The Philippines Claim over Sabah and its Arguments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_the_islands_of_Sabah_and_Spratly_being_claimed_by_the_Philippines

It is the thesis of the Philippine government that the contract of 1878 was a lease, and not a transfer of ownership or sovereignty. Treacher, was present at the signing of the contract and as witness, he characterized the contract as a lease and referred to the money payment as annual rentals. Contrary to allegations, the Philippine claim had been studied for years before 1962. While serving in the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1946, Diosdado Macapagal, who later became President of the Philippines, advocated the filing of the claim. The official filing of the claim took place on June 22, 1962. The claims are of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and proprietary ownership to North Borneo. Philippines being successor-in- interest of the Sultan of Sulu derived its legal and historical rights in North Borneo. In the early part of the 1960’s it became an imperative for the Philippines, aside from the strong historical and legal rights that North Borneo is important to Philippine territory and vital to its security. At this time (1960’s), communism in the region was in its height and Philippines were anxious that Malaya would succumb to the potent communist threat from mainland Southeast Asia, creating a scenario in which a communist territory would be immediately at the southern frontier of the Philippines. Philippine anxiety on the communist threat has subsided, but another form of menace developed. From the dynamics of the Muslim separatist movement in the south, there evolved a more terrifying threat. The Sabah state of present Malaysia harbored some of the kidnappers, Abu Sayyaf and Al-Quedah, provoking international concern through widespread violence, state wide terror and their vision of establishing independent states. The British North Borneo Company based their rights from the grant signed in January, 1878. In it, the sultan of Sulu granted certain concessions and privileges to Baron de Overbeck, an Austrian national who was at the time the Austrian Consul-General at Hongkong, and Alfred Dent, a British national, in consideration of an annual rent or tribute of 5,000 Malayan dollars. Dent later bought out Overbeck, and transferred his rights to the British North Borneo Company. The Company was granted a Royal Charter on November 1, 1881. The Philippine government argues that Overdeck and Dent (the leasors) did not acquire sovereignty or dominion over North Borneo. This is because, according to international law, sovereignty can be ceded only to sovereign entities (e.g. government to government agreement) or to individuals acting for sovereign entities (agreement between leaders of nations). Obviously, Overbeck and Dent were private citizens of their respective countries who did not represent any sovereign entities, but instead acted as mere businessmen who only acquired grant of lease from the Sultan of Sulu. Hence, neither of them did not, and could not, acquire sovereignty or dominion.3 The above letter was written by the British Foreign Minister to explain and respond to the Spanish protest regarding the grant of Royal Charter to the British North Borneo Company. It was not the Spanish crown who made the protest alone; the Dutch government also protested in the same way. Again, Lord Granville maintained in his letter to the Dutch that the British North Borneo Company was a mere administrator, and that the “British Government assumed no sovereign rights whatever in Borneo.”

        The Philippine government, therefore, strongly argues that the transfer of rights, powers and interest by the British North Borneo Company to the British Crown is not possible. North Borneo Cession Order of 1946 took place just six days immediately after the Philippines was declared independent by the United States. In the International Law, a transferee (British Crown) cannot acquire more rights than the transferor (British North Borneo Company). In other words, how can the British Crown exercise sovereign rights in the form of protectorate in 1946, when the British North Borneo Company did not exercise nor assume sovereignty over North Borneo? In other words, how can the British North Borneo Company transfer sovereignty to the British Crown, which the company did not have in the first place? 

It has been said that President Manuel L. Quezon of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (the transitional, semi-autonomous government of the Philippines under American sovereignty which preceded the independent republic) “had decided not to recognize the continued existence of the Sultanate of Sulu, particularly in reference to North Borneo.” The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs was not able to find a written record of this statement. This pronouncement was against the Organic Law of the Philippine Commonwealth, since the power to give and terminate recognition during the Commonwealth Philippines was vested only in the Congress of the United States of America (being the colonial power). Aside from the political technicality, International Law dictates that any withdrawal or termination of recognition does not imply the dissolution of the entity affected by the withdrawal. The Philippine government believes that Dent, who was granted a Royal Charter in the form of British North Borneo Company by the British government, to which the British Crown derived its claim of sovereignty, was not authorized to acquire sovereignty or dominion. Evidence to this was the official correspondence of Lord Earl Granville, British Foreign Minister at the time, in his letter to the British Minister in Madrid dated January 7, 1882, explaining the character of the Charter Grant of the British North Borneo Company, as follows: “The British Charter therefore differs essentially from the previous Charters granted by the Crown to the East India company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the New Zealand Company, and other Associations of that character, in the fact that the Crown in the present case assumes no dominion or sovereignty over the territories occupied by the company, nor does it purport to grant to the Company any powers of government thereover; it merely confer upon the persons associated the status and incidents of a body corporate, and recognizes the grants of territory and the powers of government made and delegated by the sultan in whom the sovereignty remains vested…As regards the general feature of the undertaking, it is to be observed that the territories granted to the Company have been for generations under the government of the Sultan of Sulu and Brunei, with whom Great Britain has had Treaties of Peace and Commerce…

The above letter was done by the British Foreign Minister to explain and respond to the Spanish protest regarding the grant of Royal Charter to the British North Borneo Company. It was not the Spanish crown who made the protest alone; also the Dutch government protested the same. Again Lord Granville maintains, in his letter to the Dutch, that the British North Borneo Company was a mere administrator, and that “British Government assumed no sovereign rights whatever in Borneo.” The Philippine government therefore, strongly argues that the transfer of rights, powers, and interest by the British North Borneo Company to the British Crown is not possible, known as North Borneo Cession Order of 1946 (that took place six days immediately after the Philippines was declared independent by the United States). In the International Law, a transferee (British Crown) can not acquire more rights than the transferor (British North Borneo Company). In other words, how can the British Crown acquire sovereign rights (in the form of protectorate in 1946), when the British North Borneo Company did not exercise nor assume sovereignty over North Borneo? Again, since Overbeck and Dent did not acquire rights of sovereignty or dominion over North Borneo their transferee (British North Borneo Company), also, did not acquire rights of sovereignty or dominion. The1930 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain and its implication to the Philippine Sabah Claim.

Under the Carpenter Agreement of 1915, the Sultan of Sulu agreed to relinquish its temporal power over Sulu, but retained his sovereignty over North Borneo. As Governor Carpenter clarified in this communication to the director of the Non-Christian tribe on May 4, 1920, as follows: “It is necessary however that there be clearly (sic) of official record the fact that the termination of the temporal sovereignty of the Sultanate of Sulu within American territory is understood to be wholly without prejudice or effect as to the temporal sovereignty and ecclesiastical authority of the sultanate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States Government especially with reference to that portion of the Island of Borneo which as a dependency of the Sultanate of Sulu is understood to be held under lease by the chartered company which is known as the British North Borneo Company… ” The American Governor General of the Philippine Island Francis B. Harrison made it more clear that: “It is true Governor Carpenter’s contract or treaty with the Sultan of Sulu of 1915 deprived the Sultan of his temporal sovereignty in the Philippine archipelago but did not interfere with the Sultan’s status of sovereignty over British North Borneo lands.” It is in the context of this statement that the 1930 Convention between the United States and Great Britain defined their respective boundaries. The United States did not intend to claim North Borneo. By this act of defining their respective boundaries, the United States did not cede or waive anything to the British Crown. Macaskie Dictum of 1939. In 1939, the heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram filed a suit case in the court of Borneo for the purpose of collecting the money due to them under the 1878 Grant. The issue before the court was the identity of the heirs of the sultan who were entitled to receive payments after his death. Through their attorney, they had the only English translation by Maxwell and Gibson (that translated the Grant of 1878 as cessation instead of lease, which is wrong according to a later translation). It should be recalled, that the Grant in 1878 is in Arabic and is worded in the Malayan language. At the time the lawyer of the heirs filed the case, he had no original copy of the Grant in 1878. The erroneous Maxwell-Gibson translation was the one used, quoted, and paraphrased in the complaint filed by the attorney for the heirs of the Sultan. Years after the Macaskie dictum was made (which translated the Grant as cession instead of lease), the Philippine government had the copy translated into English. According to the result of the translation, the Grant of 1878 was a Lease Agreement. Under this circumstance, the Philippine Government could not accept the dictum of Judge Macaskie. In the judgment, the Grant of 1878 was viewed as a permanent cession or sale, and that the money that is to be paid to the heirs is “cession money.” Recognition of the Sultan of Sulu of the Sovereignty of Spain over “Sulu and its dependencies” (the main island of Sulu and the tributaries) in 1878 and the eventual renunciation in 1885.

According to this interpretation, Spain acquired sovereignty over North Borneo in 1878 when it signed the protocol of March 7, 1885 with Germany and Great Britain. In that protocol of peace, Spain gave up all claims of sovereignty over North Borneo to Great Britain; hence, sovereignty over the territory was transferred to Great Britain. The document signed by the sultan in 1878, recognizing Spanish sovereignty over “Jolo and its dependencies,” had no mention on the inclusion of the sultan’s territory in North Borneo. It is important to first clarify that Spain never acquired sovereignty over North Borneo. In the protocol signed, the term “pretension” to sovereignty over North Borneo was used; hence, there was no essence at all that Spain was transferring sovereignty to Great Britain (a sovereignty Spain never had; it was merely a pretension). Second, “Jolo and its dependencies” was a geo-political unit different and distinct from the North Borneo possession. To give a more vivid example for this argument, let us try to examine Spanish geo-political units in its Asian positions, known as “Espana Oceanica:” 1. The Philippine Archipelago proper; 2. The Island and archipelago of Jolo, conformably with existing treaties with the Sultan of Sulu; 3. The portion of Northeast cost of Borneo that forms part of the dominion of the Sultan; 4. The Marianas Islands; and 5. Other territories which now belong or which may belong in the future to Spain. North Borneo was not considered a dependency of Jolo. As shown in the list of “Espana Oceanica,” North Borneo was a geo-political unit different and distinct from the Archipelago of Jolo. It is clear that the sultan did not include his territory and dominion in North Borneo in signing the treaty recognizing the Spanish sovereignty. Another thing to consider was the Spanish Geo-political division in “Espana Oceanica.” In the Spanish geo-political law, the regulations were clear about that. Even if one would insist to assume that the signing of the sultan in 1885 recognizing Spanish sovereignty over “Jolo and its dependencies” resulted to transfer of sovereignty is still out of premise. Because in the protocol of peace in between Germany, Great Britain, and Spain, it was clearly stated that the Spanish claim of sovereignty was worded in the text as “pretension.” By this, it did not result in transfer of sovereignty from Spain to Great Britain. Therefore, the premise that Spain’s renunciation of sovereignty over its North Borneo territory in favor of Great Britain, that resulted in transfer of sovereignty from the Sulu Sultanate to Great Britain, was impossible.

Bibliography

Book

Bassett, D.K. Sulu and Sabah: A study of Brithish Policy Towards the Philippines and North Borneo from the Late Eitheenth Century. Book Review, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Gowing, Peter Gordon. MANDATE IN MORO LAND: The American Government

of Muslim Filipinos 1899-1920. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1983.

__________________. Muslim Filipinos-Heritage and Horizon. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1979. Hurley, Vic. SWISH OF THE KRIS: The Story of the Moros. New York, N.Y.: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1936.

Ito, Kiyohiko. AN EMERGING REGIME: ASEAN AS THE MINI-MAX REGIME. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1988.

Lacson, Arsenio H. "OUR SO-CALLED FOREIGN POLICY." Republic of the Philippines,Congressional Record, House of Represntatives. Manila: Manila Bureau of Printing, 1950. Second Congress of the Philippine Republic, First Session, Vol. I, 1-42.

Magallona, Merlin M., Editorial Consultant, A. Suzette V., Editor Suarez, and Celeste Ruth L., Assistant Editor Cembrano, . THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO A PORTION OF NORTH BORNEO: MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS. Quezon City, Metro Manila: INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STUDIES, 2003.

Majul, Cesar Adib. MUSLIM IN THE PHILIPPINES. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1999 Edition.

Mohamad, Abdul Kadir. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN; APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE BY THE PHILIPPINES; OPENING STATEMENT BY THE AGENT FOR MALAYSIA TAN SRI ABDUL MOHAMAD. Hague: International Court of Justice, 2001.

Murphy, Ann Marie. From Conflict to Cooperation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1967: The Disputes Arising Out of the Creation of Malasia and the Establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN). New York, N.Y.: Columbia University, 2002.

Nisperos, Nestor MArtinez. Philippine Foreign Policy On The North Borneo Question. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg, 1969.

Noble, Lela Garner. PHILIPPINE POLICY TOWARDS SABAH: a Claim to

Independence. 

Tucson, Arizona: The Association for Asian Studies by The University of Arizona

Press, 1977.

Oliveros, Renato. Islam in the Moro American WAr. Ann Arbor, MI: Temple

University, 2005.

Ortiz, Alan T. TOWARDS A THEORY OF ETHNIC SEPARATISM: A CASE STUDY OF MUSLIM IN THE PHILIPPINES. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1986.

Tarling, Nicholas. SULU AND SABAH: A study of British policy towards the Philippines and North Borneo from the late eighteenth century. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Journal Article

Abdul Samad, Paridah, and Darusalam Abu Bakar. "MALAYSIA-PHILIPPINES

RELATIONS: The Issue of Sabah." Asian Survey 32 (June 1992): 554-567.

"PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL's TV/radio Message calling for Prudence, Sobriety and Reason over the Sabah Repatriation Issue." Department of Foreign Affairs. Malacanang, August 31, 2002.

Ramos, Godofredo P. "SPEECH DELIVERED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON MARCH 29, 1963, BY CONGRESSMAN GODOFREDO P. RAMOS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, IN REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF SENATOR LORENZO SUMULONG, ON THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO NORTH BORNEO." Republic of the Philippines, House of the Representatives. Manila City: Manila Bureau of Printing, March 25, 1963. 1-11.

Salonga, Jovito R. "A POINT-BY-POINT REPLY TO THE SUMULONG REPORT ON THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO NORTH BORNEO." Republic of the Philippines, House of Representatives. Manila: Manila Bureau of Printing, 1963. 1-16.

News Paper

Abdul Aziz, Fauwaz. "Philippine Consulate needed in Sabah to Protect Detainees'." Malaysiakini, November 15, 2006.

Aning, Jerome. "Come Clean on Sabah, Sulu Sultan Urge Gov't." Philippine

Daily Inquirer, July 16, 2004.

Baginda, Abdul Razak. "Security and Military Profile." Malaysia.

"Deportation of Filipino from Malaysia." September 2002.

Ranawana, Arjuna. "The Malaysian View: K.L. wants more say over the crisis."

Asian Week, May 19, 2000.

Rasul, Amina. "Basis of the Sabah Claim." The Manila Times, May 14, 2006.

Reuters. "PHILIPPINE SULTAN VOWS TO GET BACK MALAYSIAN SABAH." October 4,

2004.

Reuters. "Another Royal Group lays claim to Sabah." The Straits Times

INTERRACTIVE, October 7, 2004.

Uckung, Peter Jaynul V. "Salvaging Sabah over Territorial Ownership." Manila

Times, September 20, 2006.

Whitman, Paul F. "THE CORREGIDOR MASSACRE-1968." THE 503d P.R.C.T.

HERITAGE BATTALION ONLINE. 

World; Asia-Pacific. "Malaysia Probes Migrant Rape Claim." September 5, 2002.

Zamboanga.com Editorial. "what does Sabah mean in Malaysia?"

Zamboanga.com News & Editorial. September 12, 2002.

Electronic Media (E-journals and E-news papers)

Burma Library. October 23, 1998. http://burmalibrary.orgreg.burma/archives/199810/msg00437.html (accessed 21 12, 2006).

Amin, Raouf. "The Sabah Ownwership Question." www.bangsamoro.com. June 11, 2003. http://www.bangsamoro.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

Cinco, Elinando B. ADJANG Malaysia! March 7, 2005. http://www.malaysia-today.net (accessed 12 21, 2006).

"External Defence." Geocities. http://forum.cari.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

Family Quarrels. November 15, 1968. http://www.time.com (accessed

December 21, 2006).

GO FIGURE: Thoughts and Commentary on Economic Issues from a Filipino

Economist. January 23, 2006. http://www.e-bogger.com.

Mahmood, Kazi. "Philippine LAw Maker Challenge Malaysia's Territorial Interity." IslamOnline.net. September 3, 2002.http://www.islamonline.net (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Maysia protest RP's claim on Sabah." Balitang Marino.

http://www.balitangmarino.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Palace backs Sulu heirs in claim over Sabah." Sun Star Manila. September 19, 2002. http://www.sunstar.com.ph (accessed December 20, 2006).

Pascual, Federico D. "Will the genuen Sulu sultan please stand up?" Manila mail.com. March 17, 2005. http://www.manilamail.com(accessed December 20, 2006).

Philippine Claim to North Borneo. 2 vols. Manila City: Manila Bureau of Printing, 1964.

"Philippine Claim To Sabah, North Borneo, Sultanate of Sulu is Rightful Owner." Asian Finest Discussion Forum. May 6, 2004.http://www.asiafinest.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"PHILIPPINES' CLAIM TO SABAH." Epilipinas: The Right Connection.

http://www.epilipinas.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Poor Handling of Pinoy revives claim over Sabah." Sun Star Manila. August 28, 2002. http://www.sunstar.com.ph (accessed December 20, 2006).

Puyok, Arnold. "Sulu Sultan Must give up Sabah." Malysiakini. October 13, 2004. http://www.malaysiakini.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Sabah CM brushes off Sulu Sultan's claim." Utusan Malaysian Online. October 13, 2004. http://www.utusan.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Sabah- Sulu- Sulu Sultanate or Malaysia." Cari Forum-Regional Member & Gathering. Octorber 14, 2004. http://www.cari.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

"Sultan of Sulu." Science Fair Project Encyclopedia. http://www.all-science-fairprojects.com (accessed December 20, 2006).

The Bangsamoro Online-The Sultan of Sulu's Lost Land. September 20, 2004. http://www.bangsamoro.info/modules (accessed December 21, 2006).

Vigilar, Rufi. "Philippines Sidelines in the Island Dispute." CNN.com. October 24, 2001. http://www.cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com(accessed December 20, 2006).

Villanueva, Victor. bikoy.net. August 29, 2002. http://bikoy.net/archives/2002/08/ (accessed December 21, 2006).

A history of crime in the Philippines

Looking Back

By Ambeth R. Ocampo

You may have received a scam e-mail from a friend, whose account has been hacked, saying that he is currently on a trip to London, that he was held up and needs some money to tide him over until he returns home. Once I decided to reply to the scammer and told him that I had sent some cash, US$1,000, and that he could claim this from the Philippine Embassy in London. I told the scammer that all he had to do was present my e-mail to an embassy employee and look for Dr. Jose Rizal or Mr. Andres Bonifacio, who will hand the money over. The scammer replied that he had absolutely no money to get to the embassy and preferred that I wire the money to a Western Union account in London! I wish the British police would check out this Western Union account or, better yet, entrap these people when they come to withdraw the money.

The above scam is a newer version of the old one involving a supposed high-ranking government official who needs your bank account information so he can transfer his millions to your account and give you a hefty commission. I don’t know if any Filipino has been gullible enough to fall for this scam, but it seems that the showman P.T. Barnum was right when he said that “there’s a sucker born every minute.” Or maybe we should turn the quote around to “there’s a crook born every minute.” All the different scams and modus operandi in the Philippines can make up an entire book, and the terms used will keep linguists and lexicographers busy because we have gone beyond generic terms for robbery and robbers (magnanakaw) to various ways of robbery: snatching,  hablot,  bukas  kotse, akyat  bahay, Ativan gang, budol-budol, dugo-dugo, salisi, kidnap, carnap, holdap, hulidap, etc. Having all these in one book will make for engaging and, for some, life-saving reading.

As a historian, I’m interested in finding out the kinds of crimes committed in the past and how far back I can go. Police blotters are the main primary source for this kind of research but having gone through one or two, I have come to the conclusion that police blotters are harder to decipher than doctors’ prescriptions. It is easier for me to read 16th-century Spanish manuscripts on the Philippines than a 21st-century police blotter or security guard logbook. I have been told that the Supreme Court Reports going all the way back to the early 1900s are a mine of detailed information on various crimes and can keep me busy for years. I wish we had a crime museum in Manila similar to the Police Museum in Bangkok that displays gruesome crime-scene photographs, actual murder implements, and the preserved body of a notorious criminal. It is definitely not a museum for the faint of heart or queasy stomach.

Reading the letters of Filipino heroes of the late 19th century, we find stray references to crime, often robbery or swindling. There are references to bandits or  tulisanes, too, but what about thwarted crimes? In December 1893, while Jose Rizal was in exile in Dapitan, he received a visitor named Pablo Mercado, who claimed to be a distant relative. Rizal felt something was amiss but played along and even allowed the man to spend a night in his home. We do not know much about Pablo Mercado or what he had set out to do. Was it robbery? Was it assassination? Was it a way to get incriminating information on Rizal? Pablo Mercado was arrested in Dapitan on the instance of Rizal and, under interrogation, he said he was hired by the Recollects.

We have this much from a letter Rizal wrote to his brother-in-law:

“With regard to Pablo Mercado, I tell you that he came here presenting himself as a courteous friend in order to get from my letters, writings, etc.; but I found him out soon, and if I did not throw him out of the house brusquely, it was because I always want to be nice and polite to everyone. Nevertheless, as it was raining, I let him sleep here, sending him away very early the next day. I was going to let him alone in contempt but as the rascal went around saying secretly that he was my cousin or brother-in-law, I reported him to the Commander who had him arrested.

“It was revealed in his declaration that he was sent by the Recollects who gave him 72 pesos and promised him more if he succeeded in wresting from me letters for certain persons in Manila. The rascal told me that he was a cousin of one Mr. Litonjua, son of Luis Chiquito, according to him, and brother-in-law of Marciano Ramirez. He wanted me to write to these gentlemen. He brought along besides a picture of mine, saying that it was given to him by one Mr. [Estanislao] Legazpi of Tondo or San Nicolás, I don’t remember exactly. It seems that he belongs to a good family of Cagayan de Misamis. Be careful of him; he is a tall boy, somewhat thickset, slightly squint-eyed, dark, slender, broad shoulders, and of impudent manners. He smokes much, spits more, and has thin lips.”

Pablo Mercado was obviously an assumed name. But who was he? What did he really want? This may be a footnote in Rizal’s life, but would make an interesting sidebar in the yet unwritten and detailed History of Crime in the Philippines.

* * *

Comments are welcome at aocampo@ateneo.edu 

Filipinos cannot progress because of anti-elitist mentality

Most Filipinos are anti-elitist. A good proportion of the Philippine population would prefer that they be seen as being one with the common tao rather than be seen as one of the elites. Indeed it is a land full of contradictions. This mentality is inconsistent with the behavior exhibited by a people who also routinely act like The Talented Mr Ripley (read: social climbers) — those who want to see and be seen with the rich. Case in point is Senator Manny Villar who kept emphasizing during the presidential election (without success) that he was once as poor as a pauper. Let’s not forget to mention Erap Estrada whose slogan “Erap para sa Mahirap” in 1998 so resonated with the masses that he almost won the presidency again in the last election. Now, the incumbent President,Noynoy Aquino is so overcompensating for being a member of the Philippine oligarchy by trying so hard to project an image of being just your “average guy” next door.

Another case in point is a recent experience I had as a blogger here at AntiPinoy.com. A commenter in my previous blog labelled me snobbish for my preference for using the English language over Tagalog. To be precise, most Filipinos who misguidedly think that the use of Tagalog is a reflection of Filipino pride and nationalism seem to think this way. They actually believe that those who prefer to use the English language more are being elitist and unpatriotic. I find this mentality rather disturbing and backward-thinking, considering that Tagalog is not the only language being used by Filipinos across the Philippines, and despite me having explicitly stated that the overall advantage of being proficient in English far outweighs that of being proficient in Tagalog. But this blog is not about which language is more beneficial anymore. This is about the Filipino people’s penchant for being anti-elite and suckers for populist rhetoric.

Initially, I didn’t know what to make of this supposed insult thrown at me for everyone to read. Now that I have thought about it more, I actually feel flattered that someone would think of me as a nerd and actually say “If your type would be leading the country, only nerds and keyboard-potatoes like you can find inspiration in your kind of mentality.” Who would have thought that someone would think that I can actually serve as an inspiration for intellectuals? He made me laugh, really. This just proves how small-minded some Filipinos are and how a discussion can easily threaten them when they deem the subject too out of their depth.

To be honest, every time I read something about people like Steve Jobs introducing his new Apple product or Bill Gates doing so much for the advancement of technology and humanity, I feel so damn insignificant. I mean, there is no way I can possibly achieve in my lifetime what those two have achieved in half of theirs. They are the real inspiration for nerds and not someone like me. A lot of people would even claim that if they were only half as talented as Steve or Bill, they could still be world-renowned innovators. Steve and Bill’s achievements are something to aspire for, definitely.

This brings me to the question: What’s with all the anti-elitist sentiment that Filipinos are fond of wallowing in? It is again a misguided notion that being a member of the elite is a bad thing. It is actually this kind of victim mentality that keeps us from moving forward.

First, let us define the word elitism. According to sources found on the Net, “elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern”. They say that the personal characteristics of those considered to be a member of the elite include: “rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline (e.g., medicine or law) or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field”.

Based on the definition given above, I am hardly fit to lead a nation let alone any group of nerds as claimed by that commenter, and if we go by the definition, neither is P.Noy Aquino qualified to lead a nation of 100 million Filipinos. Let’s face it, it has been a well-documented fact that P.Noy does not have “extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom” to “render” him “especially fit to govern” because he does not have any “great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline (e.g., medicine or law) or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field.” What P.Noy does have which is also a well-documented fact, is membership in one of the wealthiest families in the country — and that’s about that.

Unfortunately, even if P.Noy is a member of the privileged few, his is a situation in “which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others.” This form of elitism can actually be described as discrimination and such elitism has social and psychological consequences as evident in what has been happening in the last few decades since the late former president, Cory Aquino came to power. Unbeknownst to a lot of Filipinos, the Philippine oligarchies who have been in power since 1986 actually endorse a form of elitism that excludes a large number of people from positions of privilege or power. That means they only give favors to those who are in their inner circle or those who support their cause. This is the kind of elitist attitude the average Juan de Cruz should be wary about and be resentful of because P.Noy is not truly an elite in the sense that, he is not an expert of anything but rather, just privileged enough to be voted into power. As such, he is actually not in touch with the poor, which is precisely the reason why he does not have a clue as to how to elevate the country from poverty.

In defense of the true elites

I don’t know about you but if I ever have to undergo brain or heart surgery, I want the best surgeons to perform the operation. Who in their right mind would want to see a quack doctor to cure their disease?

If the Taliban or any member of the Al Qaeda ever kidnaps me, I can already picture Navy-Seals-like commandos barging in through the doors of the Taliban hideout where they are keeping me and rescue me safely. Why would I want the Philippine National Police (PNP) undergoing the rescue operation? They will just bungle the operation and I might end up in a bag on the way to the morgue.

If I ever have to hire a lawyer to counter a libel case, I want someone who was a bar topnotcher and who wins most of his court cases. And if I ever have to be in front of a judge, I will pray that it be someone who was also a bar top notcher, won most of his cases, and is compassionate. Why would I want to hire a two bit lawyer who was average in the bar exam and who only settled his cased out of court? I would definitely end up losing my case, land in jail and pay a fine.

It should follow that if I ever have to vote for a president of my country…well, I will never vote for someone as mediocre as P.Noy. Life is too short to give my trust to people like him who waste people’s time learning on the job while millions go to bed hungry every night.

I don’t know about you but every time I meet someone new, I have to be careful about mentioning the school where I graduated. Mentioning it seems to elicit a few predictable responses like “naks naman ah…” and then I can tell that the person suddenly becomes overcome with this preconceived notion of how I am like. No, I didn’t go to that school you are thinking of. That’s the thing; just mention an exclusive school to a fellow Filipino who went to another school which is considered to have a less than average standard from your own school and you will find yourself labelled as a snob or an elitist even if you haven’t done much to deserve being called such. It is indeed another form of what is called reverse discrimination.

Frankly, I have met some of the kindest and most generous (also some of the cruellest and selfish) people in my school. I’ve also met some of the kindest and most generous (also some of the cruellest and selfish) people from other schools. What I’m trying to say is that, Filipinos should stop labelling people they hardly know and judge everyone they meet on their merits.

If someone considered me snobbish and elitist for choosing excellence over mediocrity, I would definitely take it as a compliment because my definition of an elite person is someone who is the best of the best and not someone who is just a member of the privileged group. The two should not be confused as one and the same. The former group being good and beneficial to society while the latter just takes advantage of the underprivileged for their own benefit. They also enjoy a relatively large degree of control over a society’s means of production, which includes those who gain their position due to socioeconomic means and not personal achievement (read: the Philippine oligarchy).

If I have to choose between talking to someone who knows what he or she is talking about or someone who just pretends to be in the know, I would definitely choose the former. How I wish the country could have more of them though because it is really nice to have a conversation with someone who understands what you are saying and someone you can actually learn from as opposed to having a discussion with people who talk like they actually know what they are talking about when in reality they’d much prefer to just keep the conversation going around in circles.

Being anti-elitist is what’s preventing our country from progressing. It’s what gets actors, athletes, singers or anyone from the entertainment industry and anyone with a popular name like Aquino getting voted into public office even if they don’t have any “extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom that render them especially fit to govern.”

About the Author

ilda has written 89 stories on this site.

Ilda is agent provocateur. She wants to help people realise that things are not always what they seem.

The so-called Philippine “Elite”: failure of leadership

There is something wrong with some of our country’s so-called “thinking” elite. They don’t use their heads sometimes. They are supposed to guide the members of the public down the right path but much of what they say makes any one with half a brain scratch their head in confusion and disbelief. It’s no wonder that there are Filipinos who have become skeptical about the opinions of our “thought leaders” or simply do not believe what they say anymore.

SO-CALLED 'ELITE' FILIPINO SHARING HER 'INSIGHTS' ON SOME MATTERS.

Take Solita Collas-Monsod, popularly known asMareng Winnie. She is a Filipino TV program host, economist, professor, and writer. She is a formidable figure in Philippine broadcast media. As a popular (thanks to her TV exposure) economist, most Filipinos regard her fearless economic forecasts and candid political views very highly. Unfortunately, the fence sitting position she took during the campaign for the May 2010 presidential election regarding the then presidential candidate, Noynoy Aquino (P-Noy) was too disappointing to say the least.

Even before the official presidential campaign season kicked-off early this year, there was an email circulating around titled “Why I will vote for Noynoy by Winnie Monsod” which contained a lot of strong allegations of corruption against the other presidential candidate, Senator Manny Villar, who was P-Noy’s top contender in the race at that time. The letter was eventually exposed as a hoax because Monsod denied ever writing a letter endorsing a candidate. A fake letter like that, which served to damage Villar’s reputation can only come from a P-Noy handler, proves that P-Noy’s supporters are not above using dirty tactics just to win. But I digress…

Sadly, Monsod’s disownment of the letter was a little too late because a lot of voters were by then most likely already hooked into the perception that P-Noy was heavily endorsed by a leading economist of the country. This has a lot to do with the fact that even while she denied ever endorsing P-Noy, the voters never really heard her give a strong unbiased opinion about P-Noy’s capacity or incapacity to lead the country. As someone who once served in Cory’s administration, the only thing Monsod had to say about P-Noy in an interview with TIME Magazine before the election was, “Noynoy doesn’t have his father’s charisma, but he has his mother’s sincerity. Whether that’s enough, I don’t know.” Don’t you think that her statement was a bit lame and lacked conviction, considering her on-screen persona can be very feisty on her television show?

Anyway, her statement above is quite a contrast to what she is saying now about P-Noy in her latest article “Time for self-examination” published on the Inquirer.net. In the article, she admits that P-Noy has committed one too many gaffes in less than a hundred days in office. To quote:

ALL RIGHT, let’s face it. P-Noy’s administration has fumbled and bumbled and stumbled since Day 1: issuing orders that had to be revoked and or amended almost immediately (the one which would have crippled the bureaucracy, and which, alas, has still not been properly corrected); making the wrong conclusions about the government’s budget and cash situation; unreservedly touting “private-public partnerships” as the solution to the government’s resource scarcity problems; appointing people whose integrity and/or competence are questionable; doing a Gloria (the Cito Lorenzo-JocJoc Bolante case is almost identical to the Robredo-Puno situation in that the undersecretary was appointed before the secretary, and effectively shoved down the latter’s throat); and of course the latest series of blunders with regard to the hostage crisis.”

As someone who was close to the Aquino family and as someone who supposedly possesses above average thinking skills relative to the regular Juan, how could Monsod fail to recognise early hints of a likely failure in the leadership of P-Noy? More importantly, why didn’t she do her best to prevent P-Noy from winning the May 2010 presidential election (and have us see a better man in power under whose watch this sorry situation we are in could have been averted)? She is very influential after all (unfortunately). It could be a case of the all-too-familiar padrino system at work – criticize every body else specially those allied with former president Gloria Arroyo (GMA) but go easy on close friends.

Filipinos are quick to judge GMA on the basis of allegations of corruption even if none of it had been proven in court. But it is my opinion that the greatest lapses in judgment committed by most Filipinos in politics are brought about by their penchant for granting favors to their family and close friends. Perhaps, Monsod is not an exception to this rule.

In the same article, she justifies her role now as a (reluctant) critic of the Aquino government. She even goes on to divide P-Noy’s critics into two distinct groups: the unfriendlies and the friendlies. To quote:

Unfriendlies, including the political opposition, who point out the shortcomings (some very much imagined) with malicious glee in an attempt to prove that he was the wrong choice and to position themselves for the next elections. And the Friendlies, well-wishers and supporters who either have taken to heart his invitation for them to participate (they are his bosses), or who are anxious for him (and the country) to do well, and cannot count on getting through his cordon sanitaire who they feel are part of the problem rather than the solution.

I wonder if she can group GMA’s critics the same way? More importantly, why is there a need for her to come up with such a grouping? I’m sure she would like to be seen as being one of the “friendlies”; an attempt to reduce the likelihood of her falling out of favor with the Aquinos even as she turns up the heat or continue with her astute observation of P-Noy’s growing list of gaffes. As far as I’m concerned, a critic is a critic – full stop. Whether it is a genuine or misguided concern about the country that motivates people to speak out against a politician, at the end of the day, criticism will still be a hard-hitting assessment of someone’s work.

Her analysis about P-Noy’s critics is wrong. There is nothing malicious about pointing out that critics who warned voters about P-Noy’s incompetence during the campaign were right about him all along. Besides, everybody wishes P-Noy well, his critics in the “unfriendlies” camp included. There is nothing “imagined” about what P-Noy does to himself and the people who will be affected by his actions. In fact, it is P-Noy who keeps giving his critics all the material they need to continue criticizing him.

Why would anyone wish him ill anyway? To wish P-Noy ill is tantamount to saying that his critics wish all Filipinos ill. Her statements, in that regard, just don’t make any sense. I hope that she is smart enough to realize that none of us wished that a desperate ex-policeman would go berserk and hijack a bus load of tourists just to make P-Noy look like a fool.

There are many members in Philippine society who can be considered to be part of the “thinking” elite. They, it should be noted, belong to two distinct groups: The Delusionals, including majority of the country’s public officials who were elected just because they were popular; some members of the Media, and the technocrats. They all contribute to the dumbing down of the electorate with their irrational reasoning — like voting for “the chosen one” — which, unfortunately, makes perfect sense to the vacuous electorate. And then there are The Realists, including a few public officials, a few members of the Media and a few technocrats and professionals. They use their training and expertise to analyze situations in a more realistic fashion and make no further ado about nothing.

Unfortunately, it is not easy for the general public to distinguish between the two groups, so the public tends to regard The Delusionals as more credible because they so conveniently appeal to their emotions — much to the detriment of society.

About the Author

ilda has written 89 stories on this site.

Ilda is agent provocateur. She wants to help people realise that things are not always what they seem.

DOT advertising agent on a rampage!

In yet another display of failure of the Philippines’ so-called thinking elite, Harvard graduate and chairperson of the infamous advertising agency, Campaigns & Grey, Yoly Villanueva-Ong, recently wrote a scathing attack on those who criticized the Department of Tourism logo and slogan, “Pilipinas, Kay Ganda!.” She described the critics as “net-dicts who fancy themselves divas of righteousness.” Whoa! But I haven’t even put my two cents in on the tourism slogan yet; which means I am not even one of those critics she is describing. Dang!

Why, oh why did I not bother to write about this much hated and talked about slogan?!? The answer is quite simple: because I already saw enough public outrage expressed about it. I am not one to kick a horse when it is already down. But I do fancy myself as someone who is fond of telling people to get off their high horse. And this Ms Villanueva-Ong, is so high up her fancy white horse that she can’t even hear the people who are talking below her very clearly.

Ms. Chairperson Ong can’t even accept the fact that her company came up with a dud of a campaign slogan. I’m pretty sure that when she and her staff were still in the drawing board, they probably thought that their idea was going to be a massive hit. Which is what usually happens when you drink too much Kool-Aid with your buddies. Unfortunately, the public has spoken and they have rejected the entire campaign ad right down to the dot. Even her idol President, Noynoy Aquino (P-Noy) likewise echoed the sentiments of the public. But then in her article, Ms Ong contradicts herself. To quote:

In the advertising business, rejection is par for the course. Recommendations get turned down everyday. It’s a client’s prerogative to follow the execution he deems best suited for a product that he knows best. It’s also a cutthroat industry. A thick hide and Pacman resilience are necessary survival tools.

If she is really so used to getting turned down everyday, then what is so different about the rejection she got from members of the public, whose taxes were used to pay her company? Obviously, Ms Fuming-Mad Ong has taken this very, very personally and even used her connection with the media to publish an article in her own defense.

She even predicted the reaction to her own article when she said that, “…whatever I say may be considered defensive or worse, prolong and intensify the attacks. True that, Ms. Ong. You are definitely defensive and you just prolonged the attacks. Now you even have my two-cents in. You should have listened to your “protective family and friends” advise “to steer clear of the contentious subject at least until the furor blows over.”

Sadly, there was nothing in her article that would clear any of the issues that were brought up in the past few weeks after the so-called “preview” of the slogans were launched. The matter of whether or not the logo was plagiarized wasn’t even directly answered. The only thing she had to say about it was:

One accused us of being irresponsible for allowing the client to make us party to supposed plagiarism. That could have passed as a high-minded comment if his own brother wasn’t sued by a leading ad agency and ordered by the Adboard to cease and desist from airing a TV ad that was judged copied from Coke!

Then there was a former Creative Director for an airline account who mocked my Harvard degree as ironic under the circumstances. How quickly he forgot that he was fired by his Agency for allegedly receiving kickbacks from production suppliers!

Did she or did she not confirm that they committed plagiarism? It seems to me that she also showed an ability to deflect the blame to other people. Even the former administration was not off the hook with her when she mentioned the ZTE-NBN scandal. It’s like she was on a rampage and told herself, “If I’m going down, I’m taking everyone with me!” Everyone, it seems, including the public who should instead be lauded for voicing their opinion before the slogan hit foreign shores.

She can even pass as a gossip columnist for her use of blind-item descriptions. We, and the people on the streets don’t even know who that “one” is she was talking about, so why was there a need for her to mention that the brother of this “one” was sued by a leading ad agency?!? And I don’t really see the need to take a jab at someone who mocked her Harvard degree. Did she just want to mention that she has a Harvard degree just in case people missed it?

I’ve seen this kind of behavior before. Some members of the Philippines’ so-called elite always get too sensitive when they perceive a mocking of their fancy education. To be fair, in a country obsessed with credentials, flashing diplomas isde rigueur. It’s basically just a manifestation of that “I am better than you” typical mentality. Unfortunately, because they keep harping about their credentials, people expect more from them but when the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan, the practice tends to work against them.

Most ironic of all, Ong revealed the real reason why she was compelled to write her feelings at the end of her tirade. She insinuated that she was moved by the resignation of Undersecretary Vicente “Enteng” Romano, “When Undersecretary Vicente “Enteng” Romano exited with grace, he demonstrated a miracle of public office never witnessed in this country: a government official taking full ownership of a tempest-in-a-teacup-blown-up-into-a-Category-5-hurricane.”

How noble of her to admit that Enteng did the right thing, something that not many of the new administration’s staff would have done. But then she did not take the cue to do the right thing by admitting her company’s own hand in the fiasco.

Ms Ong, when you said “tearing down is more fun than building up,” I’m sure you were talking about how much fun you had tearing down other people. Otherwise, you would’ve stuck to the topic of the ill-fated tourism campaign slogan you helped develop.

About the Author

ilda has written 89 stories on this site.

Ilda is agent provocateur. She wants to help people realise that things are not always what they seem.