Featured Post


Tuesday, April 30, 2019

The ‘matrix’


THE conversation is supposed to be about the veracity of the so-called “matrix,” which in fact is a network diagram of alleged plotters to oust President Rodrigo Duterte. Instead, it is now about this newspaper and a former employee. And it is because some people find it more convenient to muddle the issue.

At the outset, any newspaper would publish any information the source of which is the President himself, more so if it is something controversial. This paper is not the source of the “matrix” and the IP addresses. These pieces of information were provided to it by a source that turned out to be Malacañang. The only responsibility of this paper, or any paper for that matter, is to accord those accused the opportunity to air their side. Attempts were made to seek the side of Ellen Tordesillas, the central figure in the “matrix” but she did not respond. The side of those named as alleged plotters were aired in subsequent issues of the paper.

In effect, this paper did what others also do. Rappler is in the habit of publishing adverse information about the President and his government, or other political personalities, even if these are not yet fully ascertained as factual, simply because these are newsworthy. Information adverse to Imee Marcos was published even if this was based on a student publication. After all, if ABS-CBN can feature news about Kris Aquino’s troubles, why would this paper be taken to task for publishing a diagram from the President showing a network of people allegedly plotting his ouster. Besides, had the so-called “matrix” been released by the President in a press conference, media would have covered and published it anyway, with their own spin.

Some people now focus on the departure of Felipe Salvosa 2nd, the Manila Times’ resigned managing editor, as if it is the core of the controversy. Certainly, Mr. Salvosa has every right to express his personal opinion. But as an employee he also knew the limits within which he could express his disagreement with the paper’s content and the actions of its management, and he also knew fully well that his actions would have consequences.

What is sad is how the discourse has veered away from the so-called “matrix,” and is now aimed at discrediting this paper and Mr. Salvosa. Once again, the debate is focusing more on personalities, and it is fed by partisan bias. Those eagerly defending the President pounce on Mr. Salvosa who simply exercised his right to disagree with his employer, and has in fact suffered the consequences. Those eagerly attacking the President train their guns on this paper and its owner for an act that other newspapers would have also done, and are in fact doing.

What is lost in the process is a scrutiny of the so-called “matrix,” focusing on its content and the very logic of what it symbolizes. These are things that cannot be addressed if we focus on the actions of Mr. Salvosa and of this paper. And these will not be fully understood if we keep on highlighting the partisan agenda of the cheerers and jeerers of both sides.

At the outset, while media is supposed to report about facts, it is not entirely correct to expect that every piece of news is a comprehensive representation of the entire body of truth. This will be a tall order for any journalist, newspaper and network to follow, more so in the fast-paced age of internet-mediated news. This is precisely why an investigative report is a special class different from everyday news coverage and features. What is only required for regular daily news is that there is a credible source, and that the other side is given adequate opportunity either in the same report, or in a later report.

While the contents of the “matrix” are factually problematic, its existence and its being released by Malacañang are factual events that are newsworthy in their own right. It is now the job of investigative journalists to follow this up with a more comprehensive fact- checking of its contents.

For one, there are simply a lot of holes in the network diagram released by Malacañang. For example, Inday Espina-Varona is lumped with public interest lawyers and prosecutors who are associated with the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) even if she is not a lawyer.

The more fundamental problem of the matrix is the total absence of proof of involvement in a plot, and the meaningless representation of the links in the diagram. It behooves to ask what the lines linking the names exactly mean. If these are simply about the acts of sharing information, like the Bikoy tapes, then it begs the question of whether merely sharing information would already constitute being engaged in an ouster plot.

An ouster plot would entail the presence of financiers and the flow of funds. The diagram does not exactly show this. It involves people from media and public interest lawyers. Hence, there is reason to suspect that if at all, this is at best an information flow network. It is certainly woefully problematic for the Duterte government to consider the sharing of videotapes or of derogatory material adverse to its interests as strong evidence to show the existence of an ouster plot. In a democracy, these people are simply exercising their freedom to share information even if it is inconvenient to the government.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that what can only be safely established is that a diagram referred to as a “matrix” was indeed released by Malacañang. This is what this paper reported, and as such there is no proof of any malpractice. However, this so-called “matrix” is grossly insufficient to show the existence of an illegal network of plotters to oust the President, and it fails to prove the existence of a crime.


Florin Hilbay reveals his NARCISSISTIC tendencies!


Opposition senatorial candidate Florin “Pilo” Hilbay sucks at campaigning, which is why he is now losing the race. He does not even have a track record of being a good administrator. All he has are promises to go against Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s policies. He’s not being smart. Duterte still enjoys a high satisfaction rating. One doesn’t speak against a leader who is still popular if one wants to win an election.
Here he is being a real class act
Ako ay batang Tondo. Number 1 sa Bar Exams, pero hindi ako nagpayaman
So what if he is from Tondo? He makes it sound like it’s Sillicon Valley. So what if he was Number One in the bar exams? It didn’t help him win the cases he tried to defend. So what if he didn’t make himself rich? Nothing wrong with getting rich the honest way anyway. He’s a loser.
Why does Hilbay think a candidate has to be poor or “pro-poor”? The people actually need someone successful to look up to as a role model. If he thinks being simple is the only formula needed to get voted in, he is wrong. Besides, he is not simple. He had to have a celebrity girlfriend to validate himself.
Hilbay probably thinks having a celebrity girlfriend will help him win in the coming election. That is also evidence that he is a traditional politician – someone who relies on image instead of his policies for reform.
In other words, it was all about him. Hilbay didn’t have anything to offer the people. He thinks saying he is awesome is good enough to be elected a senator. The voters should be careful and make sure a narcissist like Hilbay doesn’t end up in a position of power.


#OtsoDiretso FAILED Filipinos by being an UNINTELLIGENT Opposition


Just a couple of weeks to election day and it is clear that Congress will be dominated by legislators aligned with or at least sympathetic to the government of President Rodrigo Duterte. That’s not such a bad thing considering that the Opposition led by the Yellowtards has offered nothing new nor compelling to the Filipino people.
Indeed, this is exactly what doomed the Opposition. They campaigned on the back of negativity and offered no alternatives to the trajectory Duterte had set for his country. Instead, they continued to latch on to old relics of rhetoric past — tyranny scaring, Martial Law Cry babyism, and “human rights” emotional blackmail to cite a few intelligence-insulting buttons.
However, Filipinos need to be cautious of a political landscape characterised by the flaccid Opposition we see today. A limp and moronic Opposition is a sign of a sub-optimal democracy. This is because a truly healthy democracy is one where both incumbent and Opposition are up to par when it comes to tackling national issues of consequence.
Sadly this is not the case. Blame a current Opposition that lacks imagination and intelligence to deliver sound and thought-provoking alternatives to Filipinos. This year’s elections will long be noted as one where the Opposition camp has failed to step up and be a choice worthy of Filipinos’ serious consideration.


April 30, 2019 – Born of the Spirit

Tuesday of the Second Week of Easter

Father Steven Reilly, LC

John 3:7b-15

Jesus said to Nicodemus: “‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?” Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this? Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” 
Introductory Prayer: Lord, you know my needs better than I do. I turn to your Spirit to teach me what to ask for in this prayer. I want to fulfill your holy will over my life. I love you, Lord, and I place all my hope in you.
Petition: Lord, increase my faith!
  1. You Are the Teacher of Israel: Nicodemus was one of the leading teachers, yet here he tries to make a quiet request for information from Jesus. As a religious teacher he was well versed in the rules and regulations, but there was still a gap in his knowledge. He didn’t know about the Holy Spirit and the new existence that we receive by being born of “water and the spirit.” In a way, he can’t be blamed, since Jesus had not yet revealed it, but it just goes to show us how fundamental spiritual knowledge is in order to be a credible spiritual leader. As committed Catholics, we need to lead others to deeper faith. But will we do so to the degree that we know the faith and are living it in our hearts?
  1. Being Born of the Spirit: Are we practical materialists? At times we become so enmeshed in the reality of daily life that we don’t give the slightest thought to the spiritual world, which is infinitely greater than the material one that consumes all our attention. Through our baptism, we are marked out for heavenly things. We bear on our soul the indelible mark that proclaims to the universe that we are children of God. Every time we take a spiritual breath, and glance heavenwards, we renew that birth in the Spirit through which the Lord claimed us as his own. Let us never spend more than a minute as practical materialists!
  1. Giving Testimony: Jesus speaks here about giving testimony. He wants us to be his witnesses as well. He wants us to continue to proclaim to the world the reality of the “heavenly things” that he revealed. Possibly the greatest testimony we can give is the happiness and charity of our lives. Joyful, charitable Catholics carry in their very demeanor the sign that their faith is authentic. Before you get angry, upset, or critical, ask yourself, “Is this the testimony of a life filled with the Holy Spirit?”
Conversation with Christ: Lord, thank you for the gift of the Holy Spirit in my life. At times, I don’t always live in accord with the great blessing you have given me, but I know that your patience and mercy always give me another chance. Help me to love others and give them a glimpse of heaven through my charity.
Resolution: In my conversation today, I will try to say something that will plant a spiritual seed in others.

KAPA: The Largest Investment Scam in Philippine History

Filipinos have had enough of “leftist” groups denying they are linked to the CPP and the terrorist New People’s Army


It is quite ironic that the biggest “crime” today’s Opposition accuse the incumbent government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte of is to invite the Chinese government to exert undue influence on the Philippines. The fact is that a key element of the Opposition — Filipino communists and their puppet organisations in the Philippines’ university campuses — were the first to extend a welcome mat to the People’s Republic of China.
report on militant organisations published on the Stanford University website describes how the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is founded on the premise that China is the source of both ideology and resources to effect violent revolution in the Philippines. The report also shows the history of the CPP’s lame efforts to solicit support from other terrorist organisations around the world.
From its 1969 establishment until the 1976 normalization of Philippine-Chinese relations, the CPP-NPA received support, weapons, and funds from China. However, even though the CPP-NPA modeled its armed struggle on China’s own Maoist movement, Chinese support for the CPP-NPA seems to have been limited. The CPP-NPA also sought support, weapons, funds, and training from like-minded groups overseas, including the Japanese Red Army (JRA), the Maoist factions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Sandinistas, the Communist Party of El Salvador, and many other organizations…
Most disturbing of all is the account of the Stanford report of events that sealed the record of the CPP and its terrorist arm, the New People’s Army (NPA) as an enemy of the state as well as the baffling way that its current ally, the Liberal Party (today known as the Yellowtards), contributed to the twisting of facts that led to a confused record of these events.
In February 1971, [CPP founder Jose Maria] Sison met with CPP-NPA Central Committee members to discuss his plan to attack a Manila rally of the Liberal Party, which opposed President Marcos. The purpose of the attack was to provoke another government crackdown and ideally gain support for the CPP-NPA. On August 21, three CPP-NPA members threw four grenades onstage at the rally in Manila’s Plaza Miranda before fleeing the city to a CPP-NPA camp.
Even back then, the confused nature with which the Philippines’ political leaders respond to clear acts of terrorism was on exhibit. Rather than be unified across partisan interests in condemning a bald atrocity perpetrated by a Cold War enemy the Liberal Party, instead, blamed the attack on the government of then President Ferdinand Marcos.
Liberal Party members blamed President Marcos for the attack, which had killed much of his opposition. Marcos, who blamed the CPP-NPA for the bombing, responded by suppressing leftist political activity and suspending habeas corpus. These measures marked an increase in Marcos’ power. In response to Marcos’ repression, hundreds of student recruits joined the CPP-NPA. [27] [28] Meanwhile, Sison denied that the CPP-NPA had been involved in the attack.
Things haven’t changed much in the last half-century since.
Today, it is interesting how the current Yellowtard-led Opposition, its lackeys in Big Corporate Media, and its circle of so-called “activists” dishonestly water down the nature of the CPP-NPA as terrorists and enemies of the state. They denounce “red tagging” of leftist groups as a “ploy” perpetrated by the government to endanger the lives of members of these leftist groups. However there has been no categorical denial of links between the CPP-NPA and these so-called “leftist” groups coming from any of their leaders. The same Stanford report, for example, describes current party-list group Bayan Muna as “a political party connected to the CPP and other groups in the Communist movement.” According to a recent ABS-CBN News report Bayan Muna is part of the Makaybayan bloc of left-leaning party-lists that include “Gabriela, Kabataan, Anakpawis, Migrante, and Alliance of Concerned Teachers.” Like most other mainstream reports and discussion surrounding these “leftist” organisations, the report stops short of describing these groups as being linked to the CPP and the terrorist NPA.
To be fair, the ABS-CBN News report includes statements from Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio who “called on Congress to expel members of Makabayan bloc at the House of Representatives, saying it has become ‘the milking cow of terrorists’.”
Indeed, another party-list group Akbayan — a current Liberal Party ally — was cited in a GMA News reportas having origins that “can be traced to the division of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its allies in the 1990s. Akbayan was formed by those who refused to be associated with both factions.” Yet in its “Brief History”, Akbayan is dishonestly mute on that otherwise noteworthy aspect of it history…
After twenty years of dictatorship under the Marcos regime, formal democracy in the Philippines was restored in 1986 through a broad “people power” movement. This democracy, however, proved to favor only the political and economic elite of the country. The moving force behind the anti-dictatorship struggle–concerned citizens and progressive groups–has been relegated to the periphery of decision-making and policy implementation. In response, social movements, trade union groups, and political organizations have emerged to challenge state policies through lobbying and pressure politics.
Despite the dynamism of Philippine movements, formal institutions of democracy remained in the hands of the few and the wealthy. It was within this context that the idea of building an alternative, a citizens’ political party, first emerged. Social movement groups wanted to be part of the formal processes of government. Akbayan was thus conceived as an effort to institutionalize people power and thereby deepen Philippine democracy.
Consultations on the party-building project began in 1994. Throughout the country, pro-democracy groups were enjoined to help shape the party concept and strategy. Aspirations of various sectors–labor, peasants, youth, women, gay and lesbians, professionals, overseas Filipino workers, urban poor–were discussed and consolidated into a program of governance, while ad hoc structures were formed in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Four years later, in January 1998, Akbayan was formally established through its Founding National Congress. In May of the same year, the new party tested its strength by participating in the local and party-list elections and won seats in the House of Representatives, and several local government units.
One could understand now why the current Opposition had lost an entire nation in 2016 (and had become today’s Opposition) and, in the lead-up to this year’s election, continues to lose. The Opposition have not learned important lessons. It continues to campaign on the back of personalities rather than ideas and is flagged by a coalition — laughably branded the Otso Diretso team — that essentially stands for nothing of consequence. Worse, the broader Opposition is stained by both the Yellowtards and the crooked stigma of Philippine communism. At a time when Filipinos need direction to navigate their new-found economic prosperity, the Opposition are, instead, hooked on irrelevant disaster-mongering.

Filipino Opposition senatorial candidate Gary Alejano resorts to lame stunts to prop up their flagging campaign.

The biggest enemy of economic prosperity is political instability. It is quite bizarre that an entire Opposition campaign would be constituted around pitching — and even inciting — that wealth-killing instability. Worst of all is the manner with which the Opposition is in bed with the most nefarious antitheses of the principles that underpin the unprecedented wealth being created in the Philippine economy today — communism.
If the Opposition want to remain relevant, they will need to seriously re-invent themselves by ditching the tired and downright dangerous rhetoric that fuels their doomed campaign today — the victim mentality of the Yellowtard narrative, the Cold War violent revolution espoused by the communists, and the perverse Filipino brand of liberalism that devalued the erstwhile noble concepts of “human rights” and “equality”. To win back the Filipino people, the Opposition will need to be demolished and re-born and their links to communist terrorists dissolved.


We are now trying to fix del Rosario’s mess - Panelo

The PH Chronicles April 18, 2019

Malacanang is now on an offensive.

Presidential Spokesperson Atty. Salvador Panelo hits back at former Foreign Affairs secretary Albert Del Rosario, saying the Duterte administration is now “trying to fix his mess” after the country lost possession of the Sacrborough /Panatag shoal in 2012.

This came about when DelRosario slammed Panelo’s “mindless” remarks on  Manila’s maritime dispute with Beijing in the South China Sea.

Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo and former foreign secretary Albert Del Rosario (photo credit to owner)

Panelo, in retailiating against Del Rosario said.

“What is mindless is when one makes reckless statements under the guise of pretended patriotism on unverified reports of intrusion or harassment, or performs actions that could provoke an armed retaliation,” he said.

Last week Panelo rebuked Del Rosario , saying it was during Aquino’s administration and as foreign secretary at that time the country lost possession of the Scarborough/Panatag shoal.

Del Rosario resonded to Panelo saying that there was a US brokered agreement for the Philippines and China to simultaneously withdraw ships from Scarborough/Panatag shoal during the 2012 standoff.

However, he said China did not withdraw ships.

ut Panelo said “there is no proof that the United States has brokered an agreement for the Philippines and China to withdraw their respective vessels during the Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2012.’

“Even if there was such brokering, Mr. Del Rosario’s ordering the withdrawal of Philippine vessel or vessels without the knowledge and consent of former President Aquino demonstrated his inexperience and naïveté in the art of psychological warfare,” he said. 

“By such horrendous mistake we lost Scarborough Shoal to the Chinese under Mr. Del Rosario’s watch.  We are now trying to fix his mess, and no amount of justification from him could justify his monumental blunder,” he added.


Monday, April 29, 2019


Yellows’ vilest propaganda line: Inciting anti-Chinese racism


FROM odious blogger Jover Laurio and former Aquino 3rd spokesman Edwin Lacierda, to its stalwarts at the highest levels of government like Vice President Leni Robredo, Francis Pangilinan, and even Justice Antonio Carpio, the Yellows have been trying to rouse anti-Chinese xenophobia as their main propaganda thrust against President Duterte.

“The Chinese are invading our territory, they are taking over Filipino jobs, they are mining our sand to build their artificial islands, and they are uncouth people spitting on the white sand of Boracay. This is the fault of Duterte who has been befriending the Chinese.” As Laurio put it in a poster she hung over a pedestrian overpass, and Lacierda in his tweets, Duterte has made the country a “Province of China.”

This in gist has been the Yellows’ newest, most despicable black-propaganda line, since their allegations of extrajudicial killings because of Duterte’s war against illegal drugs have failed. Indeed, that campaign has been a huge feather in Duterte’s cap, with Social Weather Stations’ surveys showing nearly 80 percent of Filipinos supporting it.

Reviving anti-Chinese xenophobia would be the vilest propaganda tack ever to be undertaken by the Yellows. It is dangerous, and a very slippery slope for our country. Racism has been, and will be, a demon that has resulted and will result in bloody wars. That the Yellows are on to that tack only demonstrates their shameful lack of concern for the future of the country, just for the sake of toppling Duterte.

The Yellows know full well that they are fanning the embers of centuries-old anti-Chinese xenophobia in the country.

Yellow blogger behind ‘Philippines, Province of China’ propaganda poster.

Even as they profited from Chinese cheap labor and fine craftsmanship, the Spaniards for four centuries put them in the earliest version of ghettos, called the Parian. Twice or thrice a century, when the colony’s economy fell into a crisis, the Spaniards would blame the Chinese, burn the Parian and mercilessly kill its residents who had failed to flee. To justify such pogroms, the Spaniards with the help of the Church demonized them as spreading disease and as godless heathens.

As much as they tightly embraced Catholicism, the indios imbibed Spanish anti-Chinese xenophobia. As historian Vicente Rafael has pointed out, even “mestizo nationalists, incorporating Spanish prejudices, were often virulently anti-Chinese themselves.”

There was a massive post-war migration into the Philippines of Chinese who were fleeing the famines in Southern China during its civil war and Mao’s disastrous 1950s Great Leap Forward. Their eventual success in the retail trade was used to revive anti-Chinese xenophobia, what with almost every town in the country having a Chinese-owned bakery or panciteria. In my generation certainly, was the anti-Chinese limerick “Intsik bejo tulo laway.”

The xenophobia was even propagated in our best cultural works. “Maynila: Sa Kuko ng Liwanag,” produced in 1975 by Lino Brocka, one of the best Filipino directors ever, was widely acclaimed locally and even internationally. It depicted vividly the poverty in our rural areas that drove its young people to Metro Manila, but to horrific tragedies.

Who was the most hateful villain there into whose chest the hero drove a dozen knife thrusts, with the audience cheering? An evil-looking brothel owner, Ah-Tek, the Chinese who made the hero’s boyhood love his kept woman. “Ah-Tek,” a near homonym to the slang for money, atik. The film was rereleased in 2013.

The Americans revived anti-Chinese xenophobia in the Cold War, depicting Mao Zedong and his “yellow hordes” out to conquer Asia. Even during the Marcos years when China supported the new Communist Party, newspaper cartoonists depicted the New People’s Army as chinky-eyed, wearing Mao jackets.

But as the historian Rafael also pointed out, Filipinos are “racial opportunists.” Our “racial feelings are loosely structured, unevenly policed and highly flexible. They run wide but shallow, capable of changing directions, largely dependent on social context.”

With our centuries-old brainwashing to look up to the mighty and the rich, our anti-Chinese racism nearly vanished when the iconic Chinese was no longer the panciteria owner but the mall owner, i.e., the likes of magnates Henry Sy and John Gokongwei. There has been hardly a whiff of anti-Chinese racism when for instance Lucio Tan bought Philippine National Bank and the Philippine Airlines. Sy in fact was accorded the old and very Filipino terms for respect, Tatang; and Tan, Kapitan.

As a result of Marcos’ executive decrees in 1978 liberalizing Chinese immigrants’ naturalization, succeeding generations of Chinese have been able to move into professions such as architecture, engineering and medicine, enhancing their prestige in social circles. The doctor you go to for consultation in a top-of-the line hospital, I was told, would likely have a Chinese name.

However, the Liberal Party and its wider circle the Yellow Cult have been stirring up xenophobia to get at Duterte for various reasons and factors, other than their calculation—a very wrong one—that the centuries-old embers of Filipinos’ anti-Chinese racism is so easy to stoke.

From the brink
This would serve to conceal what really has been the very understated achievement of Duterte: He pulled the country from the brink of certain economic ruin, which would have resulted from the Aquino 3rd regime’s move to make the Philippines an enemy of China, because of his anti-Chinese rantings over the South China Sea disputes, and more importantly his government’s filing of a suit invoking the Unclos.

How the opposition is fanning anti-Chinese racism for their candidates.

If a Yellow regime had won in 2016, it would have worsened our relationship with China to the brink of a total cut-off of ties. China’s Communist Party leadership would have had to bow down to the calls of even ordinary Chinese to make the Philippines “pay” for its aggression against so-called Chinese territory.

The Scarborough Shoal incident in 2012 was depicted in China as the result of the Philippines sending a warship against unarmed Chinese fishermen. The Aquino government was in fact so stupid that it even released to media photos of Navy troopers boarding Chinees fishing vessels nearly pointing their Armalites at Chinese fishermen. Chinese authorities during that episode had to censor hundreds of thousands of social media postings criticizing the People’s Liberation Army Navy for not defending the Chinese fishermen by sinking the Philippine Coast Guard vessels.

The Chinese authorities in fact started to move during the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, when they impounded our exports of bananas on the excuse that it had to go through stricter inspections, and tourist firms (which are all owned by Chinese government corporations) suspended all operations to the Philippines. Could we have retaliated by impounding Chinese exports of commodities — which probably now represents 80 percent of products sold in our groceries??

We just have no product China cannot export elsewhere, and Asean — even the Vietnamese who lost over 100 navy men in fights with China in the South China Sea over territory — would be falling over each other asking the Chinese to give them instead the investments and government loans it had intended for the Philippines.

34th largest
Whether we like it or not, the biggest economy of the world today, China, could very afford to boycott the 34th largest, the Philippines, just as the US did with Cuba in the 1950s. And in a reverse of the Cuban experience, which drove it to be totally dependent on the Soviet Union, we would be totally dependent on the US.

That, I suspect, was the US intention, so we would be its complete puppet, which it desperately needs as China is emerging as the economic and military power in Asia, and Asean countries are so smart not to be its lackeys.

The US started in 2011 its so-called “Pivot to Asia,” which was its euphemistic term for its redoubled efforts to contain China’s rise in the region and maintain its decades-long hegemony there. It was not a coincidence that tensions in the South China Sea broke out right after the US implemented its “Pivot to Asia.”

One of its propaganda aspects is for Asean countries, especially us, to see China as the Evil Empire in Asia, just as the US had successfully painted the Soviet Union as being so.

We have a dispute with China over who rightfully owns islands and rocks in the South China Sea. But we also have such disputes with Vietnam and Taiwan, who occupy most of the “prime real estate” in what we call our Kalayaan Group of islands.

But a report in the respected US media firm Bloomberg pointed out: “History shows that China has tended to avoid inflaming its territorial disputes; Communist Party leaders have settled 17 of China’s 23 disputes since 1949, sometimes receiving less than 50 percent of the land at issue.”

Our territorial dispute with China is far, far from being an issue to get angry about, much less a cause over which to incite our centuries old anti-Chinese racism. The Yellows are so shamefully trying to make it so.

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Order my Debunked book at rigobertotiglao.com/debunked


Politicon Philippines 2019 | Sass Rogando Sasot Vs Richard Heydarian

Debate: Sass Rogando Sasot VS. Richard Heydarian

Sunday, April 28, 2019


Thanks to Atty. Glenn Chong and Prof. Edmundo Toti Casiño, we have been made aware of the problems with Smartmatic and Comelec. We would be remiss not to remember, there is another way of being elected – vote buying.
A few months ago, Robert F Posadas made this comment.

"Politics as Good Business: the realities at ground zero.

During the campaign period:

1. The mayor obtains the most recent listing of voters from the local Comelec Office.

2. The mayor then calls for all Barangay Chairmen and the members of his council. In this meeting, they are given a copy of voters list.

3. The Chairmen are then instructed to bring all the voters in their particular barangay to the mayor’s house on a given date for the voters to receive 1000 pesos each and sign for it in a prepared ledger book for their barangay.

4. The Barangay Chaimen are then given their allowances for the period of campaign and to report weekly on the progress or problems.

5. The Mayor will also tell the Barangay Chairmen that if the barangay is able to give the mayor an overwhelming vote, the barangay will receive a bonus ranging from 50K to 500K, and 1M if the opponent gets zero vote.

6. The mayor will recover his expenses from moneyed candidates for Congressman and Senators, VPs or even Presidents. The mayor who is given financial support by national candidates ends up recovering his expenses and perhaps goes happily all the way to his bank.

7. When the mayor is asked who will be their Congressional and senatorial candidate, the mayor will tell them to copy the sample ballot to be released by the mayor the night prior to election day.

Under this template you can extrapolate the result of a local election and perhaps even its effect on national results for Congressmen and Senators.

It looks as though we are on an uphill journey given the well-knit organization that is called - well-oiled machinery! But do not despair, like Du30, the unexpected can happen. I wish you well and I will do my part to educate voters – whoever is willing to listen.”

Bikoy Finish Kana

Bakit kailangan tanggalin ang Vera Files at Rappler bilang factcheckers ng FB?

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Sass Sasot at Ilang Grupo Sumugod sa tanggapan ng FB Philippines

Chinese Coast Guard no longer in Scarborough Shoal: Palace

Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Oct 28 2016 05:24 PM | Updated as of Oct 28 2016 09:52 PM

MANILA (2nd UPDATE) - There are indications the Chinese Coast Guard has left Scarborough Shoal, one week after President Rodrigo Duterte visited China to repair strained ties, his spokesman said Friday.
China held the rich fishing ground since the end of a naval standoff in 2012, and its coast guard repeatedly shooed away Filipino boats even after Manila's victory in a United Nations-backed arbitration court in July.
Duterte, who is shifting alliances to China from the US, had said that Filipino fishermen could soon resume fishing in Scarborough Shoal, located within the Philippines' 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.
“Apparently there have been some physical observations… All I can say is that at this stage, it has been observed that there are no longer any Chinese coast guards in the area,” Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella told reporters.
Asked if he was aware of reports Manila and Beijing had agreed on fishing rights in the shoal, Abella said: "All we know is based on results, the fishermen can now go into those waters."
Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque, who was part of Duterte's delegation to China, told ANC last Tuesday that the understanding between the two countries would mean the withdrawal of Chinese ships from the shoal.
"And my understanding is, it's not even going to be joint fishing. The Chinese will completely leave Scarborough. They will actually ask their fishermen to leave and their coast guard to leave. They would restore the status quo ante," he said.
Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana also confirmed that Filipino fishermen can now freely go to the shoal.
"That's the report we got from our coast guard. Since three days ago, there are no longer Chinese ships, Coast Guard or Navy, in the Scarborough area," Lorenzana said.
"We are welcoming this development. Our fishermen have not been fishing there since 2012. This will return to them their traditional source of livelihood."
An end to the standoff over the shoal is still a complex and potentially combustible issue for both countries.
Some Philippine commentators say Manila may object to any reference to its fishermen being "permitted" by China to return, while Beijing might be wary of appearing to be softening its position on what it calls "indisputable" sovereignty.
There was some confusion about the situation at sea, however, with a Philippine military spokesman earlier saying Chinese vessels were "still there." Some fishermen familiar with the area said the same.
Asked on Friday about the return of Philippine fishermen to the shoal, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang made no mention of a coastguard withdrawal.
The two countries "were able to work together on issues regarding the South China Sea and appropriately resolve disputes," Lu told a regular briefing.
Duterte met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing and said relations between the two countries have entered "springtime." He returned to the country with $24 billion in investment pledges.
China also lifted restrictions on banana exports from the Philippines, which were imposed following the standoff at Scarborough Shoal.
China's Lu hailed Duterte's recent visit as a success and said both countries were able to discuss the South China Sea impasse.
"It is completely possible that the bilateral relationship can recover," Lu said.
"I can tell you that the two sides are in communication."
The Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague said China's claims in the South China Sea had no historical basis. It ruled on a challenge filed by Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino III.
Duterte's government refused to flaunt the ruling and reached out to China with former president Fidel Ramos as special envoy. - with Reuters