and Ninoy Aquino, both convicted of similar crimes, the rebel soldier, although now a senator, is still a bit player in the grander scheme of things. This question therefore needs an answer: Is it fair demanding at this stage for Trillanes to have done a Rizal or a Ninoy to serve as the agent of change?
I too salute Mr. Trillanes (as well as General Danilo Lim) for the singular courage and patriotism he has exhibited anew. I believe the Philippines will remain unsinkable if more men like him continue to thrive in our land.
My thesis however is that beyond the risk of political decapitation for a promising boy wonder in mainstream politics, martyrdom at this stage on the part of Trillanes would either be wasteful or foolhardy: wasteful, because his martyrdom is not even necessary to rally a critical mass of supporters behind his cause if only such cause in fact reflects the people’s true aspirations; foolhardy, because it could even generate the contrary effect of being perceived as a careless assent to the claim by certain quarters dismissive of “people power†– that of it having supposedly sunk to a “fatigued†state (which might then require the fresh blood of martyrs to nourish and invigorate it).
The Great Beast did not come out of hibernation but I have no doubt it is not enfeebled by overexertion, much less, defanged. On the contrary it is much more potent, even sophisticated because of the invaluable lessons learned from the first and second exercises of its sovereign powers. If it’s not easily or precipitously stirred to rise, it is simply because people power has already passed its testy and heady days, and has grown to be more patient and calculating than when first awakened from long stupor.
What this situation translates into is that after two people powers (and EDSA Tres), the nation is now in earnest pursuit not merely of a change of personnel (from among the ruling elites playing their usual game of musical chairs or, to be different, from some messianic soldiers gladly marching to the same music) but of real and meaningful alternatives to the organic structures that have sustained our flawed experiment in nation building. In other words, the Filipino people want some believable answers to the question of how their lives will actually change if they opt for another people power.
For instance, keeping the peace or containing graft and corruption are laudable ends but even real gains on these spheres would be seen as illusory if there’s no equity because the advancement of the economic and social well-being of the people has only been given short shrift or otherwise left to the vagaries of the self-same forces that by design are supposed to be deliberately indifferent to it.
For newfangled reformist like Trillanes, there’s yet plenty of room for learning to recognize for example the distinction between the Arroyo regime and the long-standing oligarchy. Whereas, we should pause to reflect, the former could be grasping for last breaths, the latter is robust, well-entrenched and will survive Arroyo.
A fragile regime whose vital signs are failing can be rattled by a walkout of some indicted soldiers from a court hearing and followed by a walk-by to a luxury hotel to announce their intentions. Not so when it comes to a 12-headed hydra like the Philippine oligarchy. To tame this brute, it would require motivating masterfully to action a worldly-wise Great Beast of superior power.
In the final analysis, the Filipino people will reciprocate the call of trustworthy and honorable leaders who, being fully conversant with the new strain of cancer afflicting the polity and the society at large, would not just die on them in martyrdom, but will work with them in life: first, to retire the beast of prey and the old forces abetting it, and then, politically willing as well as able to re-invent the wheel, transform the nation. More specifically, this will require forming, communicating and coming to a consensus on new ideas about how to confront objectively the real conditions of inequities of wealth and power distribution in our society and to find the means for a continuing rediscovery towards the task of nation building.
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:36 am
Carl,
simply put, no one from the opposition congressmen filed an impeachment complaint, whether to beat a sham complaint or not, because they did not have the numbers. they are much like the writer of the manifesto, not liking the present set up but unwilling to do anything about it unles forced to or unless they are sure that it will bear sweet fruit. In short, the classic pinoy, sigurista.
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:01 pm
cvj,
“That’s the main attraction of a popular dictatorship. If we took away the freedom of the elite to abuse the majority and let them focus on ‘job and value creation’ instead, then more people will benefit economically. That has been shown by the experience of our neighbors (both communist and non-communist)”
how then is this ‘freedom of the elite’ taken away? wait, how do these elite ‘abuse’ the majority?
based from what you’re saying,it still depends on the elite, letting them focus on job and value creation. that the elite will pull the rest of the country.
the majority can also engage in job and value creation. they can leverage the bayanihan spirit, cooperatives. whole communities can be the collective owners of businesses
“On the other hand, an elitist dictatorship where you retain or expand the elite’s freedom and take away what’s left of the majority’s freedoms, would only be of benefit the elite and their private army (or armies)”
i think the Singaporeans don’t mind being a little repressed
Bencard on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:19 pm
abe, with the kind of society we have, every “regime” will always be fragile. there will always be groups with competing interests that will try to tear each other apart. losers will always find fault with the leader who stymies their own ambitions and hunger for power. the current electoral process for president is at the root of the problem. with 6 or 7 candidates vying for the presidency, no clear mandate is ever possible for the winner who wins by mere plurality. this creates a situation where the losers can coalesce only for one thing – the undermining of the incumbent with the objective of deposing him/her, but divided in all aspects of governance and with divided vision for where the country should go. this is where we are now and this is were we will be until the constitution is changed to remove its counterproductive provisions.
the way i see it, the country has been lucky to have a strong president that has proven time and again her ability to withstand and survive the darts and daggers thrown at her by her enemies from all directions. she is a credit to womanhood, not merely a brilliant “geek” but a pragmatic, efficient and courageous workaholic. she is the kind of leader the country needs in these trying times.
your faith in the filipino people to “retire the beast” is admirable. but realistically speaking, under present circumstances, your aspiration is a little far fetched. until the majority of the filipino people begin to really love their country rather than just themselves and their families, they would not have the inspiration and ability to “transform the nation” from what it is now.
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:33 pm
cvj,
“Tell that to Washington Sycip.”
he already knows that. im just reacting to your statement on the good use of authoritarianism. for Pinoys, whether for good intentions or not, authoritarianism is out of the question.
“Inequality is measured by the Gini coefficient. Before it embarked on market reforms in 1978, China’s society was more equal as seen by their Gini coefficient of 21.20 (rural). (The comparable figure for the Philippines around that time period is at 45 – the higher score indicating greater inequality.)”
actual numbers please. real figures. (no offense meant, but by 1978 all Chinese could be equally poor, and hence, technically, an equal society, at that time)
i stand by the figures – 300 million middle class up, 900 million in absolute poverty.
“As Sparks mentioned in my blog, land reform was key to the economic takeoff of Korea. The resulting equality in South Korean society was the basis for its Chaebol-driven industrial policy”
i differ, again. land reform was not even a proximate cause of the take-off. korea’s economic take-off was credited to its companies and entrepreneurs, who of course benefited from effective economic policies.
“The country with the fewest economic divisions, whether by class, race, or ethnicity, was Korea. It was also the country with the largest private business groups and the greatest number of national leaders – Alice Amsden, The Rise of the Rest”
well i have no problem with that. please note that the ‘fewest economic divisions’ is just the by-product of a rich economy. saka what could she mean by ‘few economic divisions’? dito there are only two – rich and poor. or maybe three – rich, poor, middle class.
“That is because, just like Benign0, he is committing an attribution error, blaming our underdevelopment on ‘too much democracy’ instead of persistent inequality. That’s a failure of analysis. (How can he say that we have ‘too much democracy’ when he sees that the current occupant of Malacanang cheated her way into office and holds on to it there via bags of cash and the military?) A more glaring error is that in the same speech, he wondered why there is lack of unity.”
1. okay lets discuss this – why is there inequality in the fist place?
2. that has been his observation even before erap became president
3. are you linking ’stealing the presidency’ to ‘economic mismanagement’?
why don’t you do an Al Gore – concede the presidency even if it stinks? Bush has lots of problems, but at least he never had to deal with distractions on his legitimacy.
FVR was able to achieve some degree of economic success because Miriam never pestered him on his ‘legitimacy’.
“If he reflected more deeply, he would realize that the lack of unity is driven by elitists like him who would want to take away democracy from the majority.”
i wonder why you insist in using ‘elitists’ in describing him. why? what was his fault for being an ‘elitist’? what interest was he trying to protect? did marcos confiscate his well-known auditing firm? was his firm in danger of closing shop because of “too much democracy”? you are not appreciating his invaluable contributions to Philippine business and eventually, the country’s economy. he is not called the grand old man of Philippine business for nothing. no other businessman can approach his integrity or duplicate the regard given to him by the Philippine business community.
looks like you branded him ‘elitist’ by default. and you made a hasty generalization that all elites are like that, wanting to take democracy away from the majority.
former DepEd secretary Butch Abad is advocating an ‘enabling elite’ a group of people that would enable the majority to flourish.
if SyCip is an ‘elite’ he could well be one of the ‘enabling elite’ mentioned by Butch Abad
i think you misunderstood SyCip. i dont think he meant taking away democracy.
uulitin ko – he did not say ‘democracy’ he said ‘too much democracy’
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:43 pm
Silent Waters,
ewan ko nga ba sa mga kababayan nating puro ‘rights’ ‘democracy’ and ‘freedoms’ lang ang focus. sometimes kakainggit nga ang mga Singaporeans eh. kahit medyo repressed, well-off naman.
lets remember Sen. Gordon’s famous saying during the height of the bases controversy – ‘you can’t eat sovereignty’
the bases were kicked out, but Gordon was able to transform Subic into what it is today. what did the anti-bases people contribute to present-day Subic?
if only all of us can be as proactive with the country as Sen. Gordon was with Subic…
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:50 pm
You can get a glimpse of how the elite abuses the majority by studying the NBN/ZTE deal. Who do you think would have profited from this deal if it had pushed through? Who would have ended up paying the loan?
For an example in a rural setting, you can read up on the case of the Sumilao farmers.
The above are just two examples of how the existing oligarchy abuses the majority. You take away the elite’s freedom to abuse by emancipating the majority and making sure that the government is there to look after their welfare and not just conspire with a few businessmen whose preoccupation is rent-seeking and not actual productive work.
With property reform and given political, infrastructure and financial support, yes.
I’ve met enough Singaporeans to know that’s not true. Besides, in terms of love of country and quality of governance, you cannot compare Lee Kuan Yew with GMA or any of the other Filipino oligarchs so under our circumstances, self-repression by ordinary citizens is not exactly the wise thing to do. Bong Austero volunteered his freedom in order to give Gloria Arroyo a chance to redeem herself and he ended up regretting it.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:09 pm
Those are real figures. (Look up ‘gini coefficient’.)
The greater equality in China at that time paved the way for economic takeoff. The oligarchs were not there to get in the way.
Amsden was talking of the time when South Korea was still poor.
The equality that Alice Amsden cited in South Korean Society was a consequence of land reform. Since the Korean business leaders can no longer make money off the land, they had to shift their focus and invest their capital into industrial activity. That’s an integral part of the ‘effective economic policy’ of the Koreans.
Funny you ask that. How could Gordon transform Subic if the US Bases were still there? It was the anti-bases Senators, exercising their democratic rights to reject the treaty, that kicked out the bases in the first place.
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:52 pm
agree with you bencard. quite difficult and enormous task for filipinos but the better alternative than too much talking (this is what we need) and blaming game (it’s their fault) which is leading us to nowhere. just sows more divisiveness and hatred instead of unity among the people.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:13 pm
ha? and you’re soley attributing the transformation of subic to the vision of gordon? excuse me, anthony. i was fervent in my support to the baselease termination. but never did i despair as to its loss. in fact, and contrary to the position taken by my pro-base fanatic friends, i thought its expulsion would attract its transformation to a singapore-like trading hub with its infrastructure already in place.
“we can’t eat sovereignty” that’s what gordon said. now tell me if his statement was full smack of optimism? you’re misread him a great deal.
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 5:00 pm
inidoro ni emillie,
“”ha? and you’re soley attributing the transformation of subic to the vision of gordon?”
ha! yes!
“excuse me, anthony.”
be my guest.
“i was fervent in my support to the baselease termination. but never did i despair as to its loss.”
if you support the termination, you should not despair over its loss. you don’t have to say that you don’t despair to its loss because you wanted the lease terminated in the first place.
“in fact, and contrary to the position taken by my pro-base fanatic friends, i thought its expulsion would attract its transformation to a singapore-like trading hub with its infrastructure already in place”
noted. at present, its far from being singapore-like. but compare it with Subic immediately after the base left. it has to meet its full potential yet, but a start has been made, jobs have been created.
“we can’t eat sovereignty†that’s what gordon said. now tell me if his statement was full smack of optimism? you’re misread him a great deal”
no i didnt. thanks for the concern
its true – we can’t eat sovereignty (in the same vein that we can’t eat freedoms). thats why when the bases were gone, he did something about it.
did the anti-bases people help him out in transforming Subic? we didnt hear from them after their departure.
from 1991, up to 1998, who took charge in the transformation of Subic? who took the initiative to transform Subic from abandoned base to a freeport/economic zone?
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 5:19 pm
cvj,
“Those are real figures. (Look up ‘gini coefficient’.)”
Right. Real figures,like the figures from SWS and Pulse Asia surveys
“The greater equality in China at that time paved the way for economic takeoff. The oligarchs were not there to get in the way.”
Right again. yes, the 300 million middle class up Chinese are equal. fact remains 900 million are poor
“Amsden was talking of the time when South Korea was still poor.”
oh really? at present, poor philippines has two or three economic divisions. few also, right? big deal
“The equality that Alice Amsden cited in South Korean Society was a consequence of land reform. Since the Korean business leaders can no longer make money off the land, they had to shift their focus and invest their capital into industrial activity. That’s an integral part of the ‘effective economic policy’ of the Koreans.”
True, but the ones that brought home the bacon are the Korean businesses! they are the proximate cause of the Korean economic miracle! please dont diminish the contributions of companies like the chaebols.
“Funny you ask that.”
Funny also that you wrote that way.
“How could Gordon transform Subic if the US Bases were still there? It was the anti-bases Senators, exercising their democratic rights to reject the treaty, that kicked out the bases in the first place.”
Gordon did not want the bases to go. but when the base left, he did something about it, not wanting Subic to remain abandoned.
again, what did the anti-bases people do after the bases left? did it ever occur to them that the abandoned bases shouldn’t be left in such conditions?
I dont know what you are driving at when you wrote that paragraph. definitely i wasnt saying that Gordon could something with the bases still there.
anthony scalia on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 5:34 pm
cvj,
“You can get a glimpse of how the elite abuses the majority by studying the NBN/ZTE deal. Who do you think would have profited from this deal if it had pushed through? Who would have ended up paying the loan?”
not enough. and what democratic freedom was compromised by the NBN/ZTE deal?
“For an example in a rural setting, you can read up on the case of the Sumilao farmers”
the farmers can say all they want, rally all they want, march all they want. what freedom could the ‘elite’ take away from them?
“The above are just two examples of how the existing oligarchy abuses the majority.”
sorry, but not enough reason. and SyCip is in a whole different league. he wasnt linked to any corruption or scandal
“You take away the elite’s freedom to abuse by emancipating the majority and making sure that the government is there to look after their welfare and not just conspire with a few businessmen whose preoccupation is rent-seeking and not actual productive work.”
how do you emancipate the majority? by giving them more freedom? you give the majority jobs, then they become part of the mainstream. you give them power if they have jobs, purchasing power
“With property reform and given political, infrastructure and financial support, yes.”
government, though helpful, is not really necessary. the private sector can do it by itself. why wait for government?
“I’ve met enough Singaporeans to know that’s not true.”
and I’ve met Singaporeans who say it is true!
“Besides, in terms of love of country and quality of governance, you cannot compare Lee Kuan Yew with GMA or any of the other Filipino oligarchs so under our circumstances, self-repression by ordinary citizens is not exactly the wise thing to do.”
true
“Bong Austero volunteered his freedom in order to give Gloria Arroyo a chance to redeem herself and he ended up regretting it”
did he regret it? where did he express his regret? i’d like to know
like many businesses, my business is not affected, in any way, by gloria’s continued stay in malacañang. i just do what im supposed to do – guide foreign investors to start businesses here, help provide jobs. i think i can help the country better that way, rather than waste my time echoing anti-gloria rhetorics which do not create jobs anyway; they even scare potential jobs away!
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:16 pm
All you need to do is to look up ‘gini coefficient’ to understand that it’s a measure of economic inequality in the same say that GDP is a measure of national income. You can get the figures i quoted from here:
http://www.developmentdata.org/about.htm
Look under ‘Inequality’.
Again…to emphasize, i was referring to equality at the point of economic takeoff (in China’s case, in 1978). The 900 million vs. 300 million figure you keep quoting is inequality in China today which i already addressed in my response to you above (at 10:11am) as being beside the point.
Amsden was specifically referring to the degree of inequality. Read the book so you’ll understand.
It was joint effort between the government, chaebols and the consuming public as follows:
1. the chaebols produced products that are good enough for export.
2. government provided incentives and penalties to guide the chaebols via reciprocal control mechanisms. Further explanation here:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/03/export-promotion-vs-import-substitution.html
3. the public provided a viable domestic market for the locally manufactured goods. See Spark’s explanation in her comments over here:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/03/land-reform-inequality-and-economic.html#c8506830015335729092
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:23 pm
In your previous comment, you specifically asked “what did the anti-bases people contribute to present-day Subic?” The Americans did not just get up and leave by themselves. You should at credit the anti-bases folks for kicking them out and paving the way for Subic’s transformation to a free port.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:57 pm
i cited nbn/zte and the Sumilao farmers as an example of the elite’s abuse. Now you’re trying to change the question. As far as the issue of freedom is concerned, the above examples show that it is our political and economic elite that have too much freedom relative to the rest of the Filipinos. If there is anyone in our society whose freedom has to be restricted, it would be this pathological minority.
You’re arguing to the wrong point. I did not accuse Washington Sycip of corruption. I said that he is an elitist.
If you want a more comprehensive history of the elite’s abuses (and to understand what kind of democracy we have), for a start, you can read Benedict Anderson’s “Cacique Democracy in the Philippines”.
http://www.public-conversations.org.za/_pdfs/anderson_12.pdf
Emancipation is both economic and political. For example, Land Reform gives property rights to farmers. Political emancipation means eliminating guns, goons and gold from the electoral system so that the poor majority will finally be able to choose their leader(s) freely. This places them in charge and makes them an active part of the mainstream. Of course, the elitists don’t like this because they don’t see the poor as equals and subscribe to a paternalistic approach.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 8:06 pm
Upon learning of the ZTE anomaly, Bong Austero said:
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.bongaustero.blogspot.com/2007/09/lets-not-bungle-this-up.html
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 8:27 pm
cjv. i think a discussion on land reform is in order, soon.
Carl on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:28 pm
“FVR was able to achieve some degree of economic success because Miriam never pestered him on his ‘legitimacy’.” – anthony scalia
oh miriam did. she filed a case in the electoral tribunal but it became moot when she decided to run as senator, thereby implicitly conceding defeat. she had strong evidence that FVR cheated, legally acquired evidence, mind you, but not as sensational as the wiretapped conversation of GMA.
methinks miriam’s unsucessful battle to prove FVR’s cheating in both the public and the legal system changed her into what she has become now. it makes me sad because i used to admire her.
so yeah, allegations of illegitimacy are not new. the only thing new are the wiretaps and the subsequent ringtones and disco music inspired by it.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:29 pm
mlq3, ok.
anthony scalia on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:15 am
cvj,
“In your previous comment, you specifically asked “what did the anti-bases people contribute to present-day Subic?†The Americans did not just get up and leave by themselves. You should at credit the anti-bases folks for kicking them out and paving the way for Subic’s transformation to a free port”
if you read my entire post, i was referring to Subic after the withdrawal. i wanted to know if the anti-bases people lifted a finger (after the base left) to at least do something good out of Subic.
let me re-post that:
“lets remember Sen. Gordon’s famous saying during the height of the bases controversy – ‘you can’t eat sovereignty’
“the bases were kicked out, but Gordon was able to transform Subic into what it is today. what did the anti-bases people contribute to present-day Subic?
if only all of us can be as proactive with the country as Sen. Gordon was with Subic…”
too bad you didn’t see the contrast – Gordon opposing the termination, the bases leaving Subic, Subic left abandoned, yet Gordon did not leave Subic in its abandoned state. of all people, it was the pro-bases Gordon who initiated the transformation of Subic!
giving credit to the anti bases people? they’re no different from those just wanting to kick out gloria but have no idea what happens next. at least Gordon did something, making the most out of a base-free Subic
“All you need to do is to look up ‘gini coefficient’ to understand that it’s a measure of economic inequality in the same say that GDP is a measure of national income. You can get the figures i quoted from here:”
No, there are real figures behind the gini coefficient. i want to see the figures behind the figures.
there are 3 kinds of lies, right? plain lies, damn lies, and statistics
“Again…to emphasize, i was referring to equality at the point of economic takeoff (in China’s case, in 1978). The 900 million vs. 300 million figure you keep quoting is inequality in China today which i already addressed in my response to you above (at 10:11am) as being beside the point.”
lets trace where it (the discussion) all began:
1. i wrote that authoritarianism prevailed during the hypergrowth years of the East Asian tigers
2. you replied to that saying that such an authoritarianism was effective because it was used towards the goal of equality, citing that by 1978 China had accomplished equality already
3. to which i replied that there is no equality yet in China because of the 300-900 figures
4. to which you said that you relied on a gini coefficient, implying its accuracy
5. to which i replied still that i wanted figures
6. to which you said that by themselves the gini coefficients are figures by themselves
7. to which i said that there are real figures behind them and i wanted to see them
equality at the point of take-off in 1978? they were all poor at that time! technically, yes, thats equality
if the economic took off in 1978, then it shouldn’t be 300-900 today! the number of poor should have been drastically reduced. thats equality! wealth distributed a little widely.
so what happened? how come the 1978 ‘equality’ became ‘inequality’ today?
to borrow a favorite phrase of the opposition – the economic gains of China has not yet trickled-down
“Amsden was specifically referring to the degree of inequality. Read the book so you’ll understand”
no need. i already understand. you said Amsdem found out that Korea had fewer divisions when it was still poor. what were those divisions? present-day poor Philippines may even have fewer divisions than poor Korea. no difference.
“You’re arguing to the wrong point. I did not accuse Washington Sycip of corruption. I said that he is an elitist.”
the problem with that your view is that you are lumping all elites together! that all elites think alike. SyCip is not your typical ‘elite’
i never said you accused him of corruption. i said that to inform you that SyCip is a cut above everyone else – not your typical ‘elite’ that ‘abuses’ the majority
and let me remind you that you have cast some doubts on his person:
1. you branded SyCip as part of the ‘elite’
2. according to you, these same ‘elite’ deny the freedoms of the majority and abuse them
ergo, SyCip is part of the elite that abuses the majoritty and keeps them from enjoying freedom. you considered him part of the oligarchy!
may i remind you that in an earlier thread, you have made value judgments on SyCip’s character – a part of the elite that wants the status quo maintained
that led me to say “…SyCip is in a whole different league. he wasnt linked to any corruption or scandal”
with his invaluable contributions to Philippine business, i seriously doubt if he qualifies as an ‘abuser’ and ‘preventer’ of ‘freedom enjoyment’. how many poor but deserving graduates had been given job opportunities and opportunities for advancement by SyCip, among other things?
“If you want a more comprehensive history of the elite’s abuses (and to understand what kind of democracy we have), for a start, you can read Benedict Anderson’s “Cacique Democracy in the Philippinesâ€.”
no, thank you, i already know what kind of democracy we have. we have too much of it. a western-style democracy crammed into Asians.
and besides, i doubt the credibility of the findings of an outsider looking in, when it comes to Pinoy politics
“Emancipation is both economic and political. For example, Land Reform gives property rights to farmers. Political emancipation means eliminating guns, goons and gold from the electoral system so that the poor majority will finally be able to choose their leader(s) freely. This places them in charge and makes them an active part of the mainstream.”
true
“Of course, the elitists don’t like this because they don’t see the poor as equals and subscribe to a paternalistic approach”
not the ‘enabling elite’ of Butch Abad. and certainly for you, SyCip is one of the ‘elite
“i cited nbn/zte and the Sumilao farmers as an example of the elite’s abuse.
“Now you’re trying to change the question.”
no im not. im the one making the query. because you earlier claimed that the ‘elite’ abuses the majority, taking away their freedoms, and an example of these abuses are NBN/ZTE and the predicament of the Sumilao farmers. how then did the ‘elite’ abuse the Sumilao farmers and NBN/ZTE? what freedoms were taken away from ther sumilao farmers and NBN/ZTE? i was asking for specifics of your generalizations!
“As far as the issue of freedom is concerned, the above examples show that it is our political and economic elite that have too much freedom relative to the rest of the Filipinos. If there is anyone in our society whose freedom has to be restricted, it would be this pathological minority.”
same query – how do these ‘elite’ abuse the majority? since you define ‘abuse’ as curtailing freedoms, what freedoms were denied the majority by these ‘elite’?
“It was joint effort between the government, chaebols and the consuming public as follows:
1. the chaebols produced products that are good enough for export.
2. government provided incentives and penalties to guide the chaebols via reciprocal control mechanisms. Further explanation here:
3. the public provided a viable domestic market for the locally manufactured goods. See Spark’s explanation in her comments over here:”
no, the chaebols were the catalysts. it was the export market that put Korea on the economic map.
as for the bong austero link – thanks. but i don’t think he regretted forgiving gloria. he’s mad, but he didn’t make a 180-degree turn from his famous open letter. he just wanted the
anthony scalia on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:27 am
cvj,
“oh miriam did. she filed a case in the electoral tribunal but it became moot when she decided to run as senator, thereby implicitly conceding defeat.”
take note that she limited her remedy to the legal process. she never did anything close to what the opposition was doing after 2004.
“she had strong evidence that FVR cheated, legally acquired evidence, mind you, but not as sensational as the wiretapped conversation of GMA.”
oh really? not as sensational? so the cheating of FVR is different from the cheating of gloria? that there are levels of cheating? for all you know, Miriam kept the evidence to herself and to a limited few because at the hands of other people his protest might be put in jeopardy. just like what Alan Paguia did. thanks to him, the opposition lost a golden opportunity to leverage the Hello Garci tapes.
“methinks miriam’s unsucessful battle to prove FVR’s cheating in both the public and the legal system changed her into what she has become now. it makes me sad because i used to admire her.”
your opinion is noted. but no, she had already bouts with ‘brenda’ and ‘rita’ as early as law school.
“so yeah, allegations of illegitimacy are not new.”
to quote Joan Osborne – yeah, yeah, yeah yeah yeah.
“the only thing new are the wiretaps and the subsequent ringtones and disco music inspired by it”
you said it
could be
anthony scalia on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:31 am
cvj,
please disregard the last phrase ‘could be’ at the bottom of the post
Silen Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:58 am
cvj
am confused with your statement below, to wit:
“Inequality is measured by the Gini coefficient. Before it embarked on market reforms in 1978, China’s society was more equal as seen by their Gini coefficient of 21.20 (rural). (The comparable figure for the Philippines around that time period is at 45 – the higher score indicating greater inequality.)
Today, as a consequence of the uneven pace of growth within China, it is now more unequal than the Philippines. By this time however, the initial condition of greater equality already served China’s purpose.”
Are you saying then that it is more unequal to the Philippines, as in higher than 45? Then why would one agree to that scenario. If I read correctly somewhere here…you’re telling us kasi na having 900M na poor people is ok since 300M is now middle class and rich. Unlike before na only say 10M are rich and the rest are poor??? Parang di ako agree diyan ah. If you’re telling us that everybody SHOULD be more or less equal, then that means at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the population should be in the middle class…not what china has now. In fact, new oligarchs have srpung up to replace the old ones.
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:59 am
anthony scalia, i think you should address your post at 12:27 am to my tocayo Carl (not me).
Silen Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:18 am
Anthony Scalia
CVJ always has a pet peeve with the elite and the middle class kasi. For him, sila ang salot sa Pilipinas. So I guess lets make everybody poor na lang.
Actually, all these talk presupposes that everybody thinks in the same way, like robots. My argument has always been that people become rich, middle class or poor (broad categorizations by the way) because each individual will have different levels of personal contentment, abilities, willingness to work and aspirations. Ergo, different end results in terms of economic prosperity, di ba? Proven na nga yan with his China argument. Di talaga mawawala ang elites and middle class. And as I reminded CVJ, elites includes the intellectuals like him and MLQ3 (not me).
So it begs the question then, can you control how people think and work? Kasi, for me, his proposal stinks of idealism. Not everybody will be kind and generous. Not everybody will believe in society’s total good. SO do we jail them or shoot them down, as CVJ says, I spring cleaning natin? Do we confiscate their properties even if they worked hard for it kasi para mabigyan yung iba na walang ginawa kundi maging mendicant sa gobyerno and any other charitable institution?
They way CVJ thinks, parang kasalanan ng mga may pera kung bakit ganun ang Pilipinas. Sa akin, each individual makes their bed. If ythey want to get out of their rut, they have to do their share. CVJ will argue that they don’t have the tools. Well, what do you do, just sit down and cry? You learn what these tools are and use them!
Gusto ni CVJ kasi, free ride sa mga downtrodden kuno. Ang dami na nga nag free free ride sa ating mga poor OFWs. Their spouses and children don’t work and wait for their manna from heaven (am not saying all pero quite a few). Most OFWs I talk to say as much.
Suwerte lang ni CVJ and his fellow professionals. Their spouses may be more productive. Di siya nagkakaproblema. Pero for the majority, lahat umaasa sa biyaya ng OFW.
I challenged CVJ before, give away any property you have for redistribution. You really have to walk the talk.
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:19 am
I just re-checked the Gini figures from the World CIA Factbook 2007 and it says that the Gini coefficient of the Philippines is 46.6 while that of China is 44.0. Based on that figure, it seems that the Philippines is still more unequal than China although the latter is more unequal today than it was in 1978. That is a consequence of 30 years of rapid, but uneven economic growth where the coastal provinces grew faster than the interior.
As i was telling Anthony Scalia, it is the inequality at the start of market reforms that matters whether economic takeoff will take place or not.
For now, the growth momentum of China means that the trickle-down effect has kicked in such that millions continue to be lifted out of poverty and into the middle class. However, there is merit in your line of argument on the dangers of this rising inequality in China and this is what is being used by the real Communists (among others) to say that China might be due for another social explosion.
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:27 am
By labeling what i advocate as giving a ‘free ride’, you are assuming that the downtrodden does not work as hard as you. It is typical elitist mindset to blame the poor for their condition.
Silen Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:38 am
No, I am saying they should work their ass of more instead on relying on getting the goodies from the so called “elites”.
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:40 am
Let’s put it this way na lang…if you’re willing to give these people their land, are you willing to pay the people who have worked hard to acquire said land their just dues? Hindi di ba? I will give you na lang the fact that you can invoke eminent domain.
Pero from your explanation from prior comments, you’re telling me it’s going to be confiscation, right?
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:42 am
And think about it, since you want to give them these land for FREE, isn’t it just fair to call it a free ride??
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:45 am
This is exactly the crux of the problem CVJ, I for one believes that people should be responsible and disciplined to be productive citizens and prosperous.
For you, it’s not their fault they are not responsible and disciplined enough. It’s in their genes to be irresponsible and undisciplined. So we should help them by giving them the goodies.
ramrod on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 11:19 am
Hooters
The hooting was made by “hooters,” men with fake breasts or men trying to be women, in other words “pansies!” I can only categorize those who pretended to be have the nerve to criticize Trillanes and Lim as “yagballs-less”, “gutless”, “spineless” squeeling mice, not men. I doubt if they ever held, fired one, and get fired upon by a gun in their whole pathetic cowardly lives.
If you can run 150Kms a week, in combat boots, shirts, and shorts, carrying a rifle, in the cold Baguio weather, bench press more than your body weight, solve differential equation and thermodynamics problems, crawl 30 yards with live bullets zinging 6 inches over your heads – then you can even begin to wish you are “worthy” of cheap words (from cheap men/women). I believe thats all they’re good for – cheap words. Easy to say hiding behind the anonymity of a handle. If these people dare show their faces, give full contact details, and clearly state where they can be found everyday, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but what can you expect from mice? Bottomline, you know it, deep down in your belly (an empty space where a gut should have been) you’re not worthy, so better keep doing what you’re good at – eat, sleep, and pretend to be men…So enjoy, reading your own words and admiring them, its probably the only thing you can do…bunch of vermin!
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 11:27 am
ramrod
I for one never questioned their politics. I question the means they took. It’s like, it was a bunch of fireworks that did not even achieve anything, and in the process, they did something criminal. Yun ang problema. I think that’s the reason why people hooted.
I suppose the mindset Trililing and co. had was nurtured by the Baguio air..and that’s why he never could offer any other solution than to take over hotels and scare people away.
Di mo ba napansin? It was just another day in the life of the FIlipino? Wala na kasing effect yung ginawa niya? People are already tired. Everybody just wants to get on with their daily lives, unfortunately. Think about it, remember the boy who cried wolf…yun ang naging effect…sa kakaulit ulit …nagsawa ang tao.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protest any injustice and bad governance, it just means we should be more circumspect about it. Sa dami nang accusations, di na rin alam ng tao ano ang paniniwalaan and it became more of nagtitirahan lang sila.
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 11:31 am
welcome back ramrod! i was hoping the word hooters would lure you back.
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:58 pm
whoaaa! what’s with this macho ranting?
ramrod, smart and gutsy? what your comrades did is simply STUPID. they allowed themselves to be manipulated that’s why i call them STUPID, STUPID , STUPID.
and since you’re one of those MACHO disciples of trillanes just like cvj, you should have join them too. huwag puro salita like “we support you” ekek. “lead us sir and we’ll follow” – nagtatawag na ang leader nyo dapat nandoon kayo para maipakita nyo rin yang tapang at pagiging macho (pero walang utak) na ipanagyayabang mo.
you meant those corrupt PMA’ers? don’t you think it’s a small sacrifice to make?
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:39 pm
Thanks grd, first time someone called me that.
ptt on Sat, 8th Dec 2007 7:15 am
Wow Ramrod! you sure had them hooters scared! It’s a good thing you went easy on them, because if you told em what you had to go through to get your Ranger tab, or share with them some of the things you’ve done during your numerous combat tours, they would have been terrified. Next time, show these pansies your 1000 yard stare.
anthony scalia on Sun, 9th Dec 2007 8:53 pm
cvj,
oops. sorry for the gaffe
cvj on Mon, 10th Dec 2007 1:48 am
Anthony, no worries. BTW, on your question above:
…you can find the specifics (on the Sumilao Farmers) in Patricia Evangelista’s column (via Uniffors):
http://www.uniffors.com/?p=1232
anthony scalia on Mon, 10th Dec 2007 8:10 pm
cvj,
your view equates ‘elite’ with whoever is in government. it seems what sealed the fate of the farmers are the actions of the executive and the judicial branch. The executive (DAR) prevented the land concerned from being ‘CARPable’ the judiciary (SC) confirmed it.
i think our discussions on ‘elites’ were rooted on the notion that Washington SyCip is a part of the ‘elite.’ SyCip never held a government post, just an advisory position at best, never had the power to decide the fate of someone else.
RA 8371 provides a mechanism for the ‘titling’ of ancestral lands/domains. Im not sure if this law is being implemented.
Maybe RA 8371 could not be applied to the land of the Sumilaos because it has been titled in Quisumbings’s name then sold to San Miguel.
For the land to be given back to the Sumilaos it must be bought back from San Miguel by the government. However, the problem with that is, the land as it is now is no longer “CARPable’. San Miguel can legally challenge any attempt to force it to sell the land.
There are legal issues involved. DAR and gloria cannot just issue an order declaring the return of the land to the Sumilaos. Or at least stop the building of the hog farm. As owner San Miguel can do whatever it wants to the land.
Maybe someone should assert their rights under RA 8371. This is another legal issue – whats the effect of the absence of proof ancestral land ownership under RA 8371 on the award of the land to Quisumbing?
L1s@ on Fri, 14th Dec 2007 3:17 pm
all we need is an invasion