Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: June 2025
Thursday, 26 January 2017 10:36
Zamboanga native hanged in Kuwait
FILIPINA domestic helper Jakatia Pawa was executed at 10:19 a.m. in Kuwait (3:19 p.m. in Manila) despite government efforts to delay the hanging, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said on Wednesday.
Lt. Col. Angaris Pawa told The Manila Times Jakatia, his sister, called at around 5 a.m. to tell her family of her fate.
The Kuwaiti daily Alrai reported that Kuwaiti prince Shaikh Faisal Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah, a Kuwait woman, an Ethiopian woman, two Egyptian men and a Bangladeshi man were hanged along with Jakatia.
Angaris, an Air Force official, recounted the phone conversation: “‘Kuya [Brother],’ she told me, ‘I’m saying goodbye.’ I said, ‘What kind of goodbye?’ She said, ‘Brother, tomorrow I will be hanged. Brother, this is my only wish. Don’t neglect my two children.’”
Jakatia, a 41-year-old single mother of two teenagers from the southern province of Zamboanga Sibugay, worked in the Gulf Arab state as a domestic helper in 2006.
She was accused of stabbing her employer’s daughter 28 times in 2007.
In 2010, Kuwait’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, upheld the death verdict handed down by the Court of First Instance in 2008 despite appeals from then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Amnesty International. Jakatia pleaded her innocence, claiming the killing might have been carried out by the victim’s relative because of the latter’s alleged illicit love affair with a male neighbor.
Susan Ople, president of the Blas F. Ople Policy Center, told radio station dzRH an investigation had found that Jakatia’s DNA was not in the murder weapon. The motive was also not clearly established, she said.
Assistant Secretary Charles Jose, the DFA spokesman, said in a news conference the Philippine government had “exerted different efforts,” including tapping diplomatic and political channels, to stop the execution. The government also tried to go through “religious channels,” he said.
It was “the first time in a long time” that a Filipino was executed in Kuwait, he said. “We were unable to prove her innocence,” Jose said.
Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said the execution “could no longer be forestalled under Kuwaiti laws.”
The family was convinced the government did its part to save Jakatia, Angaris said. The government paid for her lawyer, a relative of Kuwaiti Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.
The government also assisted in Angaris’ travels to Kuwait in 2008, 2013 and October 2016.
Angaris said that in October, the lawyer assured him that his sister would be released this year.
“The opposite happened,” he said. “I just cried…it’s difficult for us, for our family.”
Following Islamic practice, Jakatia’s remains will be buried in Kuwait immediately.
At least 86,019 Filipinos are working in Kuwait, according to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Jose said 88 Filipinos are on death row abroad.
Lt. Col. Angaris Pawa told The Manila Times Jakatia, his sister, called at around 5 a.m. to tell her family of her fate.
The Kuwaiti daily Alrai reported that Kuwaiti prince Shaikh Faisal Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah, a Kuwait woman, an Ethiopian woman, two Egyptian men and a Bangladeshi man were hanged along with Jakatia.
Angaris, an Air Force official, recounted the phone conversation: “‘Kuya [Brother],’ she told me, ‘I’m saying goodbye.’ I said, ‘What kind of goodbye?’ She said, ‘Brother, tomorrow I will be hanged. Brother, this is my only wish. Don’t neglect my two children.’”
Jakatia, a 41-year-old single mother of two teenagers from the southern province of Zamboanga Sibugay, worked in the Gulf Arab state as a domestic helper in 2006.
She was accused of stabbing her employer’s daughter 28 times in 2007.
In 2010, Kuwait’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, upheld the death verdict handed down by the Court of First Instance in 2008 despite appeals from then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Amnesty International. Jakatia pleaded her innocence, claiming the killing might have been carried out by the victim’s relative because of the latter’s alleged illicit love affair with a male neighbor.
Susan Ople, president of the Blas F. Ople Policy Center, told radio station dzRH an investigation had found that Jakatia’s DNA was not in the murder weapon. The motive was also not clearly established, she said.
Assistant Secretary Charles Jose, the DFA spokesman, said in a news conference the Philippine government had “exerted different efforts,” including tapping diplomatic and political channels, to stop the execution. The government also tried to go through “religious channels,” he said.
It was “the first time in a long time” that a Filipino was executed in Kuwait, he said. “We were unable to prove her innocence,” Jose said.
Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said the execution “could no longer be forestalled under Kuwaiti laws.”
The family was convinced the government did its part to save Jakatia, Angaris said. The government paid for her lawyer, a relative of Kuwaiti Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.
The government also assisted in Angaris’ travels to Kuwait in 2008, 2013 and October 2016.
Angaris said that in October, the lawyer assured him that his sister would be released this year.
“The opposite happened,” he said. “I just cried…it’s difficult for us, for our family.”
Following Islamic practice, Jakatia’s remains will be buried in Kuwait immediately.
At least 86,019 Filipinos are working in Kuwait, according to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Jose said 88 Filipinos are on death row abroad.
Published in
News
Thursday, 26 January 2017 09:40
Digong’s controversial alter egos
Part One
IN the light of recent events in the country that have merited glaring headlines, this column, A View from the Center, will attempt at elucidation using as a backdrop the author’s paper on political management while working on a postgraduate course at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in the 1980s (access www.cdpi.asia)
This will draw heavily too from personal experience as both an observer and a participant in political dynamics in the two decades serving under four administrations in various capacities from Presidents Cory, to FVR to Erap and with GMA. I was not in any way involved with PNoy’s regime. I too am not currently involved with the Dee-gong administration in any capacity. My observations on his presidency however will form a substantial part of this three-part article.
I don’t claim any intimacy with these past Presidents as most people privileged to work along the periphery of the high and mighty are wont to insinuate. I will not fall into the temptation of bloating my minor role, but will present my views as a student and practitioner of “political technocracy”.
The past few weeks’ headlines screamed for the heads of Trade Secretary Art Tugade and Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre. Both Cabinet members are victims of expectations—very high expectations—mainly the public’s. We are not privy to the presidential expectations but can only assume that their appointments were for the most part the result of PRRD’s assessment of their capabilities, experiences and competencies; and as classmates or alumni from the President’s university–-a not-so-light qualification given the Filipino culture of patronage.
The latter is critical as they have been designated as the President’s alter egos, and as such have the complete trust of the President and are expected to speak for and in his behalf in their areas of expertise. Such responsibility is a privileged one and both must understand the nature of the relationship.
For one, this bond is no longer a personal one, as in classmates, schoolmates or “tsokaran”. It has transcended the familiar and morphed into one containing the majesty of the office of the presidency. By this precept, both are custodians of presidential prerogatives, prestige and power; and adding their own to it to enable the President and them to do their task well. The sum of all these is the vaunted fragile political capital of the President with a sustainability dependent largely on a fickle citizenry.
All Cabinet members are by inference the President’s alter egos and must understand their roles perfectly well.
Cabinet members are heat shields and political lightning rods of the presidency. As such, part of their job is to deflect serious criticism from their respective publics and clientele of the presidency as a result of their official functions. As an efficient conductor of political heat, these honorable secretaries must prevent damage or serious erosion to the political capital of the presidency.
The high expectations of the riding public to solve the oppressive traffic situation in Metro Manila, which includes the unsafe and unreliable train system, has eaten into the perception of incompetence of the department head, hence the call for his dismissal.
Paradoxically by the above measures, the good Secretary Tugade has done well deflecting the harm to his principal, considering the enormity of the problems inherited from the immediate past regime and having occupied his office for only half a year.
The same is true with the Justice Secretary who acted to deflect from the presidency the failings of the justice system (the drug proliferation in the prisons); and more particularly the perceived anomalies perpetrated by the two alumni of their law school who very early in this administration had begun to put their dirty little fingers in the Office of Immigration.
Both Cabinet members did their job as political heat shield, but still have to prove their mettle by serving the public by doing the job they were meant to do; but the long-suffering public has understandably short patience.
The third case is the curious actuations of the head of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on the alleged murder of a Korean national within the confines of his office. He claimed that a massive manhunt had been ordered personally by him to apprehend the perpetrators, only to find out from the media that the main suspect has been assigned all along at an office a stone’s throw from his. His claim once that a police rub-out suspect was freed upon the instructions of someone “higher in authority” was so inane and tragically comical as, in his job description, there is no person higher in authority than the President himself.
This series of incidents reflect his mis-appreciation of a job that catapulted him from a local provincial sinecure to the head of a critical agency in the national government. The general was utterly clueless reinforcing an elementary rule in political management that is the first duty of a presidential appointee: discovering what one’s job is. Job description at most higher levels, and in this case the top police general, is neither defined for you exactly nor “announced in the newspapers”. It is more or less the ability to “grab” authority and responsibility and incorporating the same into your own little rectangle (in the organization chart).
Calls for the resignation of these three presidential subalterns could be premature considering the short time spent at their jobs; they simply need to be on top of the learning curve. But along with the perks accorded top presidential appointees should be their readiness to prevent damage to the presidency and the country even at the risk of their own.
Such is the essence of their function as presidential alter ego; a duty to give all in the service of the President and the Filipino—and to discern well the sequence of that duty.
The phrase that they hold office upon the “pleasure of the President” is an absurd one reflecting indecisiveness. This puts the onus on the President and a wasteful withdrawal from his political capital.
(Part 2 next Thursday)
* * *
Published in
LML Polettiques
Wednesday, 25 January 2017 10:07
The urge to make a movement
In the 13 years he was dictator, Ferdinand Marcos systematically dismantled the parties that existed prior to martial law. His New Society demanded the resurrection of an old scheme. His model was the Kapisanan ng Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas (Kalibapi) during the Japanese Occupation, which was meant to replace the political parties of the Commonwealth. His Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) was called a movement supposedly upon the request of former speaker Jose B. Laurel Jr., who asked that the Nacionalista Party be allowed to “go to sleep” for the duration.
Marcos’ desire for a one-party state was nothing new. One can argue that the political class’ built-in tendency is to have a single party to ensure everyone has access to patronage. This is why in 1957, for example, the Nacionalistas and Liberals considered reuniting (both traced their origins to the prewar Nacionalistas) in what was expected to be Magsaysay’s unstoppable second-term landslide victory.
Magsaysay himself liked the idea, as it would sideline party elders who were a thorn in his side. Presidents like the idea of inspiring a movement because while each one enjoys the support of the administration party that coalesces at the start of every administration, it requires bargaining with the leaders who bring the factions to the feeding trough; and that party remains supportive only as long as the trough is kept full and the president remains popular. If the president—or, to be precise, his or her people—are more ideologically minded, then a six-year shelf life is unsatisfying because it means long-lasting political change is impossible. You need a movement to accomplish that.
Every president since Edsa has hoped or tried to set up a movement that would become a permanent party. Cory Aquino had Lakas ng Bansa to push for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which became the LDP which transformed into the Lakas-CMD of Fidel V. Ramos. He hoped this would become the permanent union of political factions on the model of Malaysia’s Umno once the shift to a parliamentary government took place. To do this, he tried to foster movements to push for charter change (Arroyo would try to do something similar, rebranding it Kampi). Estrada tried to cobble together the Left and Marcos loyalists into his PMP. Aquino III tried to foster volunteer organizations even as he hoped the bloating of the Liberal Party wasn’t just a flash in the pan (it was).
All these efforts failed because our democracy is top-heavy. The barangay is our government’s basic unit, but it is supposed to be “nonpolitical,” which is like insisting that if you can make a pig moo, people will think it produces beef.
What the barangay really is, is demonstrated by the impunity its officials enjoy: freedom from fixed terms. Of course they technically have fixed terms but in reality, they have no regular, predictable expiration date. Other officials come and go like clockwork, but of all people, the barangay chairs remain the same.
This is because barangay officials man the political front lines; they are more useful the longer they’re in place, most especially during election season when everyone else has to campaign (and risk winning or losing). But being “nonpolitical” officials, barangay chairs have an excuse to stay on and hold the political machinery together. And so the only thing regular about barangay elections is how regularly they’re “postponed” and “rescheduled” to “save money” or ensure “efficiency.”
We saw it under Arroyo, we saw it under Aquino III, and in 2016 the “supermajority” in the 17th Congress labored half a year only to produce a mouse: its sole legislative output being the postponement of the barangay elections from last year to this year. Presidents may, from time to time, say how undemocratic this is. In the end their party leaders point out to them, in private, that to reform the barangays is to institute a circular firing squad. It would reform everyone’s political machinery out of existence.
For the methodically minded in the present dispensation, giving in to yet another barangay election postponement may be pragmatic politics but does nothing to effect changes that will outlast their dear leader. For Kilusang Pagbabago (the movement meant to liberate the President from his political kind) to finally achieve the vanguard dreams of its architect (Cabinet Secretary Evasco), a different model from the past is required. That can be found in the ’60s and ’70s, in the building of the CPP-NPA-NDF. Whatever path the cadres of those days subsequently chose, a chance for redemption is being dangled: Reunite the factions; recycle the red manifestos; work from within the corridors of power to mount a revolution from within.
But as we will see, this is turning out less easy than it first seemed.
Marcos’ desire for a one-party state was nothing new. One can argue that the political class’ built-in tendency is to have a single party to ensure everyone has access to patronage. This is why in 1957, for example, the Nacionalistas and Liberals considered reuniting (both traced their origins to the prewar Nacionalistas) in what was expected to be Magsaysay’s unstoppable second-term landslide victory.
Magsaysay himself liked the idea, as it would sideline party elders who were a thorn in his side. Presidents like the idea of inspiring a movement because while each one enjoys the support of the administration party that coalesces at the start of every administration, it requires bargaining with the leaders who bring the factions to the feeding trough; and that party remains supportive only as long as the trough is kept full and the president remains popular. If the president—or, to be precise, his or her people—are more ideologically minded, then a six-year shelf life is unsatisfying because it means long-lasting political change is impossible. You need a movement to accomplish that.
Every president since Edsa has hoped or tried to set up a movement that would become a permanent party. Cory Aquino had Lakas ng Bansa to push for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which became the LDP which transformed into the Lakas-CMD of Fidel V. Ramos. He hoped this would become the permanent union of political factions on the model of Malaysia’s Umno once the shift to a parliamentary government took place. To do this, he tried to foster movements to push for charter change (Arroyo would try to do something similar, rebranding it Kampi). Estrada tried to cobble together the Left and Marcos loyalists into his PMP. Aquino III tried to foster volunteer organizations even as he hoped the bloating of the Liberal Party wasn’t just a flash in the pan (it was).
All these efforts failed because our democracy is top-heavy. The barangay is our government’s basic unit, but it is supposed to be “nonpolitical,” which is like insisting that if you can make a pig moo, people will think it produces beef.
What the barangay really is, is demonstrated by the impunity its officials enjoy: freedom from fixed terms. Of course they technically have fixed terms but in reality, they have no regular, predictable expiration date. Other officials come and go like clockwork, but of all people, the barangay chairs remain the same.
This is because barangay officials man the political front lines; they are more useful the longer they’re in place, most especially during election season when everyone else has to campaign (and risk winning or losing). But being “nonpolitical” officials, barangay chairs have an excuse to stay on and hold the political machinery together. And so the only thing regular about barangay elections is how regularly they’re “postponed” and “rescheduled” to “save money” or ensure “efficiency.”
We saw it under Arroyo, we saw it under Aquino III, and in 2016 the “supermajority” in the 17th Congress labored half a year only to produce a mouse: its sole legislative output being the postponement of the barangay elections from last year to this year. Presidents may, from time to time, say how undemocratic this is. In the end their party leaders point out to them, in private, that to reform the barangays is to institute a circular firing squad. It would reform everyone’s political machinery out of existence.
For the methodically minded in the present dispensation, giving in to yet another barangay election postponement may be pragmatic politics but does nothing to effect changes that will outlast their dear leader. For Kilusang Pagbabago (the movement meant to liberate the President from his political kind) to finally achieve the vanguard dreams of its architect (Cabinet Secretary Evasco), a different model from the past is required. That can be found in the ’60s and ’70s, in the building of the CPP-NPA-NDF. Whatever path the cadres of those days subsequently chose, a chance for redemption is being dangled: Reunite the factions; recycle the red manifestos; work from within the corridors of power to mount a revolution from within.
But as we will see, this is turning out less easy than it first seemed.
Published in
Commentaries
Wednesday, 25 January 2017 09:51
Mamasapano raid a ‘CIA operation’
THE botched Mamasapano raid that killed 44 police commandos in January 2015 was an operation of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that was covered up by the previous Aquino administration, President Rodrigo Duterte bared on Thursday.
Duterte met the families of the slain members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Special Action Force (SAF) in Malacañang and announced that he will form a seven-member commission to reopen the investigation into the incident, as well as declare a day of remembrance.
“Why did you hide the fact that it was an operation of the CIA?” he said, addressing himself to former President Benigno Aquino 3rd.
“Let it be brought out in the open. It was an American adventure with the cooperation of some, and apparently with your blessing,” he said.
The Manila Times was the first to report extensively on the US involvement in the operation in February 2015, citing a reliable source who said the SAF men went to Mamasapano, Maguindanao only to act as security escorts for American agents tasked to capture or pick up international terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir alias Marwan who had a $6-million bounty from the United States government, and the Filipino terrorist Usman who carried a $1-million reward on his head.
The Times also reported that an American was among those found dead and apparently left behind in the evacuation.
‘Deles stopped rescue’
Duterte also accused former presidential peace adviser Teresita Quintos-Deles of stopping Aquino from sending Army men to rescue the SAF commandos who were attacked by members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and allied groups, so as not to jeopardize peace talks with the rebels.
Analysis of the events surrounding the Mamasapano operation point to Aquino as the one who eventually made the “stand down” order, The Manila Times’ Chairman Emeritus Dante A. Ang reported in February 2015.
“Deles, I do not want to, you know, belabor. You were the peace negotiator. And for me, you were the one who told [Aquino] not to send reinforcements because war will break out, because then you have violated the agreement that you should not enter MILF territory,” Duterte said.
“So why did you enter into an operation which was really placing in jeopardy the lives [of the SAF members]?” Deles however said the issue raised by Duterte was not new.
“Thank God I’m in Kathmandu and Mt Everest stands by the truth! I hope media will remind him that I already went through the grill on that,” she said when informed of the President’s statement.
Like Agrava commission
Duterte said the Mamasapano fact-finding commission will be “independent,” composed of former Supreme Court justices, lawyers and civilians.
“I will create a commission, and appoint men of integrity and honor to investigate,” the President said.
“You can summon and even ask the United States government of their participation and where did the reward money went,” he added.
“We will bestow to the commission the powers exactly given to the Agrava Commission,” the President said, referring to the body that probed the 1983 assassination of Aquino’s father, Benigno Aquino Jr.
Duterte met the families of the slain members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Special Action Force (SAF) in Malacañang and announced that he will form a seven-member commission to reopen the investigation into the incident, as well as declare a day of remembrance.
“Why did you hide the fact that it was an operation of the CIA?” he said, addressing himself to former President Benigno Aquino 3rd.
“Let it be brought out in the open. It was an American adventure with the cooperation of some, and apparently with your blessing,” he said.
The Manila Times was the first to report extensively on the US involvement in the operation in February 2015, citing a reliable source who said the SAF men went to Mamasapano, Maguindanao only to act as security escorts for American agents tasked to capture or pick up international terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir alias Marwan who had a $6-million bounty from the United States government, and the Filipino terrorist Usman who carried a $1-million reward on his head.
The Times also reported that an American was among those found dead and apparently left behind in the evacuation.
‘Deles stopped rescue’
Duterte also accused former presidential peace adviser Teresita Quintos-Deles of stopping Aquino from sending Army men to rescue the SAF commandos who were attacked by members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and allied groups, so as not to jeopardize peace talks with the rebels.
Analysis of the events surrounding the Mamasapano operation point to Aquino as the one who eventually made the “stand down” order, The Manila Times’ Chairman Emeritus Dante A. Ang reported in February 2015.
“Deles, I do not want to, you know, belabor. You were the peace negotiator. And for me, you were the one who told [Aquino] not to send reinforcements because war will break out, because then you have violated the agreement that you should not enter MILF territory,” Duterte said.
“So why did you enter into an operation which was really placing in jeopardy the lives [of the SAF members]?” Deles however said the issue raised by Duterte was not new.
“Thank God I’m in Kathmandu and Mt Everest stands by the truth! I hope media will remind him that I already went through the grill on that,” she said when informed of the President’s statement.
Like Agrava commission
Duterte said the Mamasapano fact-finding commission will be “independent,” composed of former Supreme Court justices, lawyers and civilians.
“I will create a commission, and appoint men of integrity and honor to investigate,” the President said.
“You can summon and even ask the United States government of their participation and where did the reward money went,” he added.
“We will bestow to the commission the powers exactly given to the Agrava Commission,” the President said, referring to the body that probed the 1983 assassination of Aquino’s father, Benigno Aquino Jr.
Published in
News
Tuesday, 24 January 2017 09:56
Can Duterte keep both US and China?
WILL President Rodrigo Duterte still be all praise for newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump when/if the latter makes good his threat to go after China as a cheating trader and a regional bully?
Sooner or later, especially if State Secretary nominee Rex Tillerson joins the Trump team, Duterte may have to choose between continuing to cozy up to the next-door Mandarin suitor or swing back to good old Uncle Sam.
Or, summoning his skills in handling such triangular love affairs, Duterte may just succeed – to everyone’s relief – in positioning himself as a moderating influence in the seething regional rivalry between China and the US.
In his Davao home base over the weekend, Duterte was gushing over the inauguration of the 45th US President: “It was a very superb ritual and Trump was at his best.” He talked of looking forward to repairing bilateral ties that took a beating during the Obama administration.
Appreciating that the New York tycoon-turned-politico “talked from the heart,” Duterte said he liked Trump’s “Make America great again” slogan reminiscent of the martial law Marcosian “Make this nation great again” mantra.
But after the excitement of the inaugural wears off and everybody settles down to realpolitik, Duterte may have to spend time guessing how Trump would translate into policy and action his thoughts about the Asian dragon:
• China must be laughing at how easy it has been to take advantage of the US. Better to slap all its exports to the US a 25-percent tax to make American products competitive and balance out the trade deficit.
• The US must rethink the opening of its market to countries like China that “steal (e.g. intellectual property) from us” or oppress and violate the human rights of their people.
• China’s currency manipulation should stop. Although American products are better, Chinese goods are given a competitive edge by the currency manipulation.
• Pressure or motivate US firms to close their factories in China and relocate home to provide more jobs to Americans.
The US-China rivalry will loom bigger if Tillerson, an outspoken former Exxon Mobil Corp. chairman and chief executive, is confirmed as State Secretary and given a chance to influence and enforce foreign policy.
• Tillerson favors confronting China
TESTIFYING days ago before the Senate foreign relations committee, Tillerson batted for stopping China’s building of artificial islands in areas within the territorial seas of its neighbors – and the building of military installations on them.
He said the US must reaffirm its security ties with its regional friends. He did not mention the Philippines, a treaty ally, but cited Taiwan (which China regards as a renegade province) with which he said the US must renew its commitments. This departs from the standing One-China US policy.
Beijing bristled at the declarations of a figure who stands to become the key enforcer of a more aggressive US foreign policy that could put the US on collision course with China.
As the two superpowers gird for a showdown in the South China Sea, where will Duterte position the Philippines, a military pygmy and a medium-scale economic player in the region?
Assuming Trump attempts to catch up, will Duterte put on hold the multimillion-dollar development projects and aid that Beijing has started to position in the pipeline? Or will he just open the country indiscriminately to both Chinese and American assistance?
As reported by Reuters, Tillerson appearing for confirmation in the Senate described China’s building and militarizing of artificial islands as “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine – a move that triggered a US-NATO military response.
Asked whether he supported a more aggressive stance toward China, he said: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” He did not elaborate.
Using a unilaterally drawn “nine-dash line” boundary, China claims most of the energy-rich waters through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing territorial claims.
China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he could not guess what Tillerson was referring to when asked about the nominee’s suggesting blocking access to the islands.
• Pope warns against ‘populist saviors’
A NEW CROP of leaders of varying shades and styles of “populism” has sprouted in several countries, eliciting cautionary counsel from Pope Francis that “populism” in some cases could lead to the election of Hitler-like “saviors.”
In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais conducted as Trump was being sworn in as President, the Pontiff also condemned the idea of using walls and barbed wire to keep out foreigners.
“Build bridges, not walls,” the Holy Father once quipped after a visit to Mexico. Trump, then a candidate, had announced he would build a wall on the US border with Mexico to stop illegal migration and the smuggling of narcotics.
In his El Pais interview, the Pope said, “Of course crises provoke fears and worries,” but that for him “the example of populism in the European sense of the word is Germany in 1933… Germany was looking for a leader, someone who would give her back her identity and there was a little man named Adolf Hitler who said ‘I can do it!’”“Hitler did not steal power,” the Pope said. “He was elected by his people and then he destroyed his people.”
The Germans at that time also wanted to protect themselves with “walls and barbed wire so that others cannot take away their identity.” He added: “The case of Germany is classic… Hitler gave them a deformed identity and we know what it produced.”
As for the new US President, the Pope said it was too early to pass judgment on Trump: “Let’s see what he does and then we will evaluate.”
Sooner or later, especially if State Secretary nominee Rex Tillerson joins the Trump team, Duterte may have to choose between continuing to cozy up to the next-door Mandarin suitor or swing back to good old Uncle Sam.
Or, summoning his skills in handling such triangular love affairs, Duterte may just succeed – to everyone’s relief – in positioning himself as a moderating influence in the seething regional rivalry between China and the US.
In his Davao home base over the weekend, Duterte was gushing over the inauguration of the 45th US President: “It was a very superb ritual and Trump was at his best.” He talked of looking forward to repairing bilateral ties that took a beating during the Obama administration.
Appreciating that the New York tycoon-turned-politico “talked from the heart,” Duterte said he liked Trump’s “Make America great again” slogan reminiscent of the martial law Marcosian “Make this nation great again” mantra.
But after the excitement of the inaugural wears off and everybody settles down to realpolitik, Duterte may have to spend time guessing how Trump would translate into policy and action his thoughts about the Asian dragon:
• China must be laughing at how easy it has been to take advantage of the US. Better to slap all its exports to the US a 25-percent tax to make American products competitive and balance out the trade deficit.
• The US must rethink the opening of its market to countries like China that “steal (e.g. intellectual property) from us” or oppress and violate the human rights of their people.
• China’s currency manipulation should stop. Although American products are better, Chinese goods are given a competitive edge by the currency manipulation.
• Pressure or motivate US firms to close their factories in China and relocate home to provide more jobs to Americans.
The US-China rivalry will loom bigger if Tillerson, an outspoken former Exxon Mobil Corp. chairman and chief executive, is confirmed as State Secretary and given a chance to influence and enforce foreign policy.
• Tillerson favors confronting China
TESTIFYING days ago before the Senate foreign relations committee, Tillerson batted for stopping China’s building of artificial islands in areas within the territorial seas of its neighbors – and the building of military installations on them.
He said the US must reaffirm its security ties with its regional friends. He did not mention the Philippines, a treaty ally, but cited Taiwan (which China regards as a renegade province) with which he said the US must renew its commitments. This departs from the standing One-China US policy.
Beijing bristled at the declarations of a figure who stands to become the key enforcer of a more aggressive US foreign policy that could put the US on collision course with China.
As the two superpowers gird for a showdown in the South China Sea, where will Duterte position the Philippines, a military pygmy and a medium-scale economic player in the region?
Assuming Trump attempts to catch up, will Duterte put on hold the multimillion-dollar development projects and aid that Beijing has started to position in the pipeline? Or will he just open the country indiscriminately to both Chinese and American assistance?
As reported by Reuters, Tillerson appearing for confirmation in the Senate described China’s building and militarizing of artificial islands as “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine – a move that triggered a US-NATO military response.
Asked whether he supported a more aggressive stance toward China, he said: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” He did not elaborate.
Using a unilaterally drawn “nine-dash line” boundary, China claims most of the energy-rich waters through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing territorial claims.
China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he could not guess what Tillerson was referring to when asked about the nominee’s suggesting blocking access to the islands.
• Pope warns against ‘populist saviors’
A NEW CROP of leaders of varying shades and styles of “populism” has sprouted in several countries, eliciting cautionary counsel from Pope Francis that “populism” in some cases could lead to the election of Hitler-like “saviors.”
In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais conducted as Trump was being sworn in as President, the Pontiff also condemned the idea of using walls and barbed wire to keep out foreigners.
“Build bridges, not walls,” the Holy Father once quipped after a visit to Mexico. Trump, then a candidate, had announced he would build a wall on the US border with Mexico to stop illegal migration and the smuggling of narcotics.
In his El Pais interview, the Pope said, “Of course crises provoke fears and worries,” but that for him “the example of populism in the European sense of the word is Germany in 1933… Germany was looking for a leader, someone who would give her back her identity and there was a little man named Adolf Hitler who said ‘I can do it!’”“Hitler did not steal power,” the Pope said. “He was elected by his people and then he destroyed his people.”
The Germans at that time also wanted to protect themselves with “walls and barbed wire so that others cannot take away their identity.” He added: “The case of Germany is classic… Hitler gave them a deformed identity and we know what it produced.”
As for the new US President, the Pope said it was too early to pass judgment on Trump: “Let’s see what he does and then we will evaluate.”
Published in
Commentaries
Tuesday, 24 January 2017 09:40
PH, China firm up 30 projects worth $3.7B
China and the Philippines have agreed to cooperate on 30 projects worth $3.7 billion focusing on poverty reduction, the two countries announced after a meeting in Beijing on Monday.
Chinese Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng announced the agreement without giving details, saying it involved an “initial batch” of projects that still needed to be finalized and paperwork still needed to be processed by the banks involved.
Duterte visit
In a statement from Beijing, Philippine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez mentioned irrigation systems, hydroelectric power plants and railways, details of which, he said, would be fleshed out with Chinese officials during two days of meetings that end on Tuesday.
The deal is the first announcement from a two-day visit of a Philippine Cabinet delegation to China that comes three months after President Duterte visited Beijing to clear the way for new commercial alliances.
China has welcomed Mr. Duterte’s foreign policy shift away from the United States and toward doing more regional deals for loans and business under his “pro-Filipino” policy.
Relations between the Philippines and China “fully recovered” after Mr. Duterte’s visit, and “China supports President Duterte to lead the Philippines people in developing their economy,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a regular news briefing on Monday.
Hua was referring to Mr. Duterte’s fence-mending after relations between China and the Philippines were frayed by a territorial dispute in the South China Sea that Beijing lost to Manila in the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last year.
After taking office in June last year, Mr. Duterte deferred assertion of the court’s ruling to ease tensions between the two countries and improve relations.
Chinese officials pledged $15 billion of investment to Manila during Mr. Duterte’s visit to Beijing in October last year, according to the Department of Finance (DOF).
Asked by reporters in Beijing whether US President Donald Trump’s economic policies would affect commercial ties between China and the Philippines, Dominguez said: “It’s better to be with good friends.”
“I’m not sure at this moment exactly what the new US policies [are], but I believe that the reorientation of our President to our neighbors really was very smart,” he said.
The Philippine delegation was scheduled to meet Vice Premier Wang Yang at Zhongnanhai, the Beijing complex that houses China’s central government, later on Monday.
In his statement released by the DOF, Dominguez said he had a “very productive” meeting with Gao and that they had discussed large projects in rural areas, as well as some smaller projects.
“This will be our second discussion [with Chinese officials about the projects] since November last year. We hope that [during] our visit here, we [will] be able to proceed with the projects that are ready to be implemented,” Dominguez said.
Matching priorities
“We submitted last November a list of projects to the Chinese government through the Chinese Embassy in Manila for their review. The Philippine team would like to get their reactions and determine what their priorities are and see whether this also match our priorities,” he said.
Dominguez said “the generous assistance offered by China to the Philippines is among the concrete results of the President’s foreign policy rebalancing toward accelerated integration with [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and its major Asian trading partners China, Japan and South Korea.”
“The President has recognized the importance of China in the region and he has redirected our economy more toward China and the Asean than to the West,” he said.
“I believe that China will continue to lead the world and continue to lead the Asean in becoming the engine of global growth,” he added.
Philippine delegation
The Philippine delegation includes Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade and Public Works Secretary Mark Villar.
Besides meetings with Gao and Wang, the Philippine delegation will also meet Vice Chair Wang Xiaotao of the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s chief planning and strategy agency.
The Filipino officials also plan to meet top executives of China Investment Corp., a sovereign wealth fund.
“The meetings will cover discussions on the government-to-government projects signed between the Philippines and China, the proposed projects for financing and feasibility studies, the chairmanship of the Philippines this year of the Asean, and matters concerning the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Philippines’ flagship infrastructure projects,” the DOF said in a statement.
Chinese Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng announced the agreement without giving details, saying it involved an “initial batch” of projects that still needed to be finalized and paperwork still needed to be processed by the banks involved.
Duterte visit
In a statement from Beijing, Philippine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez mentioned irrigation systems, hydroelectric power plants and railways, details of which, he said, would be fleshed out with Chinese officials during two days of meetings that end on Tuesday.
The deal is the first announcement from a two-day visit of a Philippine Cabinet delegation to China that comes three months after President Duterte visited Beijing to clear the way for new commercial alliances.
China has welcomed Mr. Duterte’s foreign policy shift away from the United States and toward doing more regional deals for loans and business under his “pro-Filipino” policy.
Relations between the Philippines and China “fully recovered” after Mr. Duterte’s visit, and “China supports President Duterte to lead the Philippines people in developing their economy,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a regular news briefing on Monday.
Hua was referring to Mr. Duterte’s fence-mending after relations between China and the Philippines were frayed by a territorial dispute in the South China Sea that Beijing lost to Manila in the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last year.
After taking office in June last year, Mr. Duterte deferred assertion of the court’s ruling to ease tensions between the two countries and improve relations.
Chinese officials pledged $15 billion of investment to Manila during Mr. Duterte’s visit to Beijing in October last year, according to the Department of Finance (DOF).
Asked by reporters in Beijing whether US President Donald Trump’s economic policies would affect commercial ties between China and the Philippines, Dominguez said: “It’s better to be with good friends.”
“I’m not sure at this moment exactly what the new US policies [are], but I believe that the reorientation of our President to our neighbors really was very smart,” he said.
The Philippine delegation was scheduled to meet Vice Premier Wang Yang at Zhongnanhai, the Beijing complex that houses China’s central government, later on Monday.
In his statement released by the DOF, Dominguez said he had a “very productive” meeting with Gao and that they had discussed large projects in rural areas, as well as some smaller projects.
“This will be our second discussion [with Chinese officials about the projects] since November last year. We hope that [during] our visit here, we [will] be able to proceed with the projects that are ready to be implemented,” Dominguez said.
Matching priorities
“We submitted last November a list of projects to the Chinese government through the Chinese Embassy in Manila for their review. The Philippine team would like to get their reactions and determine what their priorities are and see whether this also match our priorities,” he said.
Dominguez said “the generous assistance offered by China to the Philippines is among the concrete results of the President’s foreign policy rebalancing toward accelerated integration with [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and its major Asian trading partners China, Japan and South Korea.”
“The President has recognized the importance of China in the region and he has redirected our economy more toward China and the Asean than to the West,” he said.
“I believe that China will continue to lead the world and continue to lead the Asean in becoming the engine of global growth,” he added.
Philippine delegation
The Philippine delegation includes Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade and Public Works Secretary Mark Villar.
Besides meetings with Gao and Wang, the Philippine delegation will also meet Vice Chair Wang Xiaotao of the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s chief planning and strategy agency.
The Filipino officials also plan to meet top executives of China Investment Corp., a sovereign wealth fund.
“The meetings will cover discussions on the government-to-government projects signed between the Philippines and China, the proposed projects for financing and feasibility studies, the chairmanship of the Philippines this year of the Asean, and matters concerning the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Philippines’ flagship infrastructure projects,” the DOF said in a statement.
Published in
News
Monday, 23 January 2017 09:59
PNP regional director get narcolist
Interior Secretary Ismael Sueño has given the “go signal” for the release of President Rodrigo Duterte’s “drug watch list” to regional directors of the Philippine National Police.
"The controversial list containing the names of the local government executives, officials and civilians alike, who are involved in illegal drugs will be handed over to the PNP Regional Directors who are also Regional Peace and Order Council (RPOC) vice chairs. This is to avoid any conflict of interest and malice as RPOC chairs are also local government executives,” Sueño said in a statement.
Sueño met with RPOC leaders on Friday during which he encouraged the participants, composed of local government heads and PNP regional directors, to keep their firm resolve in the fight against illegal drugs and confirmed that the list be furnished to the regional directors to be disseminated to local chief executives upon request.
Sueño said the turnover of copies of the list was in response to what President Duterte pledged to the governors and mayors whom he met in two separate meetings in the past weeks.
In the meeting with local executives, President Duterte committed that they will be furnished their own copy so that they may have a clear view of what possible course of action they may undertake,” he said.
Sueño also clarified that local officials requesting for a copy of the list from the PNP regional directors should only be given the names of people in their area of jurisdiction.
“If a mayor requests for a copy of the list, he would only obtain the names of alleged illegal drug personalities within his town or city. He will not be granted full access to the names of people outside his authority to maintain the confidentiality of the list,” he said.
He said the move to give the list initially only to PNP regional directors was to ensure that if there would be leaks, the Department of the Interior and Local Government would immediately ascertain the source as it is only limited among the ranks of regional directors and would only be given to local execs upon formal request.
Mr. Duterte often brandishes the list during his speaking engagements, sometimes even slamming them on the podium or dropping them on the floor to drive his point that the country has become a “narco-state” due to the thousands of local officials involved in the drug trade or as protectors of drug syndicates.
Sueño said the list should only be considered as a ‘watch list’ due to the ongoing investigation and continuing intelligence work to verify the names and information contained in it.
"The controversial list containing the names of the local government executives, officials and civilians alike, who are involved in illegal drugs will be handed over to the PNP Regional Directors who are also Regional Peace and Order Council (RPOC) vice chairs. This is to avoid any conflict of interest and malice as RPOC chairs are also local government executives,” Sueño said in a statement.
Sueño met with RPOC leaders on Friday during which he encouraged the participants, composed of local government heads and PNP regional directors, to keep their firm resolve in the fight against illegal drugs and confirmed that the list be furnished to the regional directors to be disseminated to local chief executives upon request.
Sueño said the turnover of copies of the list was in response to what President Duterte pledged to the governors and mayors whom he met in two separate meetings in the past weeks.
In the meeting with local executives, President Duterte committed that they will be furnished their own copy so that they may have a clear view of what possible course of action they may undertake,” he said.
Sueño also clarified that local officials requesting for a copy of the list from the PNP regional directors should only be given the names of people in their area of jurisdiction.
“If a mayor requests for a copy of the list, he would only obtain the names of alleged illegal drug personalities within his town or city. He will not be granted full access to the names of people outside his authority to maintain the confidentiality of the list,” he said.
He said the move to give the list initially only to PNP regional directors was to ensure that if there would be leaks, the Department of the Interior and Local Government would immediately ascertain the source as it is only limited among the ranks of regional directors and would only be given to local execs upon formal request.
Mr. Duterte often brandishes the list during his speaking engagements, sometimes even slamming them on the podium or dropping them on the floor to drive his point that the country has become a “narco-state” due to the thousands of local officials involved in the drug trade or as protectors of drug syndicates.
Sueño said the list should only be considered as a ‘watch list’ due to the ongoing investigation and continuing intelligence work to verify the names and information contained in it.
Published in
News
Monday, 23 January 2017 07:17
Pinoy businessmen unfazed by Trump’s ‘America first’
MANILA, Philippines – Some Filipino businessmen do not see any reason to be alarmed over the “America first” pronouncement of new US President Donald Trump as opportunities for the Philippines may even arise from it.
In Davos, Switzerland where the World Economic Forum was held, US bankers, buoyed by a resurgence in profits, are advising their counterparts in Europe to think positively about the new administration of Trump.
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) president George Barcelon said the “protectionist” statements made by Trump could trigger more trade and investment opportunities for the Philippines from other global powerhouses who might be turned off by the developments in the US, the world’s largest economy.
The PCCI official told The STAR the statements Trump made were mostly aimed at China, the second largest economy next to the US.
Barcelon said it is US trade with China that might be in the crosshairs with Trump’s pronouncements.
“He is always saying China is unfair and they play with their exchange rate to benefit them. What Trump is threatening… is imposition of tariff (on China),” Barcelon said.
“If they will really impose that, it would indirectly benefit us because if that is going to happen, the Chinese would probably come to the Philippines and invest. Here is where they could be running. Their trade and investment interest could be diverted to us so of course we benefit,” he added.
The Philippines under the leadership of President Duterte has recently renewed its ties with China after years of tension due to territorial and maritime disputes.
As far as the country’s exports to the US is concerned, meanwhile, PCCI honorary chairman and Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. president Sergio Ortiz-Luis Jr. said Trump’s statements were “nothing new” and should not be a cause of concern among exporters.
“Our exports to the US are not that big so a little change will easily be covered by China and Japan. So we should not be worried about it. Maybe, the other Asian countries should but I don’t think we should be, especially that Trump and Duterte seem to strike (it off) well with each other,” Ortiz-Luis said.
“The fact remains that at the end of the day, businessmen will decide on what they will do,” he added.
According to Barcelon, the products the country exports to the US are “those things that they cannot really afford to make,” which should make exporters a little more optimistic.
“But the service industry is a different matter. Over time, they would probably use artificial intelligence to lessen their dependency on foreign back office support, but that would take some time,” he said, apparently referring to the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry.
Trump was sworn into office as the 45th US president last Friday. His pronouncements in his inaugural speech that he would push for “buy American, hire American” or “America first” policy sent jitters all over the world.
But despite early indications of his leadership style, the local business community said it might really be too early to judge and project what he would actually do.
“It is still too early to react. We need to see what actions the Trump administration will actually take,” Makati Business Club chairman Ed Chua said.
For its part, the American Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (AmCham) said US firms have invested in the Philippines for over a century in step with Philippine economic growth and they intend to continue doing so in the coming years.
“We support globalization and believe the American economy can become stronger without being isolationist,” AmCham Philippines senior advisor John Forbes said.
Think positive
At the WEF, the annual gathering of the world’s political and business elites in Davos, US financiers told investors and overseas’ rivals to focus less on Trump’s anti-globalization rhetoric and more on his Cabinet picks, comprising of Wall Street veterans and corporate bosses.
But many Europeans still need convincing.
Many European bankers fear Trump, who campaigned on an “America first” platform and who has threatened to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, could trigger a trade war with the world’s second-largest economy.
Jose Vinals, chairman of Standard Chartered Bank and a former deputy governor of the Spanish central bank, said there was a lot of unease over whether the Republican’s campaign rhetoric would translate into his policies as president.
“In Europe, there is concern and trepidation about Trump’s administration and how his politics will affect global trade and finance,” he told Reuters.
“Any form of protectionism will likely ultimately make the US economy less competitive and be bad news for the world,” said Vinals, who has previously built up an expertise on Asian markets, including China, while working as a senior official at the International Monetary Fund.
But Mary Callahan Erodes, who runs the asset management arm of US bank JPMorgan, sought to assuage concerns about the incoming White House administration.
She told the WEF that Trump’s officials, including former Goldman Sachs bankers Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, would push a pro-business agenda that would drive economic growth.
“We are going to have to get used to thinking very pro-actively and getting excited about growth,” she said. “It is a pendulum swing and it is going to be positive for business. It just is.”
Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who has been appointed by Trump to liaise with the business community, was the only member of the new US administration to attend the Davos forum.
He spoke publicly about how Trump would be good for the global economy and, according to banking sources, followed this up with private discussions with European bankers. But the sources said industry players in Europe wanted more clarity on key US economic policies from Trump himself.
Banks on both sides of the Atlantic might be happy at having a leader in the White House who has pledged to cut tax rates and ease restrictions imposed on banks’ risk-taking in the wake of the financial crisis.
Trading strength
At private lunches and evening cocktail receptions in the Swiss ski resort, some US financiers expressed concern about the impact from Trump’s blunt re-evaluation of key foreign policy principles and his penchant for castigating American companies on Twitter.
Most bankers expect volatile market swings in 2017 after investors, having driven up stock prices in anticipation of tax cuts and spending hikes, grow impatient for action.
Increased volatility plays to Wall Street banks’ greater strength in trading bonds, stocks and currencies.
US investment banks have already reported bumper fourth-quarter results following a surge in trading volumes across commodities, interest rate products and foreign exchange as investors reworked their portfolios in response to Trump’s surprise victory and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike.
Goldman Sachs, the bank most dependent on trading, has seen its stock rise nearly 30 percent since the Nov. 8 election.
European banks have not yet reported fourth-quarter earnings but their shares have also have been boosted by the US developments.
The region’s banking index is up 15 percent as investors bet banks such as Barclays and Deutsche, which have US investment banking operations, will get a boost from increased trading and deal action.
To be sure, some European bankers reflected that sunnier outlook in Davos, saying Trump was good news for banks.
“He wants banks to have more say in economic growth and I fundamentally think that is an inextricable link combination, you don’t have strong economies in the long run without strong banks, and vice versa,” Antonio Horta-Osorio, the chief executive of Britain’s Lloyds, said.
“Banks are for the economies like blood is for the body and, therefore, I see that as very positive,” he said.
In Davos, Switzerland where the World Economic Forum was held, US bankers, buoyed by a resurgence in profits, are advising their counterparts in Europe to think positively about the new administration of Trump.
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) president George Barcelon said the “protectionist” statements made by Trump could trigger more trade and investment opportunities for the Philippines from other global powerhouses who might be turned off by the developments in the US, the world’s largest economy.
The PCCI official told The STAR the statements Trump made were mostly aimed at China, the second largest economy next to the US.
Barcelon said it is US trade with China that might be in the crosshairs with Trump’s pronouncements.
“He is always saying China is unfair and they play with their exchange rate to benefit them. What Trump is threatening… is imposition of tariff (on China),” Barcelon said.
“If they will really impose that, it would indirectly benefit us because if that is going to happen, the Chinese would probably come to the Philippines and invest. Here is where they could be running. Their trade and investment interest could be diverted to us so of course we benefit,” he added.
The Philippines under the leadership of President Duterte has recently renewed its ties with China after years of tension due to territorial and maritime disputes.
As far as the country’s exports to the US is concerned, meanwhile, PCCI honorary chairman and Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. president Sergio Ortiz-Luis Jr. said Trump’s statements were “nothing new” and should not be a cause of concern among exporters.
“Our exports to the US are not that big so a little change will easily be covered by China and Japan. So we should not be worried about it. Maybe, the other Asian countries should but I don’t think we should be, especially that Trump and Duterte seem to strike (it off) well with each other,” Ortiz-Luis said.
“The fact remains that at the end of the day, businessmen will decide on what they will do,” he added.
According to Barcelon, the products the country exports to the US are “those things that they cannot really afford to make,” which should make exporters a little more optimistic.
“But the service industry is a different matter. Over time, they would probably use artificial intelligence to lessen their dependency on foreign back office support, but that would take some time,” he said, apparently referring to the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry.
Trump was sworn into office as the 45th US president last Friday. His pronouncements in his inaugural speech that he would push for “buy American, hire American” or “America first” policy sent jitters all over the world.
But despite early indications of his leadership style, the local business community said it might really be too early to judge and project what he would actually do.
“It is still too early to react. We need to see what actions the Trump administration will actually take,” Makati Business Club chairman Ed Chua said.
For its part, the American Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (AmCham) said US firms have invested in the Philippines for over a century in step with Philippine economic growth and they intend to continue doing so in the coming years.
“We support globalization and believe the American economy can become stronger without being isolationist,” AmCham Philippines senior advisor John Forbes said.
Think positive
At the WEF, the annual gathering of the world’s political and business elites in Davos, US financiers told investors and overseas’ rivals to focus less on Trump’s anti-globalization rhetoric and more on his Cabinet picks, comprising of Wall Street veterans and corporate bosses.
But many Europeans still need convincing.
Many European bankers fear Trump, who campaigned on an “America first” platform and who has threatened to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, could trigger a trade war with the world’s second-largest economy.
Jose Vinals, chairman of Standard Chartered Bank and a former deputy governor of the Spanish central bank, said there was a lot of unease over whether the Republican’s campaign rhetoric would translate into his policies as president.
“In Europe, there is concern and trepidation about Trump’s administration and how his politics will affect global trade and finance,” he told Reuters.
“Any form of protectionism will likely ultimately make the US economy less competitive and be bad news for the world,” said Vinals, who has previously built up an expertise on Asian markets, including China, while working as a senior official at the International Monetary Fund.
But Mary Callahan Erodes, who runs the asset management arm of US bank JPMorgan, sought to assuage concerns about the incoming White House administration.
She told the WEF that Trump’s officials, including former Goldman Sachs bankers Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, would push a pro-business agenda that would drive economic growth.
“We are going to have to get used to thinking very pro-actively and getting excited about growth,” she said. “It is a pendulum swing and it is going to be positive for business. It just is.”
Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who has been appointed by Trump to liaise with the business community, was the only member of the new US administration to attend the Davos forum.
He spoke publicly about how Trump would be good for the global economy and, according to banking sources, followed this up with private discussions with European bankers. But the sources said industry players in Europe wanted more clarity on key US economic policies from Trump himself.
Banks on both sides of the Atlantic might be happy at having a leader in the White House who has pledged to cut tax rates and ease restrictions imposed on banks’ risk-taking in the wake of the financial crisis.
Trading strength
At private lunches and evening cocktail receptions in the Swiss ski resort, some US financiers expressed concern about the impact from Trump’s blunt re-evaluation of key foreign policy principles and his penchant for castigating American companies on Twitter.
Most bankers expect volatile market swings in 2017 after investors, having driven up stock prices in anticipation of tax cuts and spending hikes, grow impatient for action.
Increased volatility plays to Wall Street banks’ greater strength in trading bonds, stocks and currencies.
US investment banks have already reported bumper fourth-quarter results following a surge in trading volumes across commodities, interest rate products and foreign exchange as investors reworked their portfolios in response to Trump’s surprise victory and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike.
Goldman Sachs, the bank most dependent on trading, has seen its stock rise nearly 30 percent since the Nov. 8 election.
European banks have not yet reported fourth-quarter earnings but their shares have also have been boosted by the US developments.
The region’s banking index is up 15 percent as investors bet banks such as Barclays and Deutsche, which have US investment banking operations, will get a boost from increased trading and deal action.
To be sure, some European bankers reflected that sunnier outlook in Davos, saying Trump was good news for banks.
“He wants banks to have more say in economic growth and I fundamentally think that is an inextricable link combination, you don’t have strong economies in the long run without strong banks, and vice versa,” Antonio Horta-Osorio, the chief executive of Britain’s Lloyds, said.
“Banks are for the economies like blood is for the body and, therefore, I see that as very positive,” he said.
Published in
Commentaries
Friday, 20 January 2017 10:51
Stop exporting people- growth guru
ONCE more, an international expert on economic growth and policy-making has suggested that our government must reduce our dependence on exporting Filipino labor and focus on creating more jobs.
This time it’s Dr. Dan Steinbock, founder of the Difference Group, a global consultancy and research outfit, who made the analysis.
He said the Philippines could take advantage of its good demographics—in other words its huge population, by harnessing its potential in manufacturing, electronics, information and communications technology and tourism, among other sectors.
We think President Duterte and his government’s economic managers have this goal engraved in their brains—as it is in the mind of every thinking Filipino. But it’s good that experts like Dan Steinbock remind our top government officials and policy makers when they come to visit our country.
That’s because each powerful office holder has his and her own personal likes and dislikes, favorite areas of expertise, comforting memories of success and jobs well done and can all choose to make their favorites their goal-to-achieve priorities.
We’ve lauded President Rody Duterte’s choice of ending the reign of criminals and lawbreakers, especially drug lords, in our neighborhoods and a vigorous war against government corruption for his top priorities. And he has been quite effective in performing what needs to be done on these fronts in the half-year or so that he has been our President.
We must also praise the President for his administration’s initial good work in the economic growth and business fields, as Mr. Dan Steinbock did.
The global economy pundit commended the President for his correct response to the new world order’s call for stronger national economies as forces of globalization and integration wane and mature economies are frozen in the fight for growth.
He said President Rodrigo was on the right path in making it a policy goal to bring home the millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and generating jobs here at home for them by attracting foreign investment and upgrading the country’s infrastructure.
“Duterte is making the right move. It will be the first time in five years that I can sit down and say that you have chosen the policy stance that makes sense, most importantly investment. Whether it comes from foreign sources or domestic, you cannot build infrastructure without it,” he said.
He said something that other analysts seldom talk about: that having a huge population is an asset. But of course the country’s leaders in government, business and industry must prepare the ground for the millions of workers to have jobs. He criticized past leaders for being complacent about this, wasting these assets and opportunities. He warned that a huge population turns into a destabilizing force in the future—if not allowed to exercise their capabilities to be productive.
But he insisted that a huge pool of young workers, together with the economic environment that makes their capabilities productive through jobs, is what yields high economic growth.
This has unfortunately not been attended to by successive generations of Filipino government and private sector leaders. And this, Mr. Steinbock said, is why a great chunk of the working population has been forced to work overseas—and are supporting the country with their earnings abroad.
“Demographics is not enough unless you have jobs. We saw in Latin America what happened [in the 1950s to 1960s]. They had youthful demographics but no jobs,” he said. “So for me, demographics is actually really important. You cannot have a major change without it. However, if you don’t have jobs, you have a problem.”
He decried our country’s failure to make our asset an instrument of growth. He was not happy with the policy of encouraging OFWs to be our main source of income.
“When you export people, you don’t grow. You have to have the people…It just doesn’t work [to make them leave home]. Look– any sustainable, fast-growing, large emerging economy, none of them are exporting people.”
This time it’s Dr. Dan Steinbock, founder of the Difference Group, a global consultancy and research outfit, who made the analysis.
He said the Philippines could take advantage of its good demographics—in other words its huge population, by harnessing its potential in manufacturing, electronics, information and communications technology and tourism, among other sectors.
We think President Duterte and his government’s economic managers have this goal engraved in their brains—as it is in the mind of every thinking Filipino. But it’s good that experts like Dan Steinbock remind our top government officials and policy makers when they come to visit our country.
That’s because each powerful office holder has his and her own personal likes and dislikes, favorite areas of expertise, comforting memories of success and jobs well done and can all choose to make their favorites their goal-to-achieve priorities.
We’ve lauded President Rody Duterte’s choice of ending the reign of criminals and lawbreakers, especially drug lords, in our neighborhoods and a vigorous war against government corruption for his top priorities. And he has been quite effective in performing what needs to be done on these fronts in the half-year or so that he has been our President.
We must also praise the President for his administration’s initial good work in the economic growth and business fields, as Mr. Dan Steinbock did.
The global economy pundit commended the President for his correct response to the new world order’s call for stronger national economies as forces of globalization and integration wane and mature economies are frozen in the fight for growth.
He said President Rodrigo was on the right path in making it a policy goal to bring home the millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and generating jobs here at home for them by attracting foreign investment and upgrading the country’s infrastructure.
“Duterte is making the right move. It will be the first time in five years that I can sit down and say that you have chosen the policy stance that makes sense, most importantly investment. Whether it comes from foreign sources or domestic, you cannot build infrastructure without it,” he said.
He said something that other analysts seldom talk about: that having a huge population is an asset. But of course the country’s leaders in government, business and industry must prepare the ground for the millions of workers to have jobs. He criticized past leaders for being complacent about this, wasting these assets and opportunities. He warned that a huge population turns into a destabilizing force in the future—if not allowed to exercise their capabilities to be productive.
But he insisted that a huge pool of young workers, together with the economic environment that makes their capabilities productive through jobs, is what yields high economic growth.
This has unfortunately not been attended to by successive generations of Filipino government and private sector leaders. And this, Mr. Steinbock said, is why a great chunk of the working population has been forced to work overseas—and are supporting the country with their earnings abroad.
“Demographics is not enough unless you have jobs. We saw in Latin America what happened [in the 1950s to 1960s]. They had youthful demographics but no jobs,” he said. “So for me, demographics is actually really important. You cannot have a major change without it. However, if you don’t have jobs, you have a problem.”
He decried our country’s failure to make our asset an instrument of growth. He was not happy with the policy of encouraging OFWs to be our main source of income.
“When you export people, you don’t grow. You have to have the people…It just doesn’t work [to make them leave home]. Look– any sustainable, fast-growing, large emerging economy, none of them are exporting people.”
Published in
Commentaries
Thursday, 19 January 2017 09:29
Once more, no more political dynasties
TWO years ago, in a different column for another paper, I wrote my objections to political dynasties as they have evolved in the country. Let me review what I said.
dy·nas·ty(dī′nə-stē)n.pl.dy·nas·ties
1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.
[Middle English dynastie, from Old French; from Late Latin dynastī, lordship; from Greek dunasteia, from dunastēs, lord; see dynast.]
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Political+dynasty]
Some social scientists, including political scientists, work on their theoretical constructs and argue that they can make equal cases for political dynasties being a force for social good, even as others make a case for these being social evils. I do not question the possibility that dynasties can be benign and prove helpful to a people. I will accept that probably there are examples in history the distant and the recent, of families that benefited a whole population by staying in power and introducing stability to a population.
However, we need to deal with our current realities and our experiences with the phenomenon of Filipino political dynasties. The original anti-dynasty bill several years back may well have targeted the Binays of Makati. But the Binays are only one of the obvious targets. They are not the sole targets. Our official history, incomplete to be sure, and many times inaccurate, records all kinds of socially, economically and politically powerful families, acting solely or in collaboration, that dictated what happened in municipalities, districts, provinces, regions, and even the nation through their collaboration in Congress.
We have heard the names, like Osmena and Duranos in Cebu; the Arroyos at one time and then the Lopez brothers of Iloilo; in Negros, the dynasts were more socio-economic rather than political but they, too, were known to support certain politicians. There were the Romuladezes of Leyte; and the Teveses of Negros Oriental. And there were the Muslim overlords in Mindanao – names like Kiram, Ututalum, Pendatun and Alonto. In Luzon, we heard of the Crisologos and Singsons of Ilocos Sur; the Montanos of Cavite; the Lazatins of Pampangga; the Cojuangcos of Tarlac; the Romans of Bataan; and the Reyeses and the Santoses of Bulacan. When one observed the political turnstiles, we see how family members take turns in occupying the office.
To be fair, many of these families initially did a lot of good for the people they served. A number of family members were known not to have abused their position. Many of those families are still there but are no longer considered dynasties. They are just “well-situated”. It has been pointed out that while people benefited, the family benefited even more.
What made these powerful families remain as powerful as they had?
The shift to the “dynasties-as-evil” phenomenon came with the Marcos-Romualdez reign. Marcos was probably the most intelligent and far-thinking President we ever sat in office. He parlayed his skills to build political, economic and social capital, and once seated, worked to increase all of those. Assured of his popularity with a re-election, he then connived with his cabal to consolidate his hold on the country by declaring martial law. Within this context, he was able to do what he wanted, but always cloaked in legality. The allies who worked with him were given the chance to develop their own fiefdoms, their own satrapies, their own dynasties.
The Marcos-Romualdez alliance developed the first of the deep dynasties – family members holding appointive positions in many sectors and elective positions in many layers of government. Through various means he managed to hold a nation in thrall as he used various means of securing agreement or negating dissent. Ferdinand’s dreams fell apart as the illusion of prodigious Philippine growth development melted away, at first slowly, then with gathering speed, and the lies were revealed.
Marcos is no longer in power, though the rest of the family is around, unrepentant, defiant, eager to re-establish itself. But the family’s resurrection into prominence isn’t “Ferdinand’s Revenge”. His revenge is the way he has corrupted the minds of even some of the best of us, people who spoke the right sentiments when in rebellion against him and his cabal, but who were astute students of the cabal’s ways and means.
These people, given the opportunity, built their own empires. They got either appointed or elected into positions of power and influence from where they built their political, social and economic networks. Instead of dismantling the mechanisms of abuse they retained and improved them, drawing more resources than even the Marcos cabal did. Today we have the Binays, the Revillas, the Remulas, the Ejercitos, the Ampatuans; and there are many more that have chosen to stay regional and provincial but dynastic nonetheless.
They used existing laws and prevalent cultural values. Our current cultural norms, rooted in agrarian society and feudal systems, in confluence with the poverty of our people to ensure a system where powerful politicians can distribute ill-gotten largesse, handing these out freely, promising more benefits while keeping people in a state of false hopes.
The system of providing patronage through “KBL” – kasal, binyag, libing (marriage, baptism and burial) – gifts and contributions help the poor, as do helping them get jobs; subsidized basic but substandard education; subsidized health services; birthday cakes plus a P1,000 gift; free movies for seniors, etc. But the social costs are clear to those who would understand.
We need to change our corrupted system. It will be a steep uphill battle. But fight it we must, for our self-respect and dignity as a people, and especially for our children and grandchildren who will inherit all these.
dy·nas·ty(dī′nə-stē)n.pl.dy·nas·ties
1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.
[Middle English dynastie, from Old French; from Late Latin dynastī, lordship; from Greek dunasteia, from dunastēs, lord; see dynast.]
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Political+dynasty]
Some social scientists, including political scientists, work on their theoretical constructs and argue that they can make equal cases for political dynasties being a force for social good, even as others make a case for these being social evils. I do not question the possibility that dynasties can be benign and prove helpful to a people. I will accept that probably there are examples in history the distant and the recent, of families that benefited a whole population by staying in power and introducing stability to a population.
However, we need to deal with our current realities and our experiences with the phenomenon of Filipino political dynasties. The original anti-dynasty bill several years back may well have targeted the Binays of Makati. But the Binays are only one of the obvious targets. They are not the sole targets. Our official history, incomplete to be sure, and many times inaccurate, records all kinds of socially, economically and politically powerful families, acting solely or in collaboration, that dictated what happened in municipalities, districts, provinces, regions, and even the nation through their collaboration in Congress.
We have heard the names, like Osmena and Duranos in Cebu; the Arroyos at one time and then the Lopez brothers of Iloilo; in Negros, the dynasts were more socio-economic rather than political but they, too, were known to support certain politicians. There were the Romuladezes of Leyte; and the Teveses of Negros Oriental. And there were the Muslim overlords in Mindanao – names like Kiram, Ututalum, Pendatun and Alonto. In Luzon, we heard of the Crisologos and Singsons of Ilocos Sur; the Montanos of Cavite; the Lazatins of Pampangga; the Cojuangcos of Tarlac; the Romans of Bataan; and the Reyeses and the Santoses of Bulacan. When one observed the political turnstiles, we see how family members take turns in occupying the office.
To be fair, many of these families initially did a lot of good for the people they served. A number of family members were known not to have abused their position. Many of those families are still there but are no longer considered dynasties. They are just “well-situated”. It has been pointed out that while people benefited, the family benefited even more.
What made these powerful families remain as powerful as they had?
The shift to the “dynasties-as-evil” phenomenon came with the Marcos-Romualdez reign. Marcos was probably the most intelligent and far-thinking President we ever sat in office. He parlayed his skills to build political, economic and social capital, and once seated, worked to increase all of those. Assured of his popularity with a re-election, he then connived with his cabal to consolidate his hold on the country by declaring martial law. Within this context, he was able to do what he wanted, but always cloaked in legality. The allies who worked with him were given the chance to develop their own fiefdoms, their own satrapies, their own dynasties.
The Marcos-Romualdez alliance developed the first of the deep dynasties – family members holding appointive positions in many sectors and elective positions in many layers of government. Through various means he managed to hold a nation in thrall as he used various means of securing agreement or negating dissent. Ferdinand’s dreams fell apart as the illusion of prodigious Philippine growth development melted away, at first slowly, then with gathering speed, and the lies were revealed.
Marcos is no longer in power, though the rest of the family is around, unrepentant, defiant, eager to re-establish itself. But the family’s resurrection into prominence isn’t “Ferdinand’s Revenge”. His revenge is the way he has corrupted the minds of even some of the best of us, people who spoke the right sentiments when in rebellion against him and his cabal, but who were astute students of the cabal’s ways and means.
These people, given the opportunity, built their own empires. They got either appointed or elected into positions of power and influence from where they built their political, social and economic networks. Instead of dismantling the mechanisms of abuse they retained and improved them, drawing more resources than even the Marcos cabal did. Today we have the Binays, the Revillas, the Remulas, the Ejercitos, the Ampatuans; and there are many more that have chosen to stay regional and provincial but dynastic nonetheless.
They used existing laws and prevalent cultural values. Our current cultural norms, rooted in agrarian society and feudal systems, in confluence with the poverty of our people to ensure a system where powerful politicians can distribute ill-gotten largesse, handing these out freely, promising more benefits while keeping people in a state of false hopes.
The system of providing patronage through “KBL” – kasal, binyag, libing (marriage, baptism and burial) – gifts and contributions help the poor, as do helping them get jobs; subsidized basic but substandard education; subsidized health services; birthday cakes plus a P1,000 gift; free movies for seniors, etc. But the social costs are clear to those who would understand.
We need to change our corrupted system. It will be a steep uphill battle. But fight it we must, for our self-respect and dignity as a people, and especially for our children and grandchildren who will inherit all these.
* * *
The author teaches at the Asian Institute of Management and consults with business, government – civilian, police and military–, not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations in the Philippines and abroad, and has worked as line manager in all four sectors.
Published in
Commentaries
Categories
Archives
Comments
-
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've…
Written by Merrill
on Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:35
Incompetence Kills
(LML Polettiques)
Newsletter Subscription
PARTNERS:
Contact Us
+63 (82)222-2771 Davao
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
3rd floor Metro Lifestyle Complex Building,
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
5F 501 Taipan Place Don F. Ortigas
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
