Emergency powers feared to lead to huge debt

by LLANESCA T. PANTI
REPORTER

http://www.manilatimes.net/emergency-powers-feared-lead-huge-debt/130799/

The P7-billion debt that the government accumulated in the 1990s after it intervened in power generation is fueling Congress’ resistance to granting President Benigno Aquino 3rd emergency powers.

Rep. Ben Evardone of Eastern Samar, a member of the Joint Congressional Power Commission, made the disclosure on Tuesday in connection with a move of the House of Representatives to inquire into the expected power shortfall in the summer of 2015 instead of granting outright the President such powers.

Evardone said ghosts of government contracts with Independent Power Producers (IPPs) during the Ramos administration that led to massive brownouts were too horrific as to be easily forgotten.

A review of the IPPs during the Arroyo administration revealed that only six of the 48 IPPs that entered into a contract with government complied with their obligations in generating power.

The rest of the IPPs were paid by the government in fixed rates but miserably failed to generate the expected power supply, resulting in the P7-billion debt for the state and skyrocketing power rates.

“The proposal right now is to lease additional power barges. Well, it is virtually the same as what happened with the IPPs. How can we be sure that there won’t be a repetition of what happened in the 1990s? That is the issue that Secretary Petilla needs to hurdle,” Evardone told The Manila Times, referring to Energy Secretary Jericho Petilla.

Petilla has said there will be seven to eight-hour daily rotating brownouts every week by summer if the government fails to secure additional 800 to 1,200 megawatts of power supply.

In securing additional power supply, the government has three options: implement a mandatory Interruptible Load Program or the ILP (a scheme wherein malls and big companies with large standby generation capacity will not get power supply from power plants and instead run their generators); lease power generating sets for P6 billion in two years; or purchase such sets for as much as P10 billion.

Petilla favors the leasing option because of greater government control and security of the available power supply that would be available, considering that making ILP participation mandatory can scare businesses.

Evardone, however, said Congress remains skeptical about such “government control” because of the IPP crisis, on top of the P6-billion lease.

Political ferment in Hong Kong

Public Lives

By Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
When the British government returned Hong Kong to China in July 1997—the “handover,” as it was then called—what was transferred was not just a piece of land, but the political administration of the people living there. Land is inert, but people are not. They have memory, identity, aspirations—and, hopefully, the will to act on the basis of these. It is important to keep this in mind in any attempt to understand what is happening in Hong Kong today.

When we speak of Hong Kong today, we refer to an area that includes not just Hong Kong Island, but also Kowloon Peninsula and the so-called New Territories, which are contiguous to the Chinese mainland. Britain acquired these lands in three separate treaties: Hong Kong in 1842, Kowloon in 1860, and the New Territories in 1898.

Britain claims that Hong Kong and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity. So, technically, only the New Territories which were acquired under a 99-year lease should have been returned in 1997. But, since it had become difficult to disaggregate the development of these areas—not to mention the fact that China had consistently protested the onerous nature of these treaties—it was thought more practical to treat them as one. This issue, of course, was at the center of the complex formal negotiation that would define the political status of Hong Kong after the handover.

The British tried to extend their presence in Hong Kong beyond 1997, but the Chinese refused to compromise. Not even the strong-willed Margaret Thatcher could change the mind of the pragmatic Deng Xiaoping on this issue. Deng maintained that, even as Britain administered Hong Kong, China never relinquished its sovereignty over the territory, stating that the Chinese government could seize Hong Kong anytime if it wanted to.

China equated sovereignty with ownership, giving a totally different meaning to this political concept. The British, of course, did not merely “administer” Hong Kong. They also made and enforced the laws that had become the basis of civic and political order in the colony. That is sovereignty. In the negotiations, Britain offered to relinquish sovereignty in exchange for a form of British administration after the handover. China insisted that sovereignty and administration could not be separated.

Throughout these off-and-on talks, China staunchly refused to recognize the Hong Kong people’s right to be heard, seeing in this no more than a British ploy to bring in a “three-legged stool” into the negotiations. China warned that it would not hesitate to unilaterally act on Hong Kong’s sovereignty if there was any delay in the implementation of the 1997 handover. Britain warned that the uncertainty over Hong Kong’s future could trigger an economic meltdown. The impasse in the negotiation ended when the two powers came together in December 1984 to sign a joint declaration clarifying the future of Hong Kong. The declaration called for the writing of a Basic Law to be drafted by a committee consisting of members to be drawn from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong.

The drafting went through a long consultative process, and was almost derailed by the Tiananmen protests that began on June 4, 1989. Some members of the drafting committee were removed after they expressed views sympathetic to the Tiananmen students. The violent suppression of the Tiananmen uprising further heightened uncertainty in Hong Kong, unleashing a wave of outmigration of people and capital that reached its peak in 1992. All in all, about a million people left Hong Kong before the handover.

Of the provisions in the Basic Law, the most contentious were those dealing with the political system of Hong Kong once it became a Special Autonomous Region (SAR) under China. It is these same issues that now appear to be at the center of the protest demonstrations that have rocked Hong Kong in the last four days.

All protest movements are dynamic: The more they grow and become inclusive, the more their demands become diffused. This is what happens when politics shades into ethics. That is what we hear today in Hong Kong in the ringing clamor for a “true democracy.” It is not pure coincidence that the protest is unfolding on the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen incident. It echoes the emancipatory themes of Tiananmen as well as, indeed, of the Arab Spring. It is fueled by the same pure energy of the young. It takes risks, is unafraid, and is carried forward by the momentum of its own inventiveness. And here one finds the source both of its strength and vulnerability.

Today’s protest movements are the modern bearers of Marx’s idea of popular self-determination. But, unlike the revolutionary movements of an earlier era, they do not have the advantage of operating under a ready-made identity like the proletariat. Rather, they must construct their political subjectivity from the many identities they integrate in the course of the struggle. This is an achievement, not a given. What is it for Hong Kong’s current movement? Is it the idea of a democratic Hong Kong that is not only autonomous but also free? If that is the case, then they must be prepared to withstand brutal suppression. The world will cheer them on, but in the end they will have to fight alone.

Where they have succeeded in toppling regimes, modern political movements have rarely been able to build the governments of their own choosing. More organized forces took over the fruit of their efforts. Gramsci was correct: “The decisive element in every situation is the permanently organized and long prepared force which can be put into the field when it is judged that a situation is favorable.”

* * *

public.lives@gmail.com


Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/78951/political-ferment-in-hong-kong#ixzz3EzeANmmf

On being marginalized

by Rod P. Kapunan

If only the Left and the so-called petty intellectual progressive writers and their brainless drones will ask why since 1986 they have been gradually marginalized to a point of extinction, the best thing they could do to avert that is to ask themselves whether their alliance with the elite and the oligarchy has helped advance their cause. 

Let us not talk on how they where shortchanged on many issues important to their cause, but on the issues of martial law and human rights violations. These two issues are crucial because it is on these issues why they managed to maintain their value, with the oligarchy providing them the mainstream media as their outlet to discredit and destroy the Marcoses not knowing that it is the same strategy that is rotting them to extinction. 

Jose Ma. Sison for all of his ideological prowess failed to notice that it is precisely that anti-Marcos line that has eroded much his credibility, a misguided propaganda that has kept afloat the elite-oligarchy conspiracy. If only the Left know how to use simple arithmetic, they will realize that in the social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, the overwhelming ordinary of the subscribers have become the defenders of the Marcoses. 

As the so-called progressive petty intellectuals continue to discredit and malign the Marcoses, the elite and the oligarchy enjoy it because it accords them the credibility to monopolize political power with the so-called Left playing the role of malnourished mad dogs. 

The Left just like the elite and the oligarchy continue to trivialize the Marcos land reform and food production program. But they cannot deny the fact that it was his land reform, and rice production program that allowed this country to become self-sufficient in rice that for the first time even allowed us to export our excess rice to Malaysia and Indonesia. The cost per kilo of rice then was only P7. Today the average per kilo is between P47 to P50. Our farmers were given the land they could till, but under the elitist and hypocritical Aquino government they were given bullets and on many occasions were slaughtered in Mendiola and at the gates of Aquino-owned Hacienda Luisita. 

They tried to discredit his efforts to industrialize this country like his creation of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the PNOC and Petron, the National Steel Corp., Philippine Phosphate Corp., the government-owned and control corporations like Meralco, PNB, Pal, MWSS, the Philippine Geothermal Plants, and the North and South Expressways, and many more. As the the Left continue to slander of the Marcos administration for the woes they suffered during martial law, the elite and the oligarchy repaid them by privatizing the government-owned public utilities. 

The price of gasoline during his time was P7 per liter, now it is P54, the price of LPG during his time was P56 per 11 kg. now it is P720, the price of water during his time was P5 per cubic meter, now it is P35 per cm, the average electric bill paid by ordinary households was only about P85, now they pay an average of more than P1,000. Toll fee then from Balintawak to Sta. Inez in Pampanga, was only P21, now it is P218 if one will go up to Carmen in Pangasinan, it will cost P486 for ordinary vehicles. 

For the twenty years that Marcos was in power, he spent a total of P478 billion, while this government of the elite and the oligarchy that was installed with the support of the Left has for this year alone spent P2.1. trillion, and the only accomplishment it could present is a mere drawing. 

They also accuse Imelda for her extravagance. But as they try to destroy her image and reputation forgetting that it as Imelda who built for our people the various hospitals such as the Heart Center, the National Kidney Institute, the Lung Center, the East Avenue Medical Center, the Children's Hospital, rehabilitated and improved the PGH, and many more and for which many of our people from the lower bracket of society including the disoriented progressive petty intellectuals now avail.

They dislike and even hate Imelda for her extravagance for building the Cultural Center of the Philippines, the PICC, the Nayong Pilipino, the Folk Arts Theater, etc. without them thinking that today these places is being used by the elite and the oligarchy and is off limit to our poor people to propagate their rubbish art and culture. 

Maybe if the Left could explain all these, I would have all the reasons to return to their fold. But how could I when all the woes suffered by those who were detained was of their own making. Mercenarism will not detract the truth that martial law was imposed because they bombed the meeting of the opposition in Plaza Miranda, that rendered partly blind, deaf and insane Jovito Salonga. Their infantile revolution was tantamount to challenging the Marcos government to a fight, shouting on top of their voices the cry for people's war.

When casualties began to take its toll and one by one the agitators were being arrested and detained, they began to cry foul claiming alleged human rights violation. They even want to project as our heroes those who violently fought against the government making it appear that our soldiers are bloodthirsty savages. 

Finally, they continue to demand compensation for their lost revolution again without analyzing that for as long as these “revolutionaries” turned mercenaries are not paid their misguided services, they will continue serve the interest of the elite and the oligarchy because their continued hatred against the Marcoses provides a good smokescreen for their continued plunder of the nation's resources, and serves to buoy their political credibility. 

Indeed, the prostitutes in the mainstream media are doing a good job to the elite and the oligarchy, but in so doing they shamelessly disguise themselves as progressives by harping on their usual anti-Marcos line. In fact, these so-called progressive writers in the mainstream media or trolls of Joma are the ones serving as the biggest stumbling block to our people's liberation from the yoke of poverty. Most shameful, the unwitting collaboration of the Left with the elite and the oligarchy, with the hypocritical Church, they now stand as the new berdugo in ruthlessly suppressing the dream of our people to attain progress and prosperity.
If only the hypocritical elite and the oligarchy surpassed what Ferdinand and Imelda have achieved, maybe the Marcoses would have long been forgotten.

Alas, they have not accomplished anything. On the contrary, they continue to bury our people deeper into poverty and destitution. It is in comparing the present with the past that keeps alive the memory and spirit of Marcos in the hearts and minds of our people.

Should ‘Occupy Central’ teach us what to do?

by FRANCISCO S. TATAD

Back from his 12-day five-nation European and American jaunt, President B. S. Aquino 3rd told his home audience that his trip had earned the country $2.3 billion in foreign direct investments, and given the world a new image of the Philippines. The FDI claim may or may not be true—you can believe it when you see it—but it is one way of saying the P39 million he got for his junket was well spent. As for this “new image” thing, we have heard worse claims before, but we’ve been told there are things you can’t buy with money.

Not knowing what the image was before, and what it is supposed to be now, I will let that pass. What I know though is that Aquino’s visit was hardly noticed in the places he visited. His Belgian and German hosts did not make him forget that there were court cases in Europe arising from his government’s failure to honor certain perfected contracts. He said he would abide by whatever the court says on those cases. He could not have said anything else.

More significant though is that he did not sign a single significant agreement with any of the countries he visited. Not Spain, not France, not Belgium, not Germany, and not the United States. On each stop, Aquino tried to meet as many overseas Filipinos as possible, so Philippine embassy, consular and labor officials had to nearly bodily carry some of them just to provide him with an audience. However, the result must have been disappointing, for at the end of the day the government decided to abolish the 2015 budget for the registration of overseas voters.

Aquino was picketed and heckled in and out of the University of Columbia, in New York, where he said nothing of substance. At the UN, where he was supposed to give a big speech at the summit on climate change, he repeated the same platitudes which speakers who had nothing to say on the subject had said a thousand times before. And the photo report that appeared in one crony newspaper showed him speaking to a scattered audience of 32 individuals inside one small room.

This was embarrassingly smaller than the crowd that listened to Tacloban City Mayor Alfred Romualdez in another room. And certainly more embarrassingly much smaller than the audience that listened to a nonentity like myself when I last spoke at the UN Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium with the papal biographer George Weigel on one death anniversary of St. John Paul II.

On his first UN visit at the beginning of his term, Aquino made news by having a hotdog lunch at the sidewalk outside UN headquarters. This time he failed to book the same sidewalk for lunch in Manhattan, so he had, I suppose, to dine indoors. But he tried to make up for it in San Francisco by stopping at a local McDonald’s for lunch, with his motorcade and its “wangwang,” stopping traffic in the process. This was what probably produced the “new image” in his mind about the Philippines.

Some people had hoped (rather wishfully, I thought) that he would give the nation some kind of break by going away for 12 days. He didn’t. Although physically absent, his “political mischief,” as the New York Times put it, gave us no rest. In his absence, the House of Representatives rushed floor action on his pork-laden P2.6 trillion budget, in contemptuous disregard of the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the pork barrel system and directed the government’s “prosecutorial organs” to prosecute all those involved in the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund and the much larger Disbursement Acceleration Program, which the Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

In his absence, the alleged corruption and unexplained wealth of his former bodyguard and foremost shooting partner PNP Director General Alan Purisima burst like a boil and the pus threatened to spread all over the entire organization. At the same time, one of his closest political lieutenants, DOTC Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, was ordered investigated by the Ombudsman in connection with a questionable maintenance contract of the Metro Rail Transit Line 3, which has been breaking down.

Aquino’s first act upon his return was to deny Purisima’s allegedly “luxurious lifestyle” and shield him from mounting public demand for his resignation. The PNP chief, whose declared net worth does not amount to very much, is said to own at least one huge villa in San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija and an extensive poultry farm in Cabanatuan, which is listed under the name of his son, who is no more than a nurse. There is also supposed to be an undetermined huge pile of cash. For his part, Abaya has offered to go on leave while under investigation, but Aquino ordered him to stay put. Two typical illustrations of Aquino’s “daang matuwid” (straight path).

In his absence, the long recurring power blackouts continued, even as his demand for emergency powers to address the electric power crisis provoked intense opposition from the public. To his credit, we did not hear him say that the extensive power outages were a sign of progress, just as he told his meeting with some Filipino expats that the unrelieved traffic gridlock in Manila was. Or were we just not listening attentively when he said it?

And while his proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law, which seeks to create a new political entity for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, continued to hang fire, the Abu Sayyaf Group struck again by kidnapping two German nationals, whom they threatened to behead by October 10 if no ransom was received for their release. At the same time—and this is the more troubling development—the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which is spreading death and destruction in the Middle East and beyond, was reported to have started recruiting members of the Abu Syyaf, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and the MILF into its ranks. The recruitment appeared to be gaining ground in at least one university and several other schools in the South. And Aquino’s knee-jerk response is to think of joining the US-led coalition against the ISIS, while trying to fast-track the BBL!

In Cebu today, the National Transformation Council will convene a citizens’ assembly, led by delegates from the Visayas and Mindanao, to review its position on Aquino. This will be the second such assembly since the Council’s founding in Cebu City three years ago. The first was held in Lipa City, Batangas on August 27, 2014, under the leadership of Archbishop Ramon Arguelles, Archbishop of Lipa, and with a number of Catholic bishops, Protestant pastors, and Muslim imams participating.

The Lipa Declaration, issued at the end of that Assembly, condemned the Aquino regime for the “unbridled and unpunished corruption and widespread misuse of political and economic power in all layers of society,” and called upon Aquino to relinquish his position now. “Far from preserving and defending the Constitution, as he swore to do when he assumed office, Aquino has subverted and violated it by corrupting the Congress, intimidating the judiciary, taking over the treasury, manipulating the automated voting system, and perverting the constitutional impeachment process,” the Declaration said.

It declared that by bribing the members of Congress to impeach and remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona and railroad the widely opposed Reproductive Health Law, Aquino damaged the moral fabric of Philippine society, lost the moral right to lead the nation, and became a danger to the Philippine democratic and republican state and to the peace, freedom, security and moral and spiritual well-being of the Philippine people.

Since the Lipa assembly, many have asked the Council, how will it compel Aquino to vacate the presidency without resorting to “people power” or the use of arms? Does the Council expect or hope to remove Aquino solely by the power of its moral declarations and the prayer of its spiritual and moral leaders? While they do not hesitate to talk of radical and revolutionary change, they are ever careful to specify that only non-violent means are to be used. But as old as the idea of revolution is the question, “can you ever make an omelet without breaking the eggs?” Or is the only other option to eat boiled eggs?

People expect these questions to be answered in Cebu. The event could be overshadowed in the media by the stories about ISIS and the “Occupy Central” protesters who want to bring democracy to Hong Kong. I will be speaking at the Assembly, and I will have to ask the delegates whether, after showing the world twice how to change government without any violence or blood-letting, we now need the “Occupy Central” protesters to teach us what to do.

fstatad@gmail.com

http://www.manilatimes.net/occupy-central-teach-us/130839/

America at war

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

War that will end all wars

“America at war” headlines a newspaper. That’s an understatement; America has been at war since the “War that will end all wars” or World War I as we know it. Indeed, the world has been at war since then. Yes, World War II followed and then the Cold War… followed by the Korean War… followed by the Vietnam War… ad infinitum.

In 1991, the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed and America became the only superpower on the face of the Earth. Thus began Pax Americana.

But peace was shattered when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. With America coming to the rescue, Saddam Hussein’s aggression was repelled.

World Trade Center bombings

A decade later, terrorists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The U.S. went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Planet Earth has never been at peace again.

Barack Obama won the U.S. presidency in 2009 with a vow to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He achieved ending the Iraq War on December 15, 2011. In Afghanistan, American troops and NATO forces are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014. But the Arab Spring – a series of popular uprisings — brought the U.S. back to war when she and her NATO allies conducted air strikes in Libya in support of the anti-Khadafy rebels. Khadafy was killed but peace eluded Libya.

Drone wars

On September 11, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans were killed including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The attack prompted Obama to order drone strikes against militants in Libya.

The unprecedented use of unmanned drones has revolutionized the way wars are fought. Today, military operations involve the use of air and naval forces with the use of missiles against enemy targets. Many military experts, however, are of the opinion that air and naval warfare without “boots on the ground” is not enough to defeat the enemy. With several “secret” bases in the Middle East, Africa, and the Indian Ocean region, the U.S. started bombing terrorists in five countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia using unmanned drones.

On June 10, 2014, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) jihadists – who have been fighting the Syrian government — crossed the border into Iraq and captured the city of Mosul. A few weeks later, Obama ordered air strikes against ISIS.

On September 22, Obama, with congressional authorization, expanded the war into Syria by sending waves of fighter jets, B-1 bombers, cruise missiles, and drones to hit ISIS camps. With new fronts in Iraq and Syria, the number of countries the U.S. is at war increased to seven.

US vs. Russia

But there is another country – Ukraine — that the U.S. is at war, albeit a proxy war. Ukraine is fighting a de facto war against Russia who has sent troops and heavy armaments to the Donbas region in Ukraine to reinforce the pro-Russian separatists. But in reality the U.S. and her NATO allies are the ones who are at war with Russia. Ukraine is merely the battleground, which makes one wonder: Would it escalate into a shooting war between Russia and the U.S.? Not likely… for now.

The reason why the proxy war in Ukraine would not explode into a war between Russia and the U.S. is that Russia is not prepared to go to war against the U.S. She knows that the U.S. has a “Prompt Global Strike” strategy that she couldn’t match.

A “Ground Report” article titled “Nuclear war between Russia and the US could have apocalyptic consequences,” said: “The Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept was adopted in the USA in the beginning of the 2000s. Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour, in a similar manner to a nuclear ICBM.”

Unless Russia can knock the U.S. out in a first-strike attack, the U.S. could retaliate — using her fleet of 14 nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) — with a devastating second-strike counter-attack. To neutralize the U.S.’s second-strike capability, Russia must destroy all of the U.S.’s SSBNs, which is virtually impossible to accomplish. On the other hand, a U.S. first-strike attack against Russia would be of such magnitude that it would render Russia incapable of a second strike against the U.S.

USS Sam Rayburn (SSBN 635) missile hatches

Nuclear backbone

The backbone of the U.S.’s nuclear capability is the SSBNs — known as “boomers” — that are silently prowling the high seas with their deadly Trident missiles. They are called “boomers” because when a Trident is launched, it makes a booming sound. Each of the 14 boomers carries 12 ballistic missiles and each missile is equipped with 8-14 nuclear warheads. That’s more than 2,300 nuclear warheads that can be simultaneously launched against Russia. That accounts for about 50% of the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal. The other 50% is land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) that could reach any target around the world… including China.

Although the U.S. considers China an “adversary,” the two countries are not yet at war. However, tensions are running high between China and several of U.S.’s treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific region. A report published in Want China Times said: “China has yet to build a three-pronged nuclear capability that could challenge the United States, consisting of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Second Artillery Corps is also unable to compete against the US in the number of nuclear warheads it has, the report said, adding that China would likely lose a full scale nuclear war in less than an hour.”

But while China is not militarily at par with the U.S. today, a report byHuffington Post said:“The good news is China does not want war now and in the foreseeable future, primarily because Beijing knows too well that the odds are not on its side. But if we look ahead 20 years from now, in 2034, the circumstances will have shifted significantly.”

While both Russia and China may be incapable of waging a nuclear war with the U.S. today, it could be a different scenario in 20 years; that is, if the U.S. couldn’t keep up with Russia and China’s upgrade of their military capabilities. But from the array of futuristic warfare the U.S. is developing today, she would – for goodness’ sake — still be ahead of Russia and China 20 years from now. Pax Americana would still be going strong.

Meanwhile, America is at war in eight fronts!

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

The nation needs trust accounting

by YEN MAKABENTA

Before the ship of state drowns in all the trust and confidence being heaped by President BS Aquino on his non-performing and erring Cabinet members and agency chiefs, the country, for its own survival, should conduct a trust accounting on Aquino and his Administration, on Congress and on the Supreme Court.

This is imperative because nothing less than the moral authority of the government has been compromised by the lengthy catalogue of failures and shortcomings in governing that this second Aquino Administration has wantonly inflicted on the nation.

Except for the lonesome figure of the NFA chief, no member of the Administration is willing to resign as a sacrifice to save the tottering government. No scandal and no public shaming can persuade the top and favored members of the government to take the honorable way out by resigning their office.

Instead they hide behind ploys and platitudes to cling to office, that (1) “they serve at the pleasure of the president”; (2) the president rejected their resignation (Abad); (3) “the President only has to text him for him to resign” (Abaya). They all shamelessly hang on to high office.

Trust in Aquino now in deficit
A trust accounting – examining how the people really look on how the Aquino Administration is serving or not serving their interest – and conducted by honest and serious public opinion polling, will show how much the people really approve or disapprove of what the president and his Administration are doing, and of what in turn Congress and the Supreme Court are doing.

This used to be a cakewalk for the Administration because SWS and Pulse Asia, like most of mainstream media, were conscripted by the government for the “permanent campaign” that the Palace embarked on when BS Aquino acceded to the presidency. The pollsters dutifully came up with surveys that purported to show Aquino as enjoying stratospheric approval ratings.

But now, after four years at the helm, and with the failures and shortcomings of the administration in bold relief, the approval ratings have reversed.

The trend now is clear: there is a growing trust deficit shadowing the presidency. When Aquino asked citizens to wear his yellow ribbon to manifest their support for him, nobody bothered to wear it. When the president was told about it, it is said that he threw a tantrum.

Because of the way they have been dominated and abused by Aquino, the Senate and the House occupy the two lowest ranks in every rating of the institutions and agencies of government.

Only Supreme Court up in public esteem
Only the Supreme Court appears to have a high approval rating these days. And this is chiefly because the Sereno court has asserted its power of judicial review, declaring some acts of Congress as unconstitutional, and certain acts of the President, like the DAP, as illegal and unconstitutional.

By its steadfastness, the high court has been the saving grace of our democracy today. As the President has ventured into the dark world of autocracy, as Congress has merely watched in greedy approval, the Supreme Court has been the tribune of the people.

In his book, Trust: The Social Virtue and the Creation of Prosperity, political scientist and best-selling author Francis Fukuyama provides his thematic follow-up to his The End of History and the Last Man.

In Trust, he writes of the emerging global economic order, about the social principles of economic life, and what nations need to know to win the new struggle for world dominance.

Fukuyama contends that this is an era when social capital may be as important as physical capital. Only those societies with a high degree of social trust will be able to create the flexible, large-scale business organizations that are needed to compete in the new global economy.

It is in this light – of building social capital – that we Filipinos must be roused to outrage by the disrepute that our public officials have brought to public office and public institutions.

Building mistrust and cynicism
While the public was weighing the varied and loud calls for the resignation and forced leave of Philippine National Police (PNP) Director-General Alan Purisima and Department of Transportation and telecommunications DOTC) Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, Presidential Communications Secretary Sonny Coloma issued one of his patented statements, which makes no bones about speaking as though he were the great PNoy himself.

Of Abaya, he said: “to my knowledge, the President’s trust and confidence in him is intact.”

Intact? Even though Abaya, together with other DOTC officials, is facing investigation and complaints for the mismanagement of the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) System and the anomalous contract for its maintenance.

Of Purisima, Coloma said that the president has vouched for the character of Purisima, even as he awaits the PNP chief’s explanations of the corruption, unexplained wealth allegations hurled against him.

Vouched for? Even though Purisima has amassed many properties and built a mansion at Camp Crame from bribes and illegal donations.

Throwing Abad under the bus
The only redeeming aspect of Coloma’s weekend statement was the fact that he omitted a defense of Budget Secretary Butch Abad, who is hands-down the most reviled member of the Administration, next only to the President himself.

Instead of issuing another blanket defense of Abad and the DAP, Coloma put him aside.

This led some to conclude that perhaps Aquino has decided to throw Abad under the bus.

If Aquino has indeed decided to throw Abad under the bus, he may yet turn the remaining months of his presidency into a positive leave taking. He could arrest the precipitous decline of the Aquino brand.

And when the time comes for the nation to elect a new leader in May 2016, Aquino may yet become a player instead of just an onlooker.

http://www.manilatimes.net/nation-needs-trust-accounting/130584/

The end doesn’t justify the means

HIDDEN AGENDA By Mary Ann LL. Reyes (The Philippine Star) 

There is something terribly wrong with the way Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Henares does her job. Her combative stance in raising revenues from business has earned the ire of the business sector already reeling from the harassment of ‘vultures’ within her turf.

It’s no secret that business has long been the victim of unscrupulous BIR collectors who force taxpayers just to ‘come across’ instead of paying the right amount of taxes. One horror story that comes to mind is the complaint of one businessman that of the P2.5 million in taxes his company paid, only P500, 000 is officially receipted. There are many more similar stories of this type and if only Henares had done an honest to goodness house cleaning as soon as she was sworn into office, the BIR would have met its target since day one of this present dispensation.

Henares trusts these ‘vultures’ even more than the business sector from which the country gets the wherewithal to keep the economy running. She humiliated the medical profession by profiling doctors as tax cheats and more recently locked horns with the securities and banking industry over its revenue regulation requiring them to divulge the alphabetical list (alphalist) of their clients. Such regulation has the effect of forcing companies and the banking sector to divulge stock payments, dividends and other personal information about investors and their trading accounts.

The industry was forced to present its case before the Supreme Court arguing that complying with the BIR regulation could open it up to lawsuits from their clients for breaching the Data Privacy Act. The SC promptly stopped the BIR, Finance Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission from enforcing such regulation.

Did it stop Henares from her recalcitrant posture? Despite her setback at the hands of the judiciary, it didn’t take that long for her to issue another revenue regulation which will now compel financial institutions to identify which of their clients they are withholding taxes from.

The new scheme has done away with the practice of BIR accepting at face value the declaration of financial institutions (like stockbrokers and banks) that the investment income of clients has already been subjected to final withholding tax unless the company can identify specifically who paid what.

Business ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Before, financial institutions levied withholding taxes on clients’ investment income and remitted these to the BIR in lump sum form – specifically for investments lodged under the generically named “nominee accounts” of the Philippine Central Depository.

As I see it, Henares is attempting to shift the nature of the fight from one between the BIR and the financial institutions to one between the financial institution and their clients, a very wicked maneuvering.

Now, Henares has practically placed the BIR on a warpath against these institutions instead of being its partners in progress. She is hoping that these institutions will face a probable revolt from clients whose investment incomes may end up being taxed twice. It’s plain and simple blackmail, if you will. With this new regulation, Henares hopes that financial institutions will be coerced to finally give the ‘alphalist’ of their clients.

This move has a chilling effect on general business. Financial institutions are being pressured to reveal the identities of their clients at the risk of lawsuits for violating the data privacy act. The result will be total chaos in the business sector which could erode investors’ confidence and cause capital flight. Is this what Henares has been after?

To be affected are small equities investors and bank depositors. Henares cannot hope to catch a big fish here. Big companies are of course presumed to be following to the letter the disclosure ethics, ever cognizant of their corporate responsibilities.

Also, it is believed that disclosing the identities of investors and depositors can be used as a tool by the government to spy on its citizens. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the revenue regulation is prompted by ‘good faith’ (here goes that phrase again), no one can tell whether the next BIR chief would be goaded by the same ‘good faith’ spirit.

Not so hidden agenda

IABC AWARDEE: MVP Group of Companies media bureau head and Philex Mining senior vice president for corporate communications Atty. Mike Toledo has recently been named this year’s Communication Excellence in Organization (CEO Excel) awardee by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Philippines.

Mike honed his skills as a lawyer during his stint with the ACCRA Law Offices. He in an alumnus of the London School of Economics and the UP College of Law. Before joining the MVP Group, he was president and CEO of Weber Shandwick Worldwide, was senior vice-president of the Fil-Estate Group of Companies, and served as presidential spokesperson. And by the way, he has a great singing voice.

CLIO AWARDS: Our friend Gil Chua just relayed the good news that ad agency par excellence DDB DM9 won the first Grand Clio award for the Philippines.

The 55th annual Clio Awards recently announced its 2014 Grand Clio Award winners with the Direct Grand Clio in Direct going to DDB DM9JaymeSyfu Manila for their Smart Communications “TXTBKS” campaign. The Grand Clio Award is the jury’s highest honors and is awarded to exceptional projects that push the boundaries of creativity in a given medium.

“This year’s Clio Awards introduced a new level of innovation and competition for the industry,” says Clio Executive Vice President Nicole Purcell. “With winners coming from all over the world, creating memorable work for major brands, we are happy to honor them and look forward to the ceremony.”  The ceremony takes place on Oct. 1 at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.

For comments, e-mail at philstarhiddenagenda@yahoo.com