The problem with all the outrage is that the outraged people have never had to move hundreds of tons of goods hundreds of miles without the benefit of the pan philippine highway. This makes the outrage of slowness more of a gut reaction rather than an examination of the physical constraints that the men and women of the government/military have to deal with. As highlighted by Winnie Monsod. Did you really think you could have done better? If you did well you probably have a healthy self worth. What our nation needs to heal is a truth commission like post mortem for us to understand what we could have done better and what we did wrong. As an aside, Notice the lack of outrage from veterans of calamities far smaller than Haiyan. Mr Peque Gallaga/Mr Anderson do not forget the physical constraints. Mr President do not forget that sometimes people just need to know somebody is in charge.
GDP growth driven by corruption? | The Manila Times Online
The reason elections here are so expensive [“election spending always has a big impact on GDP”] is because many candidates buy votes in order to achieve a pork barrel “jackpot,” otherwise why would they be so expensive as to impact GDP? I wonder if the candidates do an economic evaluation of the likelihood and size of the return on the investment in vote buying against the reward of the pork barrel allocation and the other benefits that they get? It can be no wonder that people get shot, and why in a well ordered state would Ms. Naploes be in fear of her life for exposing corruption or 90 percent of the murders of the many Filipino journalists exposing corruption have complete impunity?
The Philippines is over-politicized to a paralyzing extent and political power and the money that goes with it is a much sought after prize, once obtained don’t let it go, hence the dynasties. Political motivation is all about grabbing money and power whatever it takes and not as it should be to selflessly serve the people. To do any form of economic development here requires political patronage and there are usually other politicians and oligarchs pulling in opposite directions because they want it for themselves, thus paralysis. Of course you might say the same about China and other places but the difference here is that there an oversupply of selfishness, there is no sanction on the abuse of power and worse there is not even an appreciation of the need for [or is it the capability to actually implement?] sanctions on such abuse.
The dependence of the Philippine economy on its domestic capital market and “hot money” [which adds nothing to development] is fast becoming absolute and that is a very bad thing indeed. Is it really the nature of Philippines political class to be the “most selfish and culpable in Asia” as I read recently in a new book on economics in the region? I think that would be a tag that the Philippines really would like to dispense with and to do that requires a drastic wholehearted overhaul of the political and economic system. Discretionary funds obviously have to go and a full range of politicians need to be appointed by votes that are not bought and who actually want to serve the people and not themselves. Only then will the Philippines be “open for business.” Oh, and we need a bit of effective anti-trust legislation that is made to work, an executive branch of government that is properly paid and works to implement the law even-handedly rather than spending its time discussing regulatory dots and commas, a proper social security system, an effective rule of law and lots more real decent jobs, and a few more bits and pieces. And this list is not to achieve perfection or some form of ideal society it is just in order to make the Philippines a place that once again appears on investors radar screens as a place where you really can “do business.” Perhaps it’s just too much to ask?
via GDP growth driven by corruption? | The Manila Times Online.
‘I fought for my country, not for any race’ | Free Malaysia Today
Asked to comment on current politics, Yuen expressed his disappointment that some groups ignore the fact that all Malaysian races fought for the nation’s independence. He was vehement in his criticism of certain individuals who, he said, were refusing to recognise the importance of national unity.
“Calling others pendatang—what sort of mentality is this? We all were together during the war. There was no such thing as Malay, Chinese and Indians during the emergency period. But now, after the war, some people are questioning the right of others to call this country their own or to question their loyalty.
“What did these people do during the war? If not because of pendatangs like me, Tanah Melayu sudah habis. Even the non-Malays who did not join the army or police played a very vital role. They did not offer any information to the communists. These people too should be recognised. They risked their lives in not collaborating with the communists.
Yuen revealed that when he joined the police, the British had yet to give him citizenship.
“When I was shot in Grik, I had yet to receive my citizenship, but I did not complain. I could have died in the war, but I fought for my country, not for any race.
“We need strong leaders to say enough is enough with racism—as well as corruption.
“If the situation does not change, I am afraid that our dream of a harmonious country will remain a dream. In the spirit of Merdeka, let us all unite.”
via ‘I fought for my country, not for any race’ | Free Malaysia Today.
rePost::Pork by any name | Vera Files
Pork by any name
AUGUST 23, 2013
By YVONNE T. CHUA and BOOMA B. CRUZ
(Note: The excerpt on the history of pork barrel in the Philippines was written by VERA Files trustees Yvonne T. Chua and Booma Cruz in 2004 for the book, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.)
WHETHER they come in large or small amounts, pork barrel allocations have generated a lot of controversy since they were first introduced in the Philippines in 1922. In 1925, Senate Minority Leader Juan Sumulong stunned colleagues when, standing on a question of privilege, he charged that the ruling party had “misused public funds in the form of pork barrel appropriations.”
Legislators and citizens alike who have lobbied for the abolition — or at least the taming — of pork barrel over the years have proffered other reasons, ranging from the inequitable distribution of funds among the legislative districts and congressmen overstepping their mandate to make laws, to the failure of pork barrel-funded projects to respond to development needs, to the use of pork as a tool for political patronage.
But many have come to the defense of pork barrel legislation as well. Just like cholesterol, there is bad pork and good pork, they say. Without pork barrel, goes their argument, most of the countryside would have been neglected by the national government, being remote from the seat of power to wield much influence.
Pork barrel, or simply pork, refers to appropriations and favors obtained by a representative for his or her district. G. Luis Igaya of the Institute for Popular Democracy defines pork barrel legislation as “any attempt by Congress to divert national funds directly into their districts whether it be in the form of public works (such as highways or bridges), social services (such as education funds or public school buildings), or special projects (such as livelihood programs or community development projects).”
The difference between pork barrel and ordinary expenditures, explains Igaya, lies chiefly in the manner it is obtained. “Whereas the share of line agency budgets is based on annual financial reports,” he says, “pork barrel shares are based on lobbying efforts between and among members of Congress itself. Whoever can flex the strongest political muscle usually gets the largest share.”
The district funds are discretionary in nature. This means it is up to each congressman or senator to identify the projects of their pork barrel allocation and the beneficiaries. On too many occasions, however, lawmakers have exceeded their discretion, going as far as picking even the project contractors and suppliers.
American origins
Pork barrel has American origins. In 1823, the U.S. Congress enacted the first appropriation for rivers and harbors for the different states, promptly drawing criticisms from opponents that it was purely political in purpose. The measure was branded pork barrel legislation, supposedly after a pre-Civil War custom in the U.S. South in which landowners set aside a definite portion of pork salted in barrels for their black slaves. In 1919 a U.S political pundit wrote, “Oftentimes, the eagerness of the slaves would result in a rush upon the pork barrel, in which each would strive to grab as much as possible for himself. Members of Congress, in their rush to get their local appropriations…behaved so much like Negro slaves rushing to the pork barrel.” (Parreno 1998)
Other texts meantime suggest that the term “pork barrel” originated from a practice of American farmers who preserved pork in barrels in anticipation of the hardships of winter, when the pork is shared with their needy neighbors. A third version says the term simply comes from the old adage, “Bring home the bacon.”
By the time the notion of pork barrel rolled into the Philippines, it was already 1922. That was when a public works act separate from the general appropriations act (GAA) was first passed. It didn’t take long, however, before the Philippine version of the pork barrel acquired a sleazy sheen, no thanks to the shenanigans of legislators.
Act 3044, the first pork barrel appropriation, essentially divided public works projects into two types. The first type—national and other buildings, roads and bridges in provinces, and lighthouses, buoys and beacons, and necessary mechanical equipment of lighthouses—fell directly under the jurisdiction of the director of public works, for which his office received appropriations. The second group—police barracks, normal school and other public buildings, and certain types of roads and bridges, artesian wells, wharves, piers and other shore protection works, and cable, telegraph, and telephone lines—is the forerunner of the infamous pork barrel.
Although the projects falling under the second type were to be distributed at the discretion of the secretary of commerce and communications, he needed prior approval from a joint committee elected by the Senate and House of Representatives. The nod of either the joint committee or a committee member it had authorized was also required before the commerce and communications secretary could transfer unspent portions of one item to another item.
Pork barrel took on a somewhat different form in 1950. First, the public work act passed that year ended the practice of releasing the amount in lump sum, meaning the law did not specify projects. Second, it transferred the discretion of choosing projects from the secretary of commerce and communications to legislators. For the first time, the law carried a list of projects selected by members of Congress, they “being the representatives of the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders.”
In an apparent bid to make pork barrel more palatable, Congress also segregated the legislative-sponsored projects from other items in the public works act and christened them “community projects”— “miscellaneous community projects” for projects of congressmen and “nationwide selected projects” for those of the senators—and then “short-term rural progress projects under the socio-economic program.”
During this period, the pork barrel process began with local government councils, civil groups, and individuals asking congressmen or senators for projects through formal resolutions or verbal communications. Petitions that were accommodated formed part of a legislator’s allocation. The majority then convened a caucus, which determined the amount each legislator would get. The amount was built into the administration bill prepared by the Department of Public Works and Communications (DPWC), although the pork barrel section was left unfilled but for the words “to be inserted in the House…” The Senate and the House of Representatives then added their own provisions to the bill until it was signed into law, the Public Works Act, by the president.
Interest groups pushed for the funds’ release as soon as the law got approved, even though the president still got to decide when to release the money. When funds were approved for release, the budget commissioner transmitted an allotment advice to the DPWC, which in turn routed a sub-allotment advice to the city or district engineer. The engineer’s officer would then inspect the site, prepare a program of work, and schedule construction either by the department or private contractors or, in some cases, by barrio councils, parent-teacher associations, or civic organizations.
Martial-law pork
Public work acts lasted a good 50 years, interrupted only by the outbreak of war in 1942, and then in the mid-1960s, when stalemate between the House of Representatives and the Senate resulted in no pork barrel legislation getting passed. Martial law was another pork barrel legislation spoiler, pulling the plug on it, albeit only temporarily. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa introduced a new item in the annual general appropriations act’s National Aid to Local Government Units: the Support for Local Development Projects or SLDP.
Journalist Belinda Olivarez-Cunanan would write three years later, “The SLDP is closest thing that today’s assemblymen have to the controversial pork barrel fund of the old glory days. In fact, the SLDP may be said to be truly one of the carryover practices from the old Congress, which contradicts the claim of the Batasan to being the parliamentary system based not on patronage, but on programs and principles.”
Each assemblyman received P500,000 in SLDP. But pork barrel items no longer just came under the form of public works projects, or “hard” projects as they are called these days. Sure, legislators still allocated their SLDP to capital outlays and infrastructure projects like schoolhouses, municipal buildings, roads, and the like. But they also used the money for what are now known as “soft projects”– the purchase of medicines, fertilizers, fumigants and insecticides, paints, and sports equipment, or for scholarships for constituents.
The SLDP worked this way: The assemblyman expressed his project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management, which had been delegated by the Office of the President to approve projects. The MBM, in turn, released the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Governments, which would issue the checks to the city or municipal treasurers in the assemblyman’s constituency, who then paid project suppliers.
Enter Cory’s CDF
Four years after the fall of Ferdinand Marcos and the return of democracy, President Corazon Aquino restored the pork barrel of members of Congress. But it was rechristened “Countrywide Development Fund” or CDF. Pork was to go by that name for the next eight years.
As in pork’s initial years, the budget provided just a lump sum. Beginning 1992, however, amid widespread clamor among congressmen for equitable distribution, the General Appropriations Act (GAA) adopted the Batasang Pambansa’s practice of allocating members of Congress equal amounts. Initially, each congressman got P12.5 million and each senator P18 million.
Basically, no limitation was made on the legislators’ CDF-funded projects. A congressman or senator could identify any kind of project, from hard or infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and buildings to soft projects such as textbooks for schools, medicines to each household, scholarships for constituents and financial support to some seminar.
But the CDF was by no means the only type of pork the lawmakers could partake of. During his administration, Fidel V. Ramos, a minority president, fashioned other forms in an attempt to ensure continued support for his legislative agenda from Congress. Among these were the Public Works Fund, restored in 1996; School building Fund; Congressional Initiative Allocation or CIA; El Niño Fund; and the Poverty Alleviation Fund.
By and large, members of Congress do not acknowledge the School building Fund as pork barrel, but a special provision of the GAA clearly marks it as such: “The allocation of demountable school building shall be made upon prior consultation with the representative of the legislative district concerned.” Ramos restored the School building Program, which was administered by the education department during Aquino’s time, to the Department of PublicWorks and Highways in 1995 upon the strong lobbying of members of Congress. Close to P5 billion was appropriated that year for this purpose.
Congressional Initiative Allocations were not clearly provided in GAAs. Rather, they were items inserted to the budget of a government agency through the negotiations with the Speaker and the chairman of the appropriations committee. Legislators had the power to direct how, where, and when these particular appropriations were to be spent. Most of the funds were contained in the budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Education, Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Department of Health.
CIAs ran into billions of pesos as well. At one point, they even reached as much P28 billion, according to some accounts. But since they formed part and parcel of the budgets of executive departments, they were not easily identifiable and were thus harder to monitor. Those who knew the most about the insertions were the lawmakers themselves, the finance and budget officials of the implementing agency, and the Department of Budget and Management.
From CDF to PDAF
When he campaigned for the presidency, Joseph Estrada vowed to abolish pork barrel, which by then had been swirling in controversy after controversy. But once he got into office, the former action-film star did not entirely scrap the legislators’ discretionary funds. He simply changed the system, taking pains to remove only the CDF-type of pork barrel and retaining the rest, such as the School building Fund and the CIAs. He even added his own type of pork barrel, the Lingap para sa Mahirap Program.
Estrada at first sought to limit the use of district funds to only hard projects, and created the Rural Development Infrastructure Fund or RUDIF, a facility that was exactly the same creature as the Public Works Fund. Each congressman was supposed to receive P30 million, but the amount was merely a gentlemen’s agreement. The 1999 national budget carried no special provision that indicated the amount each congressman would get, leaving legislators at the mercy of the executive branch, namely Estrada.
Clamoring for the restoration of funds for soft projects, Congress successfully lobbied for a share of P2.5 billion Lingap para sa Mahirap Fund, which was supposed to be channeled to poor families in the form of a package of assistance, including food, nutrition and medical assistance; price support for rice and corn; protective services for children and youth; rural waterworks; socialized housing; and livelihood development. The congressmen gained two-thirds control of the fund for their so-called projects.
Then came the comeback of the CDF – or as then President Estrada preferred to call it, the Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF. Given a ballooning budget deficit and rising criticism against pork at the time, though, a trade-off was inevitable: Legislators lost some of their discretionary power. Under the new system, at least on paper, congressmen would identify projects from a narrow set of project categories determined by the executive.
Today, the PDAF is still very much around. So are other special-purpose funds, especially the Public Works Fund and the School Building Fund.
Tagged pork barrel
– See more at: http://verafiles.org/pork-by-any-name/#sthash.vqDLE3fI.dpuf
via Pork by any name | Vera Files.
Up close and personal
Dare I say that people this stupid reach the supreme court means that the best barristers are not worth their salt.
Fixed positions?
It was apparent, though, that many of the justices have made up their minds. And some of the justices no longer seemed interested as they left the session hall for extended periods.
Abad is the frontline RH law buster while Justices Teresita de Castro and Jose Perez look like a back-up duo although they are civil and far less strident.
Since the third round of oral arguments, when Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza opened the arguments for the RH law, Abad never seemed satisfied with any of the answers of the pro-RH law counsels. He is totally against the law because, mainly, it supposedly allows abortifacients and it opens the floodgates to promiscuity by promoting contraceptives which is equal to encouraging “sex without responsibility” and requiring public schools to conduct sex education.
Abad has the tendency to reduce issues to absurd levels. Here’s an example. Abad told Cayetano: “Your solution to 5,000 maternal deaths a year is to provide IUDs to 23 million women of childbearing age and put them at risk because IUDs have a high possibility of causing cancer…So this is your answer?” He then added that his first wife died of cancer.
via Up close and personal.
Why Binay was never Binay, of false promises never to be kept and the Filipino fooled again.
Place holder for my post on development of makati and the promise of Binay
Did Najib lie to the nation? | Free Malaysia Today
According to the Manila Accord signed on July 31, 1963 and registered in the United Nations as document No. 8029, then Malayan deputy prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein (late father of the present Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak) met up with foreign minister Dr Subandrio of Indonesia, and vice-president Emmanuel Pelaez of the Philippines in Manila for five days from June 7 to 11, 1963, to discuss about the status of Sabah.
Consequently, it was agreed in writing by former Malayan prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman together with president Soekarno of Indonesia and president Diosdado Macapagal of the Philippines in paragraph 12 thereof:
“The Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippines’ claim to North Borneo. The ministers took note of the Philippines’ claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of the pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder. Moreover, in the context of their close association, the three countries agreed to exert their best endeavours to bring the claim to a just and expeditious solution by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties’ own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the Bandung Declaration.”
Subsequently on Aug 5, 1963 in a joint statement released to international media, the same also agreed in writing under paragraph 8 thereof:
“In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Manila Accord, the three Heads of Government decided to request the British Government to agree to seek a just and expeditious solution to the dispute between the British Government and the Philippines Government concerning Sabah (North Borneo) by means of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of the parties’ own choice in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. The three Heads of Government take cognizance of the position regarding the Philippines claim to Sabah (North Borneo) after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia as provided under paragraph 12 of the Manila Accord, that is, that the inclusion of Sabah (North Borneo) in the Federation of Malaysia does not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder.”
It was undoubtedly stated from the above provisions of the Manila Accord and joint statement that:
the inclusion of Sabah into the formation of Malaysia is subject to the Philippines claim; and
the Philippines’ claim on Sabah must be settled in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) run by the United Nations.
Therefore, until such time when the ICJ has decided, Malaysia does not have absolute ownership of Sabah.
Yesterday, Najib made the following statement at a press conference in Lahad Datu: “The question of Sabah within Malaysia should not be disputed by anyone. Let not anyone underestimate Malaysia’s commitment to have Sabah within Malaysia forever. No one can dispute this, from within and outside the country. We will uphold the principle and fact of Sabah within Malaysia absolutely”.
Now, with the involvement of the two late former prime ministers of Malaysia – Tunku Abdul Rahman and Abdul Razak Hussein – in the Manila Accord and joint statement which contained straightforward and unambiguous stipulations, the question that begged to be answered now is: why did Najib lie to the whole nation without even blinking his eyes?
By refusing to honour the Manila Accord and backtracking on the joint statement, has Najib not figuratively slapped the Philippines and Indonesia which were signatories to the historic documents?
Internationally, is Najib not telling the whole world, especially foreign investors, that what Malaysia agrees and signs at any time may not be fulfilled or respected at Malaysia’s whims and fancies?
How are Malaysians going to face anyone overseas when our own prime minister has made us the butt of jokes and the laughing stock of the world?
Effectively, he has also slapped each and every Malaysian who has an ounce of dignity.
The writer is a former Sabah tour operator; loves food and speed; and blogs at http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters. The opinion and interpretation heretofore contained are exclusively his alone.
via Did Najib lie to the nation? | Free Malaysia Today.
High Ground and The Sultanate: A squandered chance
fun fact: Population of SABAH 3 Million
Filipinos in SABAH 800k
Foreigners in SABAH 1.7 million
The Sulu Sultanate people should have focused on highlighting the humanitarian aspects of the Filipinos plight in sabah. In their simplistic quest to get a higher rent and their inadequacy in taking the moral high ground they have all but lost their cause.
If the sultanate chose to protect and demand rights for the 800k Filipinos in Sabah who have been lived in a state of uncertainty for decades.
If the sultanate only went beyond themselves and called for support from the international community in brokering a settlement that would not create 800,000 nation-less people who have known no home except Sabah.
If they used social media to shine a light on the indignities suffered by people whose illegal status creates a halo of distrust, fear, insurity and even enmity towards the forces of a government who do not recognize them and a government that cannot take care of them.
And yet for us to be called better men or even good people we must not be silent on the plight of people who believe hunger awaits them in the country we proudly call out own. To accept this judgement on the land we have chosen as our home and still fight for recognition for our lost countrymen is the only moral thing we can do.
MANILA: The majority, if not all, of the 800,000 Filipinos based in Sabah may be sent back to the Philippines on the premise that they had acquired their Malaysian citizenship illegally over the past 20 years under a controversial systematic granting of citizenship to foreigners dubbed Project IC (identity cards).
Project IC, which is blamed on former Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad, was said to be among the factors that led followers of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III to “invade” Sabah in February. Most of the Filipinos who benefited from the project in the past are Tausugs from the nearby islands of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.
from : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/11/800000-filipinos-may-be-sent-home/
rePost::Diaspora, a fatal disease | Inquirer Opinion
They are victims of a failed economy, as are those left behind who live in slums or in the streets. But the tragic thing is there is not enough concern among the “movers and shakers” of our wounded society, the ruling elite. They sleep the sleep of the smug in fortified communities guarded by private armies and attended by legions of servants, fearing any change in the status quo.
The late US President John F. Kennedy famously said, “To whom much is given, much is required.” In other words, those who are privileged have responsibilities, including lifting those below so they can rise from their knees. If our neighboring countries can emerge from the darkness of poverty to the light of progress, so can we. It is intolerable that we should accept this situation as “normal” and “inevitable.”
It is true that human exports bring in substantial amounts of foreign currency. But according to a study in 2008 by economist Ernesto Pernia, “extreme reliance on money from Filipinos overseas hasn’t helped the country get out of the poverty rut and may even hobble the poor’s income capability.”
This is backed by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas figures. According to a news report quoting the BSP (Feb. 15, 2013), fund transfers or cash remittances from overseas Filipinos (OF) transacted through bank channels amounted to $21.4 billion in 2012, accounting for only 8.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 6.5 percent of gross national income (GNI).
Hence, 91.5 percent of GDP and 93.5 percent of GNI are still contributed by 90 percent of left-behind Filipinos, proportionately more than the contributions of the 10 percent of OF. The mainstay of the local economy is still domestic labor.
Most studies by the United Nations and international groups find that the brain and brawn drain benefits the rich host-countries more than the poor countries from which the workers emanate.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) said in a paper in 1997: “Poorer countries invest an average of $50,000 of their painfully scarce resources in every university graduate—only to witness most of them emigrate to richer places. The haves-not thus end up subsidizing the haves by exporting their human capital, the prospective members of their dwindling elites, and the taxes they would have paid had they stayed put. The formation of a middle class is often irreversibly hindered by an all-pervasive brain drain.”
This is understandable because most of our OFWs are from the middle class that is able to send its members to universities. They are in demand by the rich technological societies. On the other hand, the lower class does not have the means to send its children to schools and colleges to obtain the required skills. It may send out drivers, construction workers, and housemaids, but their ability to pay the required recruitment fees is limited. They are also quickly sent back when their contracts expire. It is the educated migrants who normally remain in the host country to enjoy its higher living standards.
The ILO said that “among the countries in Asia and the Pacific, the biggest source of overseas workers is the Philippines, with 730,000 migrants [now estimated at ten million].” Of these, the great majority have a tertiary education. “The second largest stock of migrants is from China (400,000), which is split almost equally between the secondary and tertiary educational groups.” But labor migration from China has dwindled because of worker shortage at home.
Some perceptive statesmen deride labor migration as a global sickness. In a famous interview on state TV, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin described labor migrants as “a fallout of the jaded.” Added the ILO: “But in many impoverished countries, local kleptocracies welcome the brain drain as it also drains the country of potential political adversaries.”
This last sentence is significant. Labor migration became state policy in the mid-’70s when Ferdinand Marcos’ martial rule experienced a serious fiscal crisis in the wake of the global oil crisis that sent the costs of imported fuels spiraling following the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war.
To pay for our fuel imports, Marcos had the bright idea of sending our workers and technicians to the oil-rich Middle East to earn the needed dollars. The policy expanded to cover America, Europe and industrially emerging Asia, and also other professionals like doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers and nurses. It also served as an exit for the dissatisfied and disgruntled, who could have swelled the ranks of the communist and secessionist insurgencies.
Diaspora is to the nation as hemorrhage is to a person. If not stopped, it can lead to death. The ancient state of Israel died of this disease. It revived only after reverse migration. We can also revive our country by keeping our manual and intellectual workers on jobs here and recalling those abroad. We can do it, as others have done, through industrialization, modernization and self-reliance.
Manuel F. Almario is a veteran journalist and freelance writer. He is also spokesperson for the Movement of Truth in History (Rizal’s Moth). E-mail mfalmario@yahoo.com.
via Diaspora, a fatal disease | Inquirer Opinion.
rePost::Sabah as the last gold coin
Sabah as clutch
Sabah became their clutch when their own Sulu was sinking, so to speak, from the heavy weight of bloodshed that spiraled into poverty. Sabah became the vision of the last gold coin that could win back the possibility of rising again, getting back the worth of a name, the venerable House of Kiram. Many in the family have dispersed from Sulu and quarrels abound.
It seems rather ironic that many of those who followed Datu Agimodin Jamalul Kiram in last Thursday’s standoff in Sabah came from the island-town of Simunul in Tawi-Tawi province, a hop away from the Malaysian state of Sabah. Tawi-Tawi had separated administratively from Sulu province in the 1980s; this and the other islands of the southern archipelago, as far as Palawan, had formed the sultanate’s domain.
It was there where the Philippine military had secretly recruited mostly illiterate Muslims to stage allegedly an internal disturbance that was meant to give the government the upper hand in reclaiming Sabah, by force if necessary. This blew up into a political scandal known as the “Jabidah Massacre,” an event the military has not owned up to until today, but it has remained an open secret, a stigma on the deaths of some Muslim recruits who tried to mutiny.
This was said to be the crucial factor that sparked the Muslim separatist rebellion in the early 1970s, whose leaders were a brand of ‘activists’, as the Moro National Liberation Front was called, that did not want anything to do with the influence of the royal structures of the past and received clandestine support from Malaysia. The Sulu capital of Jolo was burned to the ground when the military quashed an uprising 39 years ago this month, and the island has sunk even further more, with peace hardly reached in the running insurgency since then.
As it goes, it’s a tale of one army after another; this time we hear of this, the Royal Sulu Sultanate Army – but it’s nowhere near the warriors of the sultanate’s golden age in the 17th and 18th centuries. What we have these days underlies, sadly, the foretold misery of Sulu. – Rappler.com
via Sabah as the last gold coin.