WHAT IS 'BANGUNGOT'?

 By Ba Ipe

THE middleman named by the alleged gunman of Percy Lapid was said to have died of “bangungot” in the afternoon of Oct. 18 (or Oct. 13?). Bangungot is officially called “sudden unexplained nocturnal death,” or SUNDs. As its name implies, the deaths happen in the evening. It is unexplained because it could not be ascribed to specific causes. In 1992, I went to the U.S. to attend a conference in one of the islands that composed the state of Hawaii. It was a tiring trip and conference, but the positive side was that I happened to read a scientific paper of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu that explained SUNDs.

According to the paper, SUNDs happen to the young people in Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Victims are usually male, aged 15-30 years, and they die while sleeping. According to the paper, the study further delved into the reasons why SUNDs happened to certain cases. It found out that the common denominator was the victims’ diet comprising of heavy intake of salt and fats. It found out that fish sauce, or “patis,” was the culprit. Patis has certain enzymes that cause the short circuiting of the heart’s impulses leading to heart attacks among its victims. In countries that heavily consume soy sauce instead of fish sauce like Japan, Korea, and China, SUNDs hardly happen.

By inference, the middleman, Crisanto Villamor, 42, could not have died of SUNDs because his death happened in 2 or 3 pm. There could be another reason for his sudden death but certainly not bangungot, which happens in the deep of the night. This is a case worth investigating and top PNP officials involved in the case should look carefully into the case. Incoming Bucor chief Greg Catapang can provide the healthy environment for the proper probe. Outgoing Bucor chief Gerald Bantag and his men deserve inclusion in the probe to explain their side why the sudden death of the middleman occurred while they were in office.

‘MR. SHOOLI’ GOES ONLINE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Blame it to the pandemic.

Veteran comedian, director, and pundit Jun Urbano, aka “Mr. Shooli,” was doing nothing during the lockdown arising from the pandemic caused by the so-called China-Duterte Virus (or Covid-19) when he had thought of reviving the famed “Mongolian Barbecue,” the TV satire program of the 1980s.

“Wala akong ginagawa (I was doing nothing). I was unhappily retired,” Mr. Urbano says when asked what has motivated him to revive the TV satire program and Mr. Shooli, the loquacious but intelligent main character of that TV program.

Mr. Urbano says he wants to contribute his share to the national discourse on nagging issues confronting the country, but “I do not want to lecture.” That is the reason he had thought of bringing back Mr. Shooli to the public limelight. He has decided to talk through Mr. Shooli.

But reviving Mongolian Barbecue and bringing back Mr. Shooli to public consciousness were easier said than done. No TV network was willing to gamble on a TV program that has been out of public view for three decades. The commercial aspect was too obvious to ignore.

Besides, Mr. Urbano admits he is now 81. Young people, or the –so-called “millennials,” hardly know him. They have a vague idea of Mr. Shooli, the character whom he had created when he was 50 years old. But he is determined to reintroduce himself to the new audience by being truthful and politically correct. He knows he is on the right side of history.

Mr. Urbano admits he has no big money to spend for the return of his baby. The only choice is to go online, where production cost is much lower. Why not tap cyberspace for this new venture? It appears to be the perfect communications platform for its revival.

When friends have learned of his project either by reading his post or word of mouth, friends from various walks of life came to his rescue. Showing the much vaunted spirit of volunteerism among kindred spirits, they have volunteered their services – mostly free – to ensure its return on a new medium and platform in the cyberspace.

For instance, veteran music composer and arranger Nonong Buencamino, also a social media denizen, has volunteered to compose a jingle – free of charge – for the program. Mr. Buencamino has composed a new jingle, of which Mr. Urbano was already satisfied, but says he is not satisfied, as he intends to produce a “better one,” according to Urbano.

Friends of his sons have volunteered the use of production equipment – also free of charge, lessening the burden of initial outlay. He had heard several offers, including its marketing from his friends in the advertising industry. In the past, Mr. Urbano directed commercials under the auspices of those advertising agencies, which had corporate clients.

Mr. Urbano says he would not digress from the old formula that had made Mongolian Barbecue a successful TV program during the days when Cory Aquino dismantled the Marcos dictatorship and provided a much wider democratic space for the living arts. The revived Mr. Shooli would address the burning issues, including controversial political, economic, and social issues.

Mr. Shooli intends to inject humor in the program. Since the revived program is still having birth pains in this age of the pandemic and social media, Mr. Urbano says netizens would see the program being dominated by him. He intends to bring old characters like sidekick Kuhol in later episodes, as the revived program takes root in its new platform in the cyberspace.

The revived Mongolian Barbecue would have its maiden episode on Sunday (Nov. 1) on Youtube. They have yet to set the time.

Jun Urbano’s politics is essentially left-of-center. Since his days at the Ateneo University, where he completed his elementary, high school, and college education (he finished journalism), Urbano had come to relish and appreciate the value of public criticisms and the importance of instituting changes. Politics has been a staple stuff even in old Mongolian Barbecue and Mr. Shooli as its lead character did not hesitate to criticize and pontificate at times.

Mr. Shooli had blinded objects of his criticisms with his unrestrained combination of science and humor, endearing him to the TV audience. He had mocked and laughed at genuinely powerful people and those despicable characters, pretenders, and hangers-on who kept on strutting along the corridors of power.

Mr. Urbano feels the Filipino people are hungry for these stuff. They have not lost their sense of humor despite the grueling challenges of the pandemic and inept rule of the current leadership. While saying he was not that partisan, he has likened politicians to a series of tropical storms, which keep on coming over.

“Parang mga bagyo ang mga pulitiko. Mananalasa at maninira, at aalis. Pero eto na naman ang panibagong bagyo (Politicians are like storms, which come to destroy and leave),” Mr. Urbano says, as he expressed dismay over the vicious cycle of underperforming politicians. “Kanya-kanyang bata sa pulitika dito (it’s politics of patronage here).”

Mr. Urbano is aware that his new project could meet resistance from people with whom he did not see eye-to-eye. But being truthful has its own dividends, he says. He is hopeful that commercial sponsors would come to help the program to expand and stay in its new platform.

As Jun Urbano embarks on a new venture rightfully at the sunset of his life, he could not help but feel that staying at home and doing nothing at the height of a pandemic had its own virtue, bliss, and reward. The rebirth of his old baby is forthcoming.

13Santos Jr Pangilinan, Teng Montalbo and 11 others

WILL IT BE SARA OR BONG GO?

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

LET’S leave temporarily the issue of the pandemic brought by the China-Duterte Virus. Let’s talk about the 2022 presidential elections – and its dynamics.

Frequent questions: Whom will the Davao Group field in 2022? Will it be Bong Go or Sara Duterte?

It has been observed that the Davao Group has been posturing as if it owns the Philippines and the ruling coalition. It believes and behaves as if everybody would listen and follow what it says down the line. Its monster attitude could be felt in the political scene.

But this issue would depend on the presidential health. If Rodrigo Duterte’s illness turns for the worst and dies before 2022 and Vice President Leni Robredo takes over, this issue could be out of the question. Neither Bong Go nor Sara would not run for the presidency.

But if everything turns well, which means no Duterte death, no RevGov, no federal shift, no military junta by coup or self-coup, or no major political cataclysm, and a relatively quiet political transition happens through the electoral process, we could expect the Davao Group to field its presidential candidate to perpetuate itself in power.

Political opinion differs on who has the better chance. Although both are dumb and could not be expected to provide any sense of political vision and direction, it is important to understand the Davao Group has almost limitless campaign funds to slug it out in 2022. The funds could come from legal and illegal means, or even from China, which has an increasing stake in the Philippines.

Nonetheless, they are substantial and could be expected to push either Sara or Bong Go to throw his hat into the political ring.

Anointment by Rodrigo Duterte is important. Sick and mad (this is shown by the fact he is programmed to curse and spew expletives every time he goes public), Rodrigo Duterte appears non-committal on whom to anoint. Publicly, he says he discourages Sara to run for president, but privately, he is said to be pushing her. Sara’s biggest problem is her political naivete.

Political operators, in search of doleouts, would congregate around her, but this is no assurance she stands a chance to win. Hr father could opt fo Bong Go because he has the perfect reputation for being an indispensable political operator, or fixer. Besides, China appears to favor him. He has been the perfect go-between to Duterte. China feels it has to reward the fixer.

The Davao Group may have the resources or the candidate in Sara ang Bong Go, but it has to understand that the political mood could change drastically in the run-up to 2022. The political pendulum may swing drastically to the other side.

Because of the gargantuan failure of the Davao Group and the ruling coalition to handle the pandemic, the economic recession has happened. The economic recession could lead to a thorough change in the public perception of the Davao Group.

Hence, the change could favor the candidate from Luzon or the Visayas, or from the ranks of the democratic forces. Besides, Mindanao is not a viable political base and the Davao Group could be adversely affected by the change of the political pendeulum.

Moreover, the Davao Group does not dominate the Mindanao Bloc. Other blocs could secede from the Davao Group and coalesce with political coalitions from Luzon and the Visayas.

Will it be Sara Duterte or Bong Go?

As neither looks politically viable, it could be said this question is totally irrelevant. Fielding either Bong Go or Sara is political suicide. It is best to forget it.

MORAL HIGH GROUND

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

CHOOSING the moral high ground instead of yielding to the lawmakers’ insatiable greed is proving to be the right course of action for the Lopez family. Their policy of complete reticence and total avoidance of any conversation, negotiation, and bargaining is reaping largely unseen but tangible dividends for the Lopezes.

When the government through Rodrigo Duterte, Alan Peter Cayetano, and the screaming trio of Rodante Marcoleta, Michael Defensor, and Crispin Remulla had applied pressures to negate efforts to enact the proposed franchise extension of ABS-CBN, the Lopezes had simply clamped down and avoided any talk or negotiation for a quid pro quo.

The lawmakers had salivated for grease money from the Lopezes, expecting they would earn a windfall from the franchise extension and ensure reelection in 2022. Bribery is their language in extending legislative favors to some vested interest. Until the last minute, they were hoping cash would freely flow from the Lopezes. But this family know their lessons – past and present, as they opted to exercise moral scruples instead.

While they are admittedly ruthless in the conduct of their businesses, they are not wild and careless. Although they are astute and could be compromising at times, they stick to fundamentals – which is doing business with a modicum of ethical standards.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers would have to wait for the promised “projects” by their captain – Polong Duterte. Will Polong deliver those projects, where they could skim millions of pesos to fund their reelection bids in 2022? That is everybody’s guess.

The government is definitely bankrupt. It has incurred enormous debts because of the ill-fated 100-day lockdown. It has to resort to deficit spending. The national government has incurred outstanding debts of P1.509 trillion for the first five months of 2020, data from the Bureau of Treasury show.

This amount is larger than the programmed borrowings of P1.4 trillion for the entire 2020. Taxes and other revenues are insufficient to support the 2020 national budget of P4.2 trillion. Hence, the national government has to resort to deficit spending, where a big part of the national budget has to be supported by domestic and foreign borrowings.

The overall debt of the national government has reached P8.9 trillion by end-May. This is projected to reach P9.7 trillion by end-2020, the economic managers have earlier indicated. Who knows it could reach P12 trillion by the end of Duterte’s term of office on June 30, 2022? This P12 trillion benchmark is double the almost P6.0 trillion, the amount when the Duterte took office on June 30, 2016. 

Obviously, the current leadership, or ruling clique, which is disparagingly referred as the “Inferior Davao,” does not understand fiscal discipline. It has spent without much accomplishments to show for the P275 billion, which Congress has allocated under the newly expired BAHO Law to meet the pandemic caused by the China-Duterte Virus.

It did not resort to mass testing and contact tracing. It did not have programs, plans, targets, and objectives. The number of infected persons continues to rise after the 100-day lockdown.

Incidentally, the P1.509 trillion in borrowings from local and foreign sources the Duterte administration has incurred for the first five months of 2020 is much bigger than the overall borrowings of the Noynoy Aquino administration for the period 2010-2016.

Noynoy Aquino, during his entire six-year term, had contracted a total of P1.366 trillion, data of the Bureau of Treasury show. His tenure of office could be heralded as an era of fiscal discipline. He left office in 2016 with the national government in sound financial position because of its enormous savings.

Duterte has the reason to justify the huge borrowing for the first five months, citing the pandemic. But the difference remains mind-boggling by all standards because Duterte does not have much to show achievements for the heavy borrowings. He could not even explain how the resources were spent. His once a week public appearance does not lead to any clear-cut explanation of whatever expenditures his administration did.

Going back to the Lopez family, this economic family does not have to close shop for the next two years. Its game plan is to wait for a new government, possibly a friendlier one, to seek a new franchise in 2022.

Still, the Lopezes have the elbow room – or ultimate flexibility – to reinvent and reengineer the TV giant to new directions. The franchise expiration could be the legitimate reason to shed excess fat like the expensive contract stars and unwanted pro-Duterte commentators.

Also, the Lopezes could use ABS-CBN for the mass migration of Filipino audience to the digital platform. As the TV giant exploits the use of digital technology for its programming, the Lopezes could discover new but untapped income streams to make its digital operations viable – or even profitable ultimately.

Meanwhile, Duterte would be reduced to a fumbling clown, who would keep parroting used and worn-out lines straight from the Ferdinand Marcos playbook. The Lopezes are oligarchs... yak... yak... yak... Who would believe him? Who’s the loser? 

COUNTERREVOLUTION AND TERRORISM IN THE PHILIPPINES

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

WHEN he took his oath four years ago as 17th president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte has launched a bloody war against illegal drugs that has later transformed into a counterrevolution against the historic 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution mainly to overthrow the liberal democratic government it has restored.

The 1986 EDSA Revolution ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos, dismantled the dictatorship that bled the country, and sent into exile the Marcoses and cronies who raided the national coffers. Corazon Aquino, leader of the democratic forces that destroyed the Marcos kleptocracy, worked for the 1987 Constitution and restored the constitutional democratic government to replace the dictatorship.

The Duterte presidency, in its first act of a burgeoning counterrevolution, has allied with two political families: the Marcoses and the Arroyos to form MAD (Marcos-Arroyo-Duterte axis). Mr. Duterte is uncomfortable with the 1986 EDSA Revolution and its 2001 sequel, the so-called “EDSA 2,” where the Armed Forces of the Philippines withdrew support from President Joseph Estrada, forcing him to resign and leave Malacanang.

Mr. Duterte’s agenda has been to prove the two revolutions have failed to uplift the country and the overthrow of the constitutional government by what could be regarded a self-coup and its replacement by a populist, albeit authoritarian, regime could save the country. He wants to stage his own revolution to overthrow the constitutional system that has put him in power.

His agenda includes a pivot of its foreign policy to discard the U.S., the nation's traditional ally, and embrace China to the extreme to yield a part of its territory to Chinese military and soften its political victory in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas. He has allowed China to take a foothold in power distribution and telecommunications.

Mr. Duterte’s counterrevolution has led to the murder of over 30,000 smalltime drug peddlers, users, and supporters, but not bigtime druglords, in a bloody crackdown against illegal drugs. Since 2016, his counterrevolution has expanded to include assaults on democratic institutions - Supreme Court, Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Elections, Office of the Ombudsman, among others. His counterrevolution weakens democratic traditions - adherence to human rights, rule of law, and due process.

Mr. Duterte and his minions have surreptitiously conspired to jail Senator Leila de Lima on trumped up charges, remove Ma. Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the bases of unconstitutional means, and convict journalist Maria Ressa of cyberlibel charges. They have intimidated state critics, marginalizing them to the sidelines.

Overall, the political objective is to reinstall a new dictatorship, enabling Mr. Duterte, or any of his handpicked successor - Ferdinand “BongBong” Marcos Jr., a recent survivor of Covid-19, flunkey Christopher Go, now a senator, or daughter Sara Duterte, mayor of Davao City - to rule beyond end of his term in 2022. It remains a big political issue on how they could prolong their stay in power since Mr. Duterte’s state of health is uncertain because of several ailments.

The coalition of authoritarian forces led by Mr. Duterte and composed of the Marcoses, Arroyos, and other key political families have tried but failed to pursue their counterrevolution through two political routes: declaring  a revolutionary government, or RevGov, to jettison the 1987 Constitution; or amending the Constitution by shifting to the federal government to replace the current unitary government. The proposed shift to federal form contained a transitory provision that would make Mr. Duterte a virtual dictator for at least ten years.

His plan to establish RevGov did not gain steam as many sectors turned wary of his plan to discard the 1987 Constitution, which serves as anchor of the thirty-two years of restored democracy. The democratic ideals and traditions embodied in the 1987 Constitution have tied his hands, frustrating his attempts to cut corners. Moreover, his RevGov did not generate support because it was perceived to have largely arbitrary and whimsical.

His proposed RevGov did not gain ground, as major sectors, including the dominant Roman Catholic Church and even the Minority Church, the defense and military establishment, and the business sector have sent cold signals, rejecting his RevGov in favor of the restored democracy. His plan to shift to a federal government fell flat on his face, as lawmakers did not appear enthusiastic to amend the Constitution with Mr. Duterte as the virtual dictator in the envisioned ten-year transition to a federal state from the current unitary government. There was hardly popular support.

Two conflicting themes dominate the Philippine postwar political experience: democracy and authoritarianism. This dichotomy of political themes is evident over the past seven decades. Pro-democracy forces want the democratic institutions and structures to thrive and the democratic processes to flourish. They believe in pluralism, where various belief systems, world views, and advocacy have spaces for coexistence and growth.

Pro-democracy forces are represented by middle elements that supported two people power revolutions (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2), political parties and organizations adhering to rule of law, and institutions like Majority Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, and Minority Church, or Christian and non-Christian denominations, their clergy, and various Church-based organizations. They are dubbed as the “Yellow Forces” since they helped to catapult Corazon and Benigno Aquino III into the presidency.

The authoritarian forces live in the past, as shown by persistence to revise history to erase the dictatorial rule of Marcos and his ilk and its ill effects, treat the two people power uprisings (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2) as historical flukes, and re-impose the failed authoritarian system. The modern-day populism appears to be their ideological anchor.

Mr. Duterte’s remarks, showing a heavy tilt towards suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law – either in Mindanao or nationwide, and the establishment of RevGov, have fanned widespread anxiety and fear on a return of authoritarianism. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana had indicated the Armed Forces of the Philippines would not support his RevGov, showing contempt of the officers' corps on this concept.

Although Philippine postwar liberal democratic system was put in place in 1946, Ferdinand Marcos, elected popularly in 1965 and reelected in 1969, touched the nerve of history by declaring martial law on September 21, 1972, plunging the country in a political experiment on “constitutional authoritarianism” or dictatorship. He was to step down on December 30, 1973, but he prolonged his stay in power by 12 years when he took advantage of a loophole in the 1935 Constitution.

By a stroke of a pen, Marcos write finis to the country’s democratic traditions and destroyed its democratic structures. He abolished Congress, closed mass media outfits, arrested and jailed without charges tens of thousands of journalists, activists, labor and peasant leaders, religious workers, and opposition stalwarts. He invoked the national security doctrine for martial rule, saying he wanted “to save” the country from the “conspiracy of the oligarchs and the communist rebels.”

After declaring Martial Law in 1972, Marcos ruled for another 13 years, but brought the following: first, centralized corruption, where he earned under-the-table commissions from big ticket state projects and deposited proceeds in foreign banks; second, crony capitalism, where his cronies cornered fat state projects, formed agricultural monopolies, and grabbed monopoly contracts in the services sector; and third, wanton human rights violations, where tens of thousands of anti-Marcos elements were arrested and imprisoned without charges, tortured, and summarily executed, and disappeared involuntarily without trace.

In 1986, the Filipino people, in their exercise of sovereign power, kicked the Marcoses out of Malacanang, toppled his dictatorship, and sent them to a five-year exile in the U.S. But it happened not without leaving a country destroyed by kleptocracy, or the use of political power to plunder and accumulate ill-gotten wealth estimated at between $5 billion to $10 billion.

Despite his frustrating overtures to declare a revolutionary government or shift to federal form of government, Mr. Duterte has signed on July 3 into law the controversial anti-terrorism bill, sowing fears of a crackdown in the democratic forces. He signed it, even as the Philippines breached the 40,000 level for Covid-19 cases and recorded the highest single-day total of 1,531 new cases. From all indications, the Republic Act No 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism, is the fitting alternative to Mr. Duterte’s earlier failure to stage his counterrevolution.

The new anti-terrorism law replaces the Human Security Act of 2007 which, according to legal luminaries, was largely unused because of the heavy fines provided against law enforcers, who violated its safeguards. It adopts a policy against terrorism and seeks to defend the country against it. It defines terrorism, penalizes acts of terrorism and proposals to commit it, and other activity like terrorist training, funding and recruitment activities and membership in terrorist organizations. It covers foreign terrorist activities that have links to the Philippines.

RA 11479 creates an Anti-Terrorism Council composed of officials of the Executive Department, the job of whom is to oversee its implementation. It provides an elaborate system of surveillance including wiretapping by State agents of suspected terrorists upon directive or permission from the Anti-Terrorism Council with the approval of the Court of Appeals, for a period of 60 days extendable for another 30 days. It allows arrests without judicial warrants and detention without filing of charges in court for a period of 14 days that could be extended by another 10 days. It removes heavy fines on law enforcers if they transgress the law’s safeguards and instead provides for imprisonment of up to 12 years.

According to retired Supreme Court Justice Adolf Azcuna, the new law is under heavy scrutiny and criticisms because the definition of terrorism is vague and too broad so it violates the right of an accused to be informed of the nature of the charges against him or her; Also, it violates the provision of the Constitution that says that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by a judge, Azcuna said.

Furthermore, Azcuna said it allows arbitrary detentions without charges for an unreasonable length of time in violation of a person’s fundamental right and grants the State law enforcers the right to determine that something is terrorism and one is guilty of it without ones being heard thus violating the fundamental requirement of due process. It makes peaceful assembly and protest to criticize government a dangerous activity that could easily be deemed as constituting terrorism by State agents acting without the safeguard of requiring court authority;

“Granted that there is a need for an honest to goodness Anti-Terrorism Law, one should be adopted after broad consultation with all affected sectors, unlike this law which was hastily passed by both House of Representatives and the Senate, Azcuna said.

He said: “The law is liable to be weaponized and used to suppress legitimate criticism and put a chilling effect on peaceful dissent, a necessary ingredient of a democratic society. The law is a divisive one that detracts from the unity needed now to fight the pressing specter of the pandemic while saving our economy and ensuring the people’s survival.”

Truly, evolving counterrevolution could be gleaned from the new law, even as its proponents could not defend it adequately.

WHERE ARE WE GOING? (Part 2)

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

This is a continuation of what has been started this morning. This is something I've promised to Maria Cristina Tiongson, a netizen:

1. We have economic managers, whose solution to the worsening fiscal problem of the government is to borrow more from every conceivable source and impose taxes on online sellers and the marginal guys, whose key to survival has been their creativity to adapt to the changing times. The economic managers have to report fully the use of the P279 billion, which Congress has allocated under the Social Amelioration Program (SAP) in the BAHO law.

2. We have an DILG secretary, who insists that the Phl has been doing good despite the WHO assertion that the Phl had the “fastest rate” of China-Duterte Virus infection in Western Pacific. In his limited view, the DILG secretary believes the Phl would have infection of one million and deaths of 200,000 had they failed to put the country under lockdown. His figures were speculative and where he got them was dubious. He also believes that the number of viral infections is expected to rise because of the “aggressive mass testing” they are doing. He also believes the Phl is doing better than the U.S. and Brazil.

3. We have a Congress that merely played games on bills granting franchise extension to ABS-CBN, as certain congressional leaders thought they could exact tons of flesh from its owners, who were said to be bleeding hard to keep the giant network afloat. The quid pro quo is their primary consideration.

4. We have a presidential flunkey (alalay), who pretends to be a senator, attends meetings of the task force regularly even without any official functions, and pontificates on what should be done on a pandemic that he could not understand thoroughly. He was the same guy who pushed hard his ill-fated program - “Balik Probinsiya,” which had to be shelved off because it has led to the spread of the China-Duterte Virus.

5. We have lawmakers, who have abdicated their right to think, even as they keep on enacting legislative measures without thorough studies and discernment. They are the same people who have agreed to be subjugated by a mad man. They have chosen to keep silent in what could be regarded an unmitigated clampdown.

6. We have barangay officials who have become petty tyrants in their respective political constituencies, as they had set up roadblocks and checkpoints without rhyme or reason and subjected their constituents to every conceivable restriction, which was baseless and unnecessary. Together with PNP and AFP, they engaged in a systematic militarization of the environment, which was the government’s answer to the virus.

7. We have a judicial system that is bent to punish and intimidate state critics like Maria Ressa and others. These people in the judiciary are willing to circumvent the law just to serve the interest of the mad man and his ilk.

8. We have a political leadership, which refuses to see China’s responsibility in the spread of the pandemic. They refuse to see China’s machinations to escape the spate of legal actions, which other countries and private entities would bring to various fora the moment the global situation normalize and allow to get them on their feet.

9. We have a government and a state agency like DOLE with no clear programs to help returning and stranded OFWs, treating them without mercy and taking their assistance as mere afterthought. Neither do they have a program for displaced workers, particularly the daily wage earners.

10. We have a vindictive political leadership which kills initiatives and treats the Vice President as an enemy when truth is she is doing her job and just wants to help. The ill treatment extends to other persons and entities like Angel Locsin, who only fault in life is to be compassionate to the needy and adversely affected.

Sabi ni Rio Alma sa "Una't Huling Pasyon ni Rio Alma," isang tula na kanyang nilikha bago ipataw ni Ferdinand Marcos ang batas militar noong 1972:

"Isang laksang bugok, isang laksang bugok;
Laksang-laksang Pinoy na basag ang pula."

THIS is Part 1, which I've posted this morning:

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

AFTER more than three months of the most oppressive and debilitating lockdown, or quarantine, or whatever, we could only marvel with sublime frustration at the following:

1. We have a president, who has been totally overwhelmed by the pandemic aptly called China-Duterte Virus (the virus came from China and Duterte had facilitated its entry by his “Welcome China” policy.) Until now, he has no plans, programs, targets, and objectives, but keep on blaming the people he is supposed to serve. He could not cope with the pressures of his job and the pandemic issues to the point that he has threatened to commit suicide to end everything. (Ituloy mo na lang para wala ng satsatan.) You call it leadership?

2. We have a health secretary, who is clueless of his job and keeps on blaming his subordinates for his failures. He does not know he is hated right on his own backyard (where else but the DoH) and thinks he is indispensable to the point he has ignored the Senate’s call for him to resign and leave his post.

3. We have a task force mostly of retired generals, whose approach to the pandemic is largely reactive. All they know is a military solution – arrest here and there, roadblocks and checkpoints, and everything that restrict people’s movements even if they die of hunger, not the virus. Essentially, the task force does not know its job. It has not set targets, plans, and programs. It is budget oriented too.

4. We have a Congress that has enacted wrong policies at the time of pandemic. It has enacted the Terror Bill without carefully examining the unconstitutional provisions. Certain congressional leaders have been coming out with the most stupid proposals like renaming NAIA. It is budget oriented too.

5. We have a Senate president, who is a case of Rip Van Winkle, who after sleeping for a time, was surprised to find out that the pandemic was still raging, prompting him to exclaim: “Where did we go wrong?” Clueless and shameless were too tame to describe him.

6. We have an education secretary, who has not come out clearly on her concept of distance learning. Until now, Deped is not clear on how to implement distance learning, blended, or whatever.

7. We have a tourism secretary, who stupidly believes that tourism is a way to jumpstart the national economy and that tourists would automatically come to the Philippines despite its projection in international media as one of the worst hit countries.

8. We have a retired general, who, as troubleshooter of the viral outbreak in Metro Cebu, took a chopper ride to determine the extent of the pandemic and fielded battalions of soldiers and police officers and tanks and APCs to combat the invisible enemy.

9. We have a presidential spokesman, who is more of a queef (literally vaginal flatulence but it’s a slang for an obnoxious person). He does not clarify issues, but complicate what should be easily explained.

10. We have an unimaginative transportation secretary, who is busy selling those China-made mini-buses instead of facilitating public transport so that affected people could restart their lives to become productive again.

Santambak silang mga basag ang pula. Dagdagan na lang ninyo. 

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

By Philip M. Lustre Jr. 

WHERE are we going? After more than three months of the most oppressive and debilitating lockdown, or quarantine, or whatever, we could only marvel with sublime frustration at the following:

1.      We have a president, who has been totally overwhelmed by the pandemic aptly called China-Duterte Virus (the virus came from China and Duterte had facilitated its entry by his “Welcome China” policy.) Until now, he has no plans, programs, targets, and objectives, but keep on blaming the people he is supposed to serve. He could not cope with the pressures of his job and the pandemic issues to the point that he has threatened to commit suicide to end everything. (Ituloy mo na lang para wala ng satsatan.) You call it leadership?

2.     We have a health secretary, who is clueless of his job and keeps on blaming his subordinates for his department’s failures. He does not know he is hated right on his own backyard (where else but the DoH) and thinks he is indispensable to the point he has ignored the Senate’s call for him to resign and leave his post.

3.     We have a task force mostly of retired generals, whose approach to the pandemic is largely reactive. All they know is a military solution – arrest here and there, roadblocks and checkpoints, and everything that restrict people’s movements even if they die of hunger, not the virus. Essentially, the task force does not know its job. It has not set targets, plans, and programs. It is budget oriented too.

4.     We have a Congress that has enacted wrong policies at the time of pandemic. It has enacted the Terror Bill without carefully examining the unconstitutional provisions. Certain congressional leaders have been coming out with the most stupid proposals like renaming NAIA. It is budget oriented too.

5.     We have a Senate president, who is a case of Rip Van Winkle, who after sleeping for a time, was surprised to find out that the pandemic was still raging, prompting him to exclaim: “Where did we go wrong?” Clueless and shameless were too tame to describe him.

6.     We have an education secretary, who has not come out clearly on her concept of distance learning. Until now, Deped is not clear on how to implement distance learning, blended, or whatever.

7.      We have a tourism secretary, who stupidly believes that tourism is a way to jumpstart the national economy and that tourists would automatically come to the Philippines despite its projection by international media as one of the worst hit countries.

8.     We have a retired general, who, as troubleshooter of the viral outbreak in Metro Cebu, took a chopper ride to determine the extent of the pandemic, and fielded battalions of soldiers and police officers and tanks and APCs to combat the invisible enemy.

9.     We have a presidential spokesman, who is more of a queef (literally vaginal flatulence but it’s a slang for an obnoxious person). He does not clarify issues, but complicate what should be easily explained.

10.  We have an unimaginative transportation secretary, who is busy selling those China-made mini-buses instead of facilitating public transportation so that affected people could restart their lives to become productive again.

Santambak silang mga basag ang pula.  Dagdagan na lang ninyo.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIRD PHL TELCO?

China Telecom ban latest in global pushback against Chinese intrusion

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

ACTIONS by the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies to terminate China Telecom’s authority to operate in the U.S. market constitute the latest developments in the mounting pushback against Chinese intrusion worldwide.

From geopolitical tension and Chinese aggression in the South China Sea to cooling China-Italy relations, to coronavirus-related disagreements with ally Iran, China’s recovery from COVID-19 and its attempts to aid the rest of the afflicted world have failed to give the goodwill and upper hand it seeks in the global stage.

This is being complicated by recent accusations that China is source of the destructive virus that has caused a pandemic, even as various entities have threatened they would bill China for the adverse effects of the virus and seek damages in various legal forums. China is now in a crisis public relations mode mainly to escape culpability or lessen the future damage to its global reputation.

In the U.S., the Department of Justice and the State Department were requesting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke China Telecom’s license to carry out international telecommunications services to and from the U.S.. They are concerned that state-owned China Telecom is “vulnerable to exploitation, influence, and control” by the Chinese government.

In the Philippines, the entry and operations of Dito Telecommunity, the reputed third telecommunications firm after the PLDT Group and Globe Telecom, into the market could be adversely affected by the developments in the U.S. involving China Telecom, a part owner of Dito Telecom.

Because of the recent developments, Neri Colmenares, chair of leftwing Bayan Muna, said the government should scrutinize further the third telco player, saying it would require a congressional inquiry “in aid of legislation” since China’s entry into the domestic telecommunication sector is “a threat to the sovereignty of the country and national security.”

“This development in the U.S. will delay Dito Telecom’s rollout because it should now be subject to tighter scrutiny from government and requires a congressional investigation.  Because of its expansionism in the West Philippine Sea, the Chinese government is not a friend. We continue to assert that allowing China entry into our telecommunications sector is a threat to Philippine sovereignty and national security,” Colmenares said.

Dito Telecom has announced it has drawn out the initial $500 million (P25 billion) from state-owned Bank of China to lay down the infrastructure for its nationwide backbone. Adel Tamano, chief administrative office, announced the firm would start operations by March 1, 2021.

Dito Telecommunity Corp., formerly Mindanao Islamic Telephone Company Inc. (Mistel), is a "consortium" (not a joint venture- author) of Udenna Corp. of Davao City-based businessman Dennis Uy, and its subsidiary Chelsea Logistics Corporation and the China stated-owned China Telecommunications Corporation, a parent company of China Telecom.

Dito Telecom would have a hard time operating in the Philippines once the China Telecom is banned in the US mainly because of interconnection issues. Without interconnecting to other telecomunications firms, it is next to impossible to operate freely. Interconnection is regarded as the heart of sustainable and vigorous telecommunications sector.

Its rollout has been stalled thrice.  It was initially scheduled for inauguration in the final quarter of 2019. Its operation was later moved to July 2020, but now has been programmed for a March 2021 opening.

Its unveiling is in danger of being put off anew following the opposition of several U.S. departments in the operation of the China Telecom (Americas) Corp. in the U.S. Several U.S. departments had encouraged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke China Telecom (Americas) Corp’s authorization to provide international telecommunications services to and from the U.S.

“This recommendation reflects the substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks associated with China Telecom’s continued access to US telecommunications infrastructure,” said the group of departments, which include State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce, in a statement, along with the United States Trade Representative, in a statement regarding the filling at the FCC recently.

The call is in the midst of the continuous scrutiny being done by FCC to China Telecom in an investigation that was started last year. The US subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned telecommunications company holds the license to grant service in the US since 2007.

The FCC united to vote May of last year to deny the request of another state-owned Chinese telecommunications company, the China Mobile, to grant service in the US. According to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, the Commission was able to determine following the vote that China Mobile was controlled by the Chinese government.

The U.S. government laid out several issues they had with China Telecom including the “increased knowledge of the People’s Republic of China’s role in malicious cyber activity targeting the U. S.” The agencies stressed that China Telecom is “vulnerable to exploitation, influence, and control by the PRC government”.

In Italy, China’s Belt and Road initiative has failed to develop stronger relations between the two countries mainly because the anticipated economic benefits for Italy have yet to materialize. Italy’s trade deficit with China had in fact widened further last year. The spread of COVID-19 did not help the situation as the Italian government moved to stop all flights to China over worries about the coronavirus.

Alongside stalled investments, trade benefits have failed to add up for Italy. Italian exports to China showed a 1% decline last year, even as overall foreign sales rose, according to preliminary figures released by statistics agency Istat in January. With Chinese imports growing, Italy’s total trade deficit with China climbed to €18.7 billion ($20 billion).

Immediate tensions related to the virus “will blow over once COVID-19 disappears,” said Jan Weidenfeld of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin. “But those more fundamental issues of reassessment of what doing business with China means, that is here to stay.”

China’s ties with Iran have also seen better days as Iranian health ministry spokesman Kianush Jahanpur criticized Chinese government statistics on the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, appearing to blame those statistics for other countries’ slow response to the emerging pandemic.

“It seems statistics from China [were] a bitter joke, because many in the world thought this is just like influenza, with fewer deaths,” Jahanpur said during a video conference. “This [impression] were based on reports from China and now it seems China made a bitter joke with the rest of the world.” Jahanpur added, “If in China they say an epidemic was controlled in two months, one should really think about it.” The remarks sparked a row with Chinese officials, with China’s ambassador to Iran saying the country should “show respect to the truths and great efforts of the people of China.”

With no regard for the ongoing battles against COVID-19 around the world, China has also kept up its aggression in the South China Sea. Its Coast Guard and paramilitary vessels continue to harass fishing boats, military ships and oil and gas rigs in the area, and even sunk a Vietnamese fishing boat earlier this month.

“There’s no apparent pause or reduction at all” in Chinese activity in the South China Sea, added Collin Koh, a maritime security expert at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. “It appears to be business as usual for the PLA, and for that matter, the China Coast Guard as well.”

The Philippines expressed support for Vietnam after Hanoi protested against what it called the ramming and sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat by a Chinese coastguard vessel in the disputed South China Sea last April 3.

The Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila expressed deep concern over the reported sinking of the boat off the Paracel Islands, adding that the incident happened ‘at a time when a common approach was crucial in confronting the coronavirus pandemic.’

The Philippines has its own problems with its ‘China pivot’. China’s intrusion into the country is highlighted by the recent report of about 3,000 members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entering Manila as tourists or workers in Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs).

The PLA report comes at the heels of security fears hounding the Philippines’ power and telecommunications sectors. China maintains ownership over the national grid as well as the Philippines’ third major telecoms firm – Dito Telecommunity, of which 40% of its equity is owned by China Telecom, the same company facing a potential US ban. #