Let us give ourselves a chance

By REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

‘Surely, there must be an awful lot of deserving non-trapos among the 32 senatorial candidates who do not belong to political dynasties to fill up the 12 posts.’

PALACE: No stand on dynasty bill

Naturally! The present occupant belongs to a political dynasty himself. He cannot say he is for an anti-dynasty law after having his nephew included in the administration’s senatorial slate. Neither can he say he is against it, for that would not sit well with his bosses, the people.

Without a doubt, an endorsement by President Noynoy Aquino will be a big boost to the passing of an enabling law that would implement the constitutional provision against political dynasties that lawmakers have been ignoring for the last 25 years. But will he do it? Not likely. For one, an anti-dynasty bill will prevent his sister, Kris, from running for public office when she decides to quit the entertainment business.

***

A couple of petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court – one, to mandate the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to implement the constitutional provision and two, for Congress to pass the enabling legislation.

The Comelec chairman said the Commission cannot implement the constitutional provision without an enabling law. On the other hand, assuming the tribunal agrees to ask Congress to enact the enabling law, realistically it cannot be done in time for the 2013 elections.

So what can we, the people, do in the meantime to manifest our abhorrence of political dynasties?

According to the Comelec, there will most likely be 32 candidates for 12 Senate seats next year. Let us demand that the Commission make public the names of those candidates, together with their biodata, in its website and other information outlets, particularly the mass media. The latter, along with the Comelec, must try to make the playing field even for all the aspirants.

Surely, there must be an awful lot of deserving candidates who do not belong to political dynasties to fill up the 12 posts. Let us give them a chance… let us give ourselves a chance… by voting for them.

As to the election of congressmen and other local officials, the media can also play a crucial role in “educating” the people of the disadvantages to them of having only a few families ruling the country.

***

The heads of state/government of the Asean countries and those of China, Japan and South Korea will have their annual summit meetings in Phnom Penh, Cambodia next month.

The question uppermost in the mind of many is how Cambodia will behave as Asean chairman this time. Will she repeat what she did last July that resulted in no joint communiqué being issued by the Asean foreign ministers? Cambodia refused to include in the communique any mention of the West Philippine Sea dispute which sadly left the reputation of the Association as an effective organization in tatters.

My fearful (as opposed to fearless, because I fear it will happen again) forecast is that Cambodia will behave in the same manner as last time. I cannot imagine her changing her stance.

As I wrote last September 11:

“Reuters reported that for what Cambodia did in Phnom Penh last month, China immediately gave her over $500 million grants and loans, plus $25 million as a “gift” to use as she pleases. (That is more than the $21 million additional US aid to us next year that Del Rosario had been harping about.)

“China also gave “positive” consideration to Cambodia’s proposal for the former to provide $300 to $500 million new loans per year for the next five years, repeat, five years, for yet unspecified projects.

“On top of all that, a Chinese company planned to invest $2 billion to build a steel plant in Cambodia that would employ about 10,000 people. The plant will produce 3 million tons of steel a year.

“Reuters further said that last year, China invested in Cambodia $1.9 billion, more than double the combined investment by Asean countries and 10 times more than that of the US.

“Now, if you were in Cambodia’s shoes, would you change stance? Put another way, can Asean or the US match or surpass China’s ‘generosity’?”

I do not foresee China’s present leadership or the one that’s supposed to come in next month reneging on the promises made to Cambodia.

Then again, my crystal ball could be wrong.

***

I have been hearing all kinds of horror stories about protocolar lapses in Malacañang. I think it’s about time Noynoy had a closer look at the Palace’s protocol office. More serious embarrassments to the government may come about if he didn’t.

The Palace’s chief protocol officer has been the object of criticism not only among insiders but also DFA professionals who have been assigned to his office. It is further alleged that if they could help it, DFA officials would no longer want to be assigned there.

***

I noticed that Noynoy is very fond of using the phrase “point in time”. If memory serves, the phrase gained currency during the (US) presidency of John F. Kennedy.

I personally would not use it because I find it redundant. I would either say “at this/that point” or “at this/that time”.

But, as they say… different strokes for different folks.

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s action):

1) Filing of charges against of­ficials of the National Food Administration (NFA) during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documen­tary evidence to prove the venali­ties in the past in that agency.

Noynoy once again referred to this anomaly in his remarks in Sydney, Australia last week. Yet, he hasn’t done anything about it two and a half years into his presidency. His appointee as NFA administrator has already resigned to run for Congress.

2) Investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia.

3) Facilitating the investigation of rampant cor­ruption in the military and police establishments.

4) Expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos.

***

Today is the 177th day of the sixth year of Jonas Burgos’ disap­pearance.

What is keeping Noynoy from signing the newly enacted law against enforced disappearances?

***

From an internet friend:

She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

“Pardon me, sir, I’m Rebecca Smith from CNN. What’s your name?”

“Morris Fishbein,” he replied.

“Sir, how long have you been coming to the Wailing Wall and praying?”

“For about 60 years.”

“60 years! That’s amazing! What do you pray for?”

“I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims. I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop. I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.”

“And how do you feel after doing this for 60 years?”

“Like I’m talking to a freaking brick wall!” he replied.

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com

Duterte scares Aquino

It’s easy to see that President Noynoy Aquino considers himself a macho man, with his well-known fondness for fast cars, firearms and serial dating. But in his choice of enemies, he seems less self-assured, preferring to safely insult women in wheelchairs and former jurists who can do him no harm to tangling with real-life bruisers like Davao City Vice Mayor Rodrigo Duterte.

It’s no longer news to recount how Aquino has been once again on the warpath against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former Chief Justice Renato Corona. While Aquino was abroad last week, he solicited cheap laughs by telling jokes about how Arroyo is trying to escape prosecution on a wheelchair and how Corona and Arroyo will soon be reunited in jail.

In Davao City, meanwhile, Duterte was making news on his own, putting up bounties of up to P5 million in cash for anyone who can arrest, kill and decapitate a local car thief. In true Duterte fashion, the vice mayor (and former longtime mayor) promised to pay the maximum amount to anyone who can present him with the head —iced, so it doesn’t smell—of the supposed criminal.

The entire national bureaucracy, from Aquino on down, had no response to that. Aquino and his officials, from Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas (who also fancies himself to be a tough guy, the foul-mouthed version), to her supposedly fearless justice secretary, to the entire armed forces and the national police, to the various Malacañang spokesmen, just pretended that Duterte never said anything.

No one from the national government has demanded that Duterte stop acting like he can just put up money to have someone killed, never mind if he is a notorious car thief. No one in the administration threatened to sanction the Davao vice mayor, who is known for his anti-crime policies and for supposedly harboring armed vigilante groups.

Perhaps Aquino and all his officials are scared that Duterte might declare that Davao City is now a separate legal territory, without the intervention of Marvic Leonen and the Malaysian government. Or perhaps they are afraid that Duterte’s equally tough daughter, current Davao Mayor “Inday Sara” Duterte, will fly to Manila and personally punch anyone who dares speak ill of her father.

Whatever the reason, Aquino and his administration lost a lot of credibility among the country’s local officials when they didn’t so much as make a statement against Duterte. The message that Aquino and his suddenly scared officials is sending is that the national government can’t touch you, if you’re perceived to be tough enough to push back.

It’s possible that, with an election coming up, Aquino is just afraid of riling a local political family that remains loved by the locals in a major city. But Aquino seems to have forgotten that the national government exists in part because it should rein in local officials like Duterte, when they threaten to undermine law and order.

It’s also possible that Aquino is just plain scared of a real toughie like Duterte, who doesn’t need the national government to tell him how to run his city. And that, despite his tough talk and threatening actions, Aquino is really a bully who will cower in fear when he meets the real deal.

If Aquino is really as tough as he lets on, he would tell Duterte what’s what and send troops to occupy Davao. Heck, he could go to Davao himself to straighten out the vice mayor, if he’s really unafraid of a mere local warlord.

But the tough-guy image that Aquino is trying so hard to cultivate never suited him, really. Real toughness, as Rod Duterte probably knows, is made of sterner stuff than anything the cosseted only son of rich and powerful parents is made of.

Meanwhile, some people may be forgiven if they begin to suspect that Davao has relocated to another country. And that, deep inside, their President lives in deathly fear that his macho play-acting (as well as his incompetence in dealing with problems like the one posed by Duterte) will be exposed.

* * *

So much for clear decisions from the Supreme Court needing no further explanation. For a while there, it looked like the tribunal just reversed itself, after receiving frantic calls from Malacañang Palace.

It’s hard to believe Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno when she says that she will “return the Supreme Court to its days of dignified silence when justices were heard and read through their writings, and when actions of the court were best seen in their collective resolutions” when the tribunal doesn’t even know who is covered by its rulings. That was the situation yesterday, when confusion was caused by a high court restraining order covering—it was later learned—only one of the co-accused of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the sweepstakes plunder case.

After an announcement was made by a high court spokesman to the effect that Arroyo was included in the order stopping the trial by the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court, several justices themselves sought a clarification on the matter. The court later said that only one former official of the Commission on Audit and no one else was covered by the directive.

Dignified silence is certainly a lot better than this.

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/30/duterte-scares-aquino/

China snubs South-East Asia push for South China Sea deal

Asean meeting stoic resistance from China over a multilateral code of conduct for the South China Sea

By Paul Carsten
Wall Street Journal

A file photo of the Royal Thai Naval aircraft carrier HTMS Chakrinaruebet sailing in the South China Sea. Photo: Reuters

Pattaya: China is stonewalling attempts to start talks on a multilateral “code of conduct” governing the strategically located South China Sea and an agreement could still be years away, South-East Asian officials said on Monday.

Beijing’s assertion of sovereignty over the vast stretch of the water has set it directly against Vietnam and the Philippines, while Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia also lay claim to other parts of the region, making it Asia’s biggest potential military troublespot.

Speaking on the sidelines of a regional meeting in the Thai resort of Pattaya, Vietnamese deputy foreign minister Pham Quang Vinh said there was no end in sight to the maritime dispute involving one of the world’s main shipping routes and an area potentially rich in oil and gas.

“Asean thinks it is time to start talks to achieve a code of conduct as soon as possible,” said Pham, referring to the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc, but added the grouping is meeting stoic resistance from China.
China has resisted proposals for a multilateral code of conduct for the South China Sea, preferring to try to negotiate disputes with each of the far less powerful individual claimants.

Sihasak Phuangketkeow, a Thai foreign ministry official, told reporters at the Asean-China meeting in Pattaya it might take another two years to agree a formal code of conduct.

Carl Thayer of Australia’s University of New South Wales said China was unlikely to make any decision on the code of conduct until its once-a-decade leadership change is fully complete next year.

“I suspect because of changes in personnel likely to occur, nobody in China is willing to commit themselves to something of this magnitude. There can be no compromise at the moment, coming from China. Leaders would be seen to be weak,” said Thayer.

China has stepped up activity in the region, including establishing a military garrison on one of the disputed islands, and accused Washington of seeking to stir up trouble far from home.

The stakes have risen in the area as the US military shifts its attention and resources back to Asia, emboldening its long-time ally the Philippines and former foe Vietnam to take a tougher stance against Beijing.

Unprecedented arguments over the sea prevented an Asean summit in July from issuing a joint communique, the first time this had happened in the bloc’s 45-year history. AFP

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/zKXzhbOzcTkk3Rsj9aCshL/China-snubs-SouthEast-Asia-push-for-South-China-Sea-deal.html

Light at the end of the tunnel

BY REY O. ARCILLA

MALAYA

‘Congress just passed a bill that is “principally directed against state agencies that would outlaw acts that result in enforced disappearances.’

The pressure must have been truly irresistible. Was it from the Makati Business Club? Manuel V. Pangilinan? Washington? Or all three?

Why did it take President Noynoy Aquino so long to boost the sagging morale of his amboy of a foreign secretary, Albert del Rosario, after the double whammy of a slap he dished out to him via the Trillanes and Roxas missions to China? Why did he take his time to assuage the wounded pride and dignity of Del Rosario who, in reaction to Trillanes’ Noynoy-authorized back channeling with China, indirectly criticized his boss when he said: “We will not dignify those who are working to divide us. There must be one policy and one team in promoting our national interest in the West Philippine Sea.”

Of course, Del Rosario could have simply decided from the start to submit his irrevocable resignation and waited for Noynoy to reject it. But he didn’t want to for reasons known only to him. Obsession with keeping his job? Lack of delicadeza? Amor propio? Traits that are, well, inherent in the average Filipino.

And why did Noynoy have to single out Del Rosario as the only one who will not be affected by a supposed cabinet revamp in the offing if he was never in danger of losing his job in the first place?

Incidentally, being “hardworking” is worlds apart from being “effective.” It was obvious Del Rosario was ineffective in dealing with the Chinese on the Panatag Shoal dispute. Let’s face it – that is precisely why Noynoy had to resort to back channeling through Trillanes. And as if to ratify Del Rosario’s inability to deal with the Chinese effectively, Noynoy had to send DILG Secretary Mar Roxas to Nanning to do what Del Rosario should have been doing.

***

Noynoy concedes that our relations with China became better after Trillanes’ back channeling and Roxas’ meeting with Vice President Xi Jinping and Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying.

Now, if only he would keep Del Rosario away from the Chinese… And, for that matter, from the Americans…

***

Speaking of the US, the visits of her nuclear-powered warships to the country have become too frequent for comfort. Another aircraft carrier, accompanied by two destroyers, is scheduled to dock at Manila Bay via the Panatag Shoal vicinity. Does it have to pass that way to get here?

Aside from the constitutional prohibition against the presence in the country’s territory of nuclear weapons, the visits could poison the atmosphere of improving relations with China which were adversely affected in part by our unwarranted over-dependence on the US protective umbrella. Remember how Del Rosario had been crying Uncle (Sam) every time the Panatag Shoal dispute hogged the headlines?

To begin with, why do these US warships have to come to the Philippines when they could very well dock in Singapore, Thailand or Indonesia, countries that have no conflict with China over the West Philippine Sea?

And what, I ask again, are we getting from the US for the privilege of using our ports and other facilities in their “pivot” to our region?

Also, please don’t give us the bullshit about such privileges being covered under the unconstitutional Visiting Forces Agreement. Enough of that!

Which brings to mind the categorical statement once made by Del Rosario that the Agreement was under review. Well, is it? If not, then his statement was nothing more than a barefaced lie.

***

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying made a courtesy call on Noynoy. That she was received by the President no less was already a grand gesture by itself.

The added gesture of having three cabinet ministers – Ochoa, Roxas and Lacierda – present during the call was not at all necessary.

We do tend to go overboard when according courtesies to foreign government officials which, in truth, diminish their respect for us. Even Del Rosario’s presence at the courtesy call was not necessary. Fu should have been accompanied only by her counterpart, Undersecretary Erlinda Basilio.

During Del Rosario’s previous trips to Beijing or Washington, was he ever accorded such courtesies? Was he able to make a courtesy call on President Hu Jintao or President Barack Obama? I’m sure he would have liked to call on them but due to protocular considerations, his chances of being granted an audience by them would have been like those of a snowball in hell.

Are the heads of state of these countries busier than ours? I think, if Noynoy had his druthers, he would attend to other urgent matters instead of receiving foreign officials of sub-ministerial rank like Fu… unless he too is not aware of the protocol involved in these matters or gets no proper advice from his underlings.

Oh well, kaya tayo hindi iginagalang ng mga dayuhan. Wala tayong muwang sa angkop na pakikitungo sa kanila.

***

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the execrable, obscene, detestable, abhorrent and abominable dynastism that has gripped this land.

I would like to applaud a certain Mr. Louie Biraogo for having filed a petition before the Supreme Court to order the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to implement Article II Section 26 of the Constitution that prohibits political dynasties in polls.

“The list of candidates for national and local government posts in the coming May 2013 midterm elections is the best testament to the mockery this constitutional provision has been subjected to in the hands of political dynasties,” Biraogo argued in his petition.

“It is time to put an end to the continuing insult visited upon the Filipino people by the inexcusable and adamant refusal of Congress to enact legislation for the full enjoyment by the people of a guaranteed state policy,” he added.

Through this space, I would encourage my readers to add their voice and support for Biraogo’s petition. They could also go one step further by urging their children, relatives and friends to do the same through the ballot. My fellow teachers and I have been exhorting our students to do their part as well come election time. They are the ones who will inherit the mess we are leaving behind.

Of course, as his boss, we could demand of Noynoy to add his voice to the crusade. But then, he is a Cojuangco-Aquino…

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s action):

1) Filing of charges against of­ficials of the National Food Administration (NFA) during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documen­tary evidence to prove the venali­ties in the past in that agency; 2) Investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia; 3) Facilitating the investigation of rampant cor­ruption in the military and police establishments; and 4) Expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos.

***

Today is the 170th day of the sixth year of Jonas Burgos’ disap­pearance.

There now appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel for Jonas and his relatives, as well as other victims and the families of enforced disappearance. Congress just passed a bill that is “principally directed against state agencies that would outlaw acts that result in disappearances and allow the prosecution of perpetrators even though their victims remain missing and impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.”

Salient provisions of the bill include: no prescription for the crime unless the victim has surfaced; recognizes command responsibility, which means a superior officer would also be culpable for the actions of his subordinates; subordinates, on the other hand, could defy unlawful orders if they were ordered to commit enforced disappearance; all proceedings pertaining to the issuance of writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data shall be dispensed with expeditiously and all courts and other concerned agencies of the government shall give priority to such proceedings.

I assume the bill will be signed forthwith by Noynoy, to be consistent with his campaign promise two and a half years ago. Let’s watch what happens…

***

From an internet friend:

Ever since I was a child, I’ve always had a fear of someone under my bed at night. So I went to a shrink and told him… “I’ve got problems. Every time I go to bed I think there’s somebody under it. I’m scared. I think I’m going crazy.”

“Just put yourself in my hands for one year,” said the shrink. “Come talk to me three times a week and we should be able to get rid of those fears.”

“How much do you charge?” I asked.

“Eighty dollars per visit,” replied the expert.

“I’ll sleep on it,” I said.

Six months later, he met me on the street…”Why didn’t you ever come to see me about those fears you were having?” he asked.

“Well, eighty bucks a visit three times a week for a year is an awful lot of money! A bartender cured me for $10. I was so happy to have saved all that money that I went and bought me a new pickup!”

“Is that so?” With a bit of an attitude he said… “And how, may I ask, did a bartender cure you?”

“He told me to cut the legs off the bed! Ain’t nobody under there now!”

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com

How did the Blue Vultures evolve?

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR 
By William M. Esposo
The Philippine Star

“We stand on a hill between the earth and sky. Now all is still where Loyola’s colors fly. Our course is run and the setting sun ends Ateneo’s day. Eyes are dry at the last goodbye; this is the Ateneo way.

Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you!

Down from the hill, down to the world go I; rememb’ring still, how the bright Blue Eagles fly. Through joys and tears, through the laughing years, we sing our battle song: Win or lose, it’s the school we choose; this is the place where we belong!

Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you!”

These are the lyrics of A Song For Mary, the Ateneo de Manila University alma mater song that’s sung during commencement exercises and after Ateneo games at the UAAP. Mary is none other than Mother Mary, patroness of the Ateneans. The so-called Hail Mary shot in basketball — a shot deemed unlikely to score a basket — was an expression of the Atenean’s deep faith in their patroness.

Per the Ateneo website, “Up to the time that the Ateneo de Manila had moved to Loyola Heights, the school anthem was “Hail Ateneo, Hail,” a song of triumph, of marching on to victory with loyalty. However, the move from Padre Faura to Loyola Heights seems to have evoked change. The new campus stood for something new, something nobler.

Fr. James Reuter, S.J. wrote a song that seemed to embody the “newness” that permeated the new Ateneo. It, perhaps, better suited what the school is all about.”

The Ateneo website added: “Its music is adapted from Calixa Lavalée’s music to the hymn “O Canada”, composed in 1880, which is why many people believe that the Ateneo copied the music of Canada’s national anthem. However, it is interesting to note that Canada only adopted “O Canada” as its own national anthem in 1980. The Ateneo de Manila adopted “A Song for Mary” as its alma mater song three decades earlier.
“A Song for Mary” speaks more clearly and more ardently from the Atenean’s heart. Life is not merely about competition or about assailing enemies “in strong array.” The struggle is, as in chivalry, for one’s Lady. And the Ateneo’s own Lady is no less than Mary, the Mother of God, and our own mother. The aim is not merely victory, but steadfast faith and commitment – to keep “constantly true,” whether we win or lose.

The song also speaks of a purpose higher than to “win our laurels bright,” a greater challenge than being able to “do or die.”

The song declares that we go “down from the hill, down to the world,” to live, to give, and to serve.

That is the Ateneo way.”

Just click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p-tkU6gGWA to enjoy the A Song for Mary alma mater hymn.

When Ateneo won its 5th consecutive UAAP Seniors Basketball championship last October 11, the alma mater hymn was humming in my mind. Any Atenean who was in the venue of victory would have sung that with the team — with a flood of emotions in their Blue Eagle hearts. It was no different for an Atenean outside the venue and watching the victory live on television.

More than the 5-peat feat, the feeling of the Jesuit inculcated value of FLY HIGH was appreciated. At the Ateneo, we were hammered to be humble in the context of the Augustinian concept of humility — of being no less than you are. The Augustinian concept of humility says: “You are not told: be something less than you are, but: know what you are.” The Jesuits drove home to Blue Eagle hearts and minds to aspire to be the best that they can be — but be men for others.

To the Atenean who spent many a year at the Loyola campus, the HILL is both a fact of topography and vantage point for Ignatian vision. The HILL is where the Ateneo is honed to be a productive member of society, ever loyal to God, Jesus and Mother Mary. Ateneans are molded to attain a position of leadership where the Atenean can be more things to more people. The Jesuits are not shy in stating that Ateneans are trained to lead and be a man for others.

If we scan the Philippine who’s who landscape, we’ll see many Blue Eagles who have attained their full potential. A good many of them have been true to their Ignatian pledge and have been a man for others. You’ll find them pour their money, heart, time and efforts in such worthy endeavors as GK (Gawad Kalinga), which is dedicated to nation building through community development.

We Ateneans share the shame of how some of our Blue Eagle colleagues have transformed into Blue Vultures. The Blue Vultures are seen in the political dynasties that choke the development of the country. The Blue Vultures have been involved in the plunder of the people’s money. The Maxim “Be no less than you are” became steal as much as you can.

In fairness to our Jesuit educators, the Blue Vultures didn’t develop from campus inputs but from deficient values that were hammered to their young minds at home. The Jesuits did warn us that they tend to produce some of the best as well as some of the worst. Among the Blue Eagle generations of Baby Boomers, and Gen Xers — there are Blue Vultures.

Indeed, it’s hard to fathom how an Atenean who underwent Ignatian indoctrination for 12 years (kindergarten, 7 grade school years and 4 high school years) could transform into Blue Vultures. What happened to the lessons learned from the life of St. Thomas More and all those other role models? Some Blue Eagles feel that the Blue Vulture character might have been genetic and too strong for Jesuit education to reverse.

If only the Blue Eagles practice ostracism in sending the known Blue Vultures the message that they have defiled their Ignatian values, we might see some positive developments. Instead of sending that message through ostracism, a lot of them allow known Blue Vultures to join alumni social events.

Many were incensed during the October 13 bonfire at the Loyola campus to see the presence of a big Blue Vulture joining the celebration. Of course, they’ll join these festivities because there has been no attempt to impress on them that there’s a wide scale disapproval of their misdeeds by Ateneo colleagues.

* * *

Shakespeare: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

Chair Wrecker e-mail and website: macesposo@yahoo.com and www.chairwrecker.com

What is wrong with political dynasties?

By NICOLE CURATO  
GMA NEWS

Illustration by Analyn Perez

Recent surveys for the 2013 senatorial elections paint a familiar picture: many top-ranked candidates are either re-electionists or relatives of incumbent or former politicians. This, once again, prompts a discussion on political dynasties, whether this is an issue that should concern voters in the upcoming elections or something that can be accepted as part of our representative democracy.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with political dynasties. In practice, however, its prevalence exemplifies the exclusionary power structure in the Philippines, where local elites continue to exert considerable influence in our country.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has said in an interview that dynasties have existed since politics was invented. Dynastic politics is not unique to the Philippines, he added, citing the example of the Kennedys and Roosevelts in the United States. Following the footsteps of one’s parents or relatives is not in itself unacceptable so why should politics be any different?

Part of the answer lies in the historic character of electoral politics in the Philippines. Dante Simbulan’s pioneering study described the Philippines as an elite democracy where elections have been institutionalized to manage intra-elite competition. Elections have formalized the process of political succession through a periodic democratic exercise which can be easily manipulated for selfish ends. Elite rule is legitimized through this process by giving the illusion that the public has the power to choose its leaders, even though the pool of electable candidates is generally limited to a set of individuals with familiar surnames.

Based on this analysis, one can make an argument that political dynasties are mere post-colonial legacies. To this extent, Enrile is correct – that dynasties have existed since the beginning of Philippine politics. They are social realities that can be traced to the emergence of a cacique class from the Spanish colonial era and, in several cases, the creation of new elites under the Marcos regime. These de facto nobilities are able to stay in power by addressing the needs of their constituents through the strategic distribution of patronage masking as “public service” and the maintenance of compadre ties. To put it crudely, dynastic politicians are not entirely to blame, given that they too are products of the principalía’s evolution into the modern day elite.

To accept this as part of our contemporary reality, however, is to be oblivious of political dynasties’ abuse of our weak democratic structures. One of the main promises of representative democracy is its commitment to future redistribution of material wealth and political power that were accumulated through historic injustices. What’s wrong with political dynasties is that instead of working towards the creation of equitable political structures, they have further strengthened the barriers to political inclusion of traditionally disenfranchised citizens such as peasants, workers, indigenous and other minority groups. In his research, Pablo Querubin has found a causal effect between winning elections and having relatives in office. In particular, “individuals who win their first race by a small margin” are “four times more likely to have relatives in office in the future” compared to “individuals who run but lose by a narrow margin and never serve.” These findings are revealing in that they expose how relatives of previous incumbents exclusively benefit from the political investments of their predecessors which, in turn, consolidates disproportionate political power in a few families.

This is particularly troubling because in the Philippines, political power is closely linked to economic power. It is unlike other countries that have a distinct political class of civil servants and technocrats that are relatively autonomous from oligarchic interests and, in the case of South Korea, can discipline economic elites. Instead, as John Sidel argues, politicians in the Philippines have “monopolistic control over both coercive and economic resources within given territorial jurisdictions or bailiwicks.” Consequently, concentration of political power among a few families benefits a narrow set of economic interests over a period of time, institutionalizes economic inequalities and perpetuates a culture of dependency between an economically/politically dominant patron and an otherwise disenfranchised client. It is not accidental that provinces with established political dynasties are also among the poorest.

The trend of political dynasties has also served to limit the liberating potential of democratic politics. It undermines the principle of political equality in its most basic form through the principle of one person, one vote. While this right is often qualified by saying that voters usually end up choosing between tweedledum and tweedledee, virtually unopposed political dynasties do not even make room for tweedledee. The seeming inheritability of political positions is reminiscent of an oppressive absolutist state, where citizens are mere subjects that have no choice but to affirm the dictates of a ruling family rather than active citizens that are able to shape their political destiny.

By making this argument, I do not mean to discredit dynastic politicians who, through their actions, have expressed commitment to reform Philippine politics. Congressman Erin Tañada has been at the forefront of institutionalizing transparency through the Freedom of Information Bill. Senator Pia Cayetano has strengthened the system of rights through the Magna Carta for Women and the RH bill. Senator TG Guingona has been the champion of participatory modes of governance in budget reform. It is indisputable that some dynastic politicians have a good track record of advocating progressive policies but these individual achievements have done little in dismantling the structures that perpetuate political exclusion in a representative democracy. It is only when a person who has worked up the ranks in a political organization can stand an equal chance of being elected with a candidate with a political last name can we consider dynasties as fair practices in a democratic process.

So where do we go from here? A viable option is to strengthen alternative political spaces for the public to organize and secure meaningful inclusion in the political process. Electoral politics has become so crowded with dynastic politicians, requiring mechanisms for citizen participation that are relatively independent of electoral politics. Political scientists describe this as “democracy from below” or the practice of democracy through people’s organizations, non-government organizations, social movements, new political parties and social networks that oppose elite politics and espouse new politics.

Indeed, Philippine politics has been historically driven by bottom-up struggles for social justice and accountability. Grassroots political activities have ousted presidents, raised wages, and guarded ballot boxes. Hopefully, these democratic impulses eventually translate to systemic reform where the citizenry can effectively enforce democratic control over its politico-economic elites. That way, to paraphrase candidate Bam Aquino’s hubristic statement, Aquinos don’t have to become President every time there’s a political crisis. – GMA News

Nicole Curato, PhD is Assistant Professor in Sociology at University of the Philippines Diliman. She was previously a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University and is the current Associate Editor of Manila Review.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276345/opinion/what-is-wrong-with-political-dynasties

Construction tensions in the South China Sea

By Richard Javad Heydarian

Asia Times

MANILA – In a move that promises to raise regional tensions, China recently stepped up construction work in contested territories in the South China Sea. In late September, Beijing announced plans to accelerate the building of Sansha city, a newly formed administrative unit on Yongxing Island, also known as Woody Island, in the disputed Paracels archipelago.

The city will oversee Beijing’s administration of the Paracel Islands, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal, and other assorted reefs, sandbanks and some 200 small uninhabited islets and their surrounding waters in the contested Spratly Islands. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), meanwhile, has announced without supplying details plans to build a military garrison at Sansha, a move that threatens greater militarization of the South China Sea’s crucial trade lanes.

China’s US$3-million construction plan includes seven road projects with a total length of 5 kilometers, an inter-island transportation network with docking facilities, and a desalination unit with a 1,000-cubic-meter capacity to ensure fresh-water supplies for the city’s estimated 3,500 permanent inhabitants.

Sansha city was upgraded to prefecture level on July 24 amid a naval standoff with the Philippines over control of the adjacent Scarborough Shoal. China’s announced building plans have agitated the Philippines, which currently controls Pag-asa Island, one of the biggest in the area, as well as Vietnam, which lays claim to the Paracels. Both countries lodged official complaints about Sansha’s upgraded status in July.

Piqued by China’s rising assertiveness, improved fortifications and gradual administrative consolidation over contested features in the Spratly Islands, Manila has responded in both diplomatic and operational terms. In June, before Sansha’s upgrade, Manila summoned a senior Chinese diplomat to protest formally against growing construction activities in areas Philippine officials have consistently argued fall within their country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The complaint came soon after Philippine military officials spotted a number of Chinese vessels in the area, ranging from a salvage and research ship to cargo boats unloading construction materials and building posts on Iroquois Bank in the vicinity of the Spratly Islands, or just 125 nautical miles off the coast of the Philippines’ southern island of Palawan.

Manila has also raised its voice against China’s expressed plans to plant a “mega oil rig” in the area, raising the possibility of China oil depots and installations near Philippine shores. China is also reportedly planning to build an airstrip at Subi Reef, just next to Philippine-controlled Pag-asa Island. The 3.7-kilometer-wide contested reef already houses two living quarters for Chinese troops, two four-story buildings and a large radar dome.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines have responded with mixed messages. Late last month, the Philippines reportedly deployed 800 marines to Palawan, an island close to contested areas in the South China Sea. However, Lieutenant-General Juancho Sabban, head of the AFP’s Western Command, denied the reports on October 1, saying there was an “apparent miscommunication” by military officials. He said the recent deployment of fewer than 100 personnel to Palawan was “defensive”, while other commanders said the move was part of routine plans to improve basic maritime patrols.

“These two battalions which arrived recently will be augmenting protection of our islands. We are just on a defensive posture and are ensuring the defense of our islands. It is better to defend than retake islands once other claimants occupy them,” Sabban said, making veiled reference to Mischief Reef, which China seized from the Philippines by force in 1995. To bolster coordination and command over deployed forces, the Philippines opened a new Marine Brigade headquarters in nearby Palawan.

At the same time, the Philippines recently said it might fire on Chinese surveillance drones that enter territory it claims in the South China Sea. Yang Yujun, an official with China’s Defense Ministry, affirmed plans to use unmanned drones to monitor activity in disputed areas of the South China Sea, including the Scarborough Shoal, the Spratly Islands, and their adjacent waters. Yang asserted China’s “indisputable sovereignty” over those areas in announcing its use of drones.

For almost two decades, the Philippines has watched anxiously as China has fortified its claims in the South China Sea. In 1995, just three years after the closure of US bases in the Philippines, China seized control of Mischief Reef from Philippine forces. Soon thereafter, China built structures resembling military installations on the reef, though Beijing claimed at the time they were shelters for fishermen.

Two-pronged approach
Since that armed confrontation, China had taken a more sophisticated approach to consolidating its claims, combining the carrot of multilateral and regional diplomacy with the stick of increasingly aggressive bilateral showdowns with smaller claimant states. Paramilitary vessels and fishing boats implicitly backed by conventional military forces, military fortifications built up by elements of the PLA Navy, and quasi-civilian administrative projects have all bid to crowd out other claimant states, especially Vietnam and the Philippines.

In 2002, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the Declaration of the Code of Parties in the South China Sea, which calls broadly for peaceful and diplomatic resolution of territorial disputes. The non-binding agreement explicitly prohibits the construction of military fortifications in the region, a provision China has consistently violated, Philippine and Vietnamese officials have argued.

The Philippines is perhaps the only country that has failed to make any significant improvement of its structures in the nine islands and reefs it directly controls in the Spratly Islands. Malaysia, another claimant state, has built spas and diving resorts on the Layang-Layang Reef it controls. China and Vietnam have built fortifications, watchtowers, lighthouses, airstrips and even buildings powered by solar panels in their respective areas of control.

Most Philippine structures in the area date back to the 1960s and ’70s and are poorly maintained and withering, diminishing the operational capacity as well as the morale of Philippine forces stationed in the area. Philippine officials cite their commitment to the 2002 conduct agreement as a reason for their lagging investment in maintaining and improving its structures in the Spratly Islands. Commentators have pointed toward a lack of strategic foresight as the AFP has focused more on internal threats caused by various insurgencies across the country.

China’s construction will also fortify its claims at the international level. According to some legal experts, assuming its territorial claims are eventually submitted for international arbitration by bodies such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), exercising “effective and continuous sovereignty/control over occupied features” is a more critical factor than “historical claims”. So far, China has rejected international arbitration on the grounds that its claims over the area are “inherent” and “indisputable”.

China’s interpretation of the key legal regime concerning maritime disputes, namely the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), takes a divergent interpretation of Article 121 on “regime of islands”. Southeast Asian claimants such as the Philippines look at the majority of features in the South China Sea as “uninhabitable” and therefore only able to lay claim to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters. By installing relatively large-scale structures capable of housing humans, China seems determined to turn these features into habitable islands.

The implication is significant for the Philippines and other claimant states. Through a more liberal interpretation of the UNCLOS’ Article 121 China can feasibly claim 200-mile EEZs from each of its occupied islands, allowing it to lay legal claim to oil-and-gas-rich areas as far south as Indonesia’s Natuna Islands as well as the Philippines-claimed Reed Bank.

Strategic analysts say China’s buildup could also serve as a foundation for fortifications that enable large-scale future military deployments. China’s Defense Ministry announced in July that Sansha city would be the operational center of a new military garrison in the South China Sea, though details of the plan have been scarce. Operationally, such a garrison would allow China to push its claims further into Philippine-claimed EEZs.

The Philippines has responded to these perceived threats by strengthening strategic ties with the US and calling for outside intervention, including from the UN, moves that have likely undermined Manila’s simultaneous diplomatic efforts to constrain China’s rapid buildup in the contested territories. On October 8, the Philippines began 10 days of joint military maneuvers with some 2,600 US troops and naval vessels, including so-called amphibious landing exercises.

Meanwhile, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario called on the UN on October 2 to intervene in the conflict, calling on it to fulfill its mission of “protecting the weak from the strong”. At the same time, ASEAN members circulated a new draft of the South China Sea code of conduct during a sideline meeting between ASEAN ministers at the UN General Assembly meeting this month.

Meanwhile, anxieties over China’s intentions are building among Philippine military planners. “Every time we take periodic pictures of all the islands in the Spratlys, we notice some changes, we observe changes in structures,” Sabban said, referring to recent Chinese construction at Sansha.

Richard Javad Heydarian is a foreign affairs analyst based in Manila. He can be reached at jrheydarian@gmail.com.

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NJ26Ad02.html