Category: china

For whom the bells toll

Amelia HC Ylagan

… When Amb. Kim made his speech for the turnover of the bells, he made no apologies, no explanations for the confiscation of the bells by the US. He simply said, “In World War II and in Korea, our soldiers fought, bled, died, and sacrificed side by side. Together they made possible the peace and prosperity we enjoy today… Our relationship has withstood the tests of history and flourishes today. And every day our relationship is further strengthened by our unbreakable alliance, robust economic partnership, and deep people-to-people ties” (usembassy.gov, Dec 11, 2018).

Somehow, Amb. Kim’s careful diplomatic allusions to “our relationship” cannot but call back Pres. Duterte’s oft-repeated open disdain for the US (specially for past US President Barack Obama and for immediate-past Ambassador Philip Goldberg). Duterte’s rejection has progressively been made more painful to the US, juxtaposed to his open and gushy declaration of love for Chinese President Xi Jinping and all things Chinese. In the current heightened US-China global trade and political war, the suddenly rushed return of the Balangiga bells might plaintively ring: but we two — the Philippines and the US — we are friends, are we not?

… And insistently, triumphantly, the bells will toll again at Balangiga. But for whom, and for what will the bells toll?

The once-silenced Balangiga bells must peal and boom even more urgently now than in the chilling wars of betrayal and treachery for dominance and power in the early 1900s. The jubilation for national pride redeemed by the return of the symbolic bells is confused by the sickening feeling in the pit that the horned specter of dominance and greed still hovers, in the appearance of the Filipino’s own skin and mien. For colonization and dominance, and its treachery and betrayals can also be by our own leaders.

So many issues in our country that overwhelm us at yearend: is there really democracy guided by the rule of law, in the insuppressible and persistent “rumors” of extrajudicial killings and transgressions of human rights, protested and called down locally and by foreign observers?

Have we not observed and experienced first-hand how the constitution and the laws have been turned upside down in shockingly unorthodox little-known legal trickeries like the quo warranto to remove a Chief Justice; and the revocation of amnesty granted to one particular ex-putschist senator and present critic of the administration? Why are other politicians accused of plunder and other high crimes pardoned? What about the fate of another senator languishing in jail for alleged drug involvement? And are we not chilled by the continuous extension of martial law in Mindanao, justified by an Armed Forces who should have been doing its job as it is supposed to be competently doing?

Are we not aghast and terrified at the blatant dishonesty and corruption that are dismissed lightly for “friends” of those in power versus the persecution by evidently trumped-up charges for the vulnerable non-friends or those “unfriended” for lost utility? And we are overwhelmed in anxiety for a 2019 budget not yet approved, discovering in painful bits and pieces the self-serving “insertions” and allocations of “savings” in hidden pork barrel that was already deemed unconstitutional in the previous administration. Players in the controlling “team” seem to be fighting each other in sibling rivalry for opportunistic control of the resources of government — nay, the resources of the people.

But the unkindest cut of all by the “new colonizers” that we may call those who want to perpetuate themselves in economic and political power, is rushing the charter change for federalism to be transfused into our life veins. We will not be a free people anymore if the Hadean concepts are installed and institutionalized of unlimited terms for government positions, allowed political dynasties forever, and the divide-and-rule over federal regions controlled by a president practically for life, with a convenient vice-president of the president’s own party and personal subservience — among other self-serving and opportunistic insurances of control and impunity by those already in power.

The Balangiga bells must toll for freedom and democracy in the Philippines.

Ideas that divide the nation

Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio

Speech to the graduates of the National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines, on June 22, 2018

Our nation today is facing radical proposals to change its historic identity, its grant of regional autonomy, and its foreign policy. Because these proposals are radical and divisive, they require the deepest examination from all sectors of our society – from lawyers, public administrators, historians, political experts, businessmen, scientists, farmers, NGOs, and all other sectors in our society. I call these proposals “Ideas that Divide the Nation.

We should be wary of new concepts imported from foreign shores and alien to our history as a people, which could divide the nation and even lead to the dismemberment of the Philippine state. Let me point out a few examples of these divisive ideas that have been introduced into our national discourse.

Read on…

Worth dying for

Jose Ma. Montelibano

… Our Presidents want to defend our sovereignty, but they also want to save our lives. They are in a quandary but they will always be unless we, the people, show them a way out of their dilemma. China is a given, and so are its more than a billion people, its land area, it economic and military resources, its level of technology. Before, and China itself was proud of saying this before, China did not invade other nations while it itself was invaded several times. Today, the perspective of the leadership of China is vastly different. Today it has a Nine Dash Line, its own idea of what in the world belongs to it. And it is willing to flex its military muscle to get it.

Maybe it is time to count if there are Filipinos who are afraid of dying but may still choose death over a shameful life. There may be only a few, that that would make our President avoid a war at all costs. But there may be enough, a million or so, who would freely choose the possibility of death rather than endless submission to an invader whose limits of aggression we still cannot measure.

I had proposed to some friends of my generation the idea that those 60 years old and above can volunteer to be the first to offer our lives. Then, a second wave can be comprised of those who are 50 to 59 years old – and so on. If the future is about our children and grandchildren, then we of the older generations may choose to die for them.

When millions of people are slaughtered, the rest of the world will react. History has repeatedly affirmed this. If we want the rest of the world, including many among the Chinese people, to react against the aggression of the Chinese leadership against Filipinos, we must give them basis to do so. The power of the rest of the world, plus a brave Filipino people, will be greater than China’s. But first, we must conquer our fear of death.

All mine to give: property rights

Amelia HC Ylagan

Last week, Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio reiterated with even more indignant passion that the Philippine government should not give up rights in the West Philippine Sea as defined by the July 2016 ruling of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration invalidating China’s “historical” claims over resources in its so-called “nine-dash line” that encroached on the Philippine waters (GMA News May 25, 2018). He warned that non-action by the Philippine government against China’s activities in the West Philippine Sea could be seen as the country giving up its rights. “Inaction is a waiver.” he said (Ibid.).

President Rodrigo Duterte, in pursuing friendlier relations with Beijing, has temporarily set aside the ruling to avoid confrontation with the Asian power (Ibid.). “Duterte earlier stressed the need to “remain meek and humble” to receive the “mercy” of the likes of Chinese President Xi Jinping. He also said Xi vowed to protect him from any plan to remove him from office,” Rappler said. (rappler.com May 25, 2018). Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano announced that “it is no longer the Philippines’ strategy to always file diplomatic protests against China, as the DFA did under (his predecessor) Albert Del Rosario” (Ibid.).

No diplomatic protest when Chinese bombers recently landed on the South China Sea’s Paracel Islands (claimed by Vietnam) even when nearly all of the Philippines “falls within the radius of the bombers,” said the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (Ibid.). What’s new? China has constructed more than 1,600 structures in the disputed South China Sea, and nearly half (800 of these) are in waters belonging to the Philippines (Reuters May 24, 2018).

Subi, Mischief (within Philippine EEZ) and Fiery Cross reefs all have Chinese military infrastructure built between 2014 to 2017 — including emplacements for missiles, 3-km runways, extensive storage facilities, and a range of installations that can track satellites, foreign military activity and communications. The facilities each hold a regiment — between 1,500 to 2,400 troops, the wire agency reported (Ibid.).

“Stop calling it the ‘disputed’ West Philippine Sea,” Justice Carpio insists — the “dispute” has been settled (Rappler, March 5, 2018). “It’s like you have a land, you own it, somebody builds a house there and claims that he owns it also. So you go to court and finally the court says you own the land. Unfortunately the guy who built the house doesn’t want to leave. So the question of ownership is finished; it’s terminated already. You own it, because the court said you own it. It’s now a question of compliance — how to get him out of that lot. That is the situation in the West Philippine Sea,” Justice Carpio said (Ibid.).

But perhaps Justice Carpio is steeped too much in the rule of law to consider that a strong-man leader can be so sure, in his fashion, that his country is his to give away.

In early March President Duterte said joint exploration with China may be likened to co-ownership of the “disputed area.”

Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, echoed Justice Carpio’s opinion, saying that “In so far as territory is concerned, in so far as the exclusive economic zone and our natural resources are concerned, the constitution mandates that the benefits of our marine resources, our marine wealth up to the exclusive economic zone is reserved exclusively for Filipinos…The state cannot just share them, cannot admit any kind of co-ownership arrangement or anything similar to that for these resources” (ABS-CBN News March 2, 2018).

Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay said Duterte’s statement may be considered an impeachable offense.

“A clear example of culpable violation of the Constitution [and] betrayal of public trust. The West Phil[ippine] Sea is exclusively ours. He’s giving it away,” Hilbay said (Ibid.). Hilbay and Justice Carpio were part of the delegation that brought China before an international tribunal to assert the Philippine’s claims in the West Philippine Sea (Ibid.).

And just as reports of Chinese long-range H-6K bombers landing for the first time and conducting exercises on Woody Island rattled his people but did not shake him, President Duterte’s strong persona weighed on a similar but “simple” case of how he protects property rights in his country.

Upon orders of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 7 dated Sept. 16, 2010, the 300 families who illegally lived on a lot on Legaspi St. corner Real St. in Intramuros were given final notice to self-demolish, and the private property returned to owner LG Mathieson Development. Enter Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, former (ousted) President, populist “bad boy” leader closely aligned with Duterte: “Don’t worry, even if the court threatened me with contempt by its owner, I will not let your shanties demolished until we find a suitable resettlement for you,” Estrada said to the squatters (Manila Standard May 24, 2018). The mayor cited President Duterte’s instruction to all concerned government agencies: “No relocation, no demolition” (Ibid.).

Mayor Estrada said the Intramuros Administration has a budget of more than P410 million for the resettlement program of informal settlers living inside the historical site (Ibid.). Then why aren’t they moving on the generously promised relocation? Because there is no place to send the informal settlers to! Estrada said reclaiming 148 hectares from Manila Bay will surely expand Manila’s present land area of 42.88 square kilometers, where virtually every square inch is already occupied, mostly by informal settlers.

But is not the reclamation of Manila Bay earmarked for humongous recreation/gaming centers — one is four times the size of the Makati central business district, according to columnist Vic Agustin.

Chinese investors have reportedly met with President Duterte for operating these, and even the dredging and land-filling works are by China Harbor Engineering co., the same one that did the reclamation of 214 hectares off Davao (Ibid.)

Colliers International, a real estate company active in the Philippine property market, noted that property sales to Chinese nationals have risen in 2017 and continuing through this year, due to the influx of Philippine Online Gaming Operators (POGO) which sustained the office market and consequently impacted residential sales as POGOs often supply housing for their staff (Colliers Quarterly Q1 2018 10 May 2018). Foreigners are allowed to own condominium units in the Philippines, under certain limitations of the Constitution.

And his people’s minds loop back to the unfathomable question of why he seems so set on giving to China what his people already own by the painstaking efforts within the law, of the truly patriotic men and women of past political administrations. It is a greedy usurpation of the people’s basic right to property, along with the right to life and liberty, in the Constitutional Bill of Rights.

*

[emphasis mine]