THE LAST captive of the kidnap-for-ransom Abu Sayyaf Group was rescued Wednesday in Sulu, the military reported. Indonesian Muhammad Farhan was rescued in Indanan, Sulu at 6:45 p.m. on January 15 following “intensive combat and intelligence operations,” the Western Mindanao Command (WestMinCom) said in a statement.“Troops on the ground received information from the locals of Farhan’s whereabouts that led to the successful rescue,” it said. The Abu Sayyaf, known for its activities, is a local terror group that has ties with the Islamic State. “Our ground troops have succeeded in rescuing all remaining captives of the Abu Sayyaf Group. This proves that our sustained rescue efforts and security operations to run down and degrade ASG have been very effective. Hence, this breakthrough will be sustained to thwart kidnappings, dismantle the terror group to bring about peace and sustainable development in Sulu,” said Lt. Gen. Cirilito E. Sobejana, WestMinCom commander. Earlier that day, Mr. Sobejana reiterated the call for continued multi-sector efforts in ending local terrorism. “Remember this, we soldiers kill terrorists while our civilian partners (such as teachers and religious leaders) kill terrorism,” he said during the traditional New Year’s Call held in Camp Navarro in Zamboanga City. “We will counter the narratives of the extremists through good governance and earning the people’s trust and respect,” he said. — MSJ
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS in Iloilo City without a valid permit by January 21 will face automatic closure, the mayor warned. “If they have no business permits, we will immediately close them down and we will no longer issue permits to them,” Mayor Jerry P. Treñas said. He recently issued a memorandum ordering the inspection of business establishments starting Jan. 21, the day after the closing of the business permit renewal period. The inspections will be undertaken by joint teams from the Business Permit and Licensing Office (BPLO), City Tourism and Development Office, and the City Treasurer’s Office. The mayor said he himself will be joining the inspection rounds. The strict policy arose after the local government recently discovered business such as the Manila-based Malabanan Siphoning Service operating in the city without the necessary permits. “No one can just operate here with impunity and disregard all our ordinances without applying for a permit in the city of Iloilo,” said the mayor. BPLO head Norman F. Tabud said there is definitely going to be “no extension” of the Jan. 20 deadline. — Emme Rose S. Santiagudo
President awaits report on alleged overpriced speed guns
PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESPERSON Salavador S. Panelo said President Rodrigo R. Duterte will “act accordingly” after the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) defended the national police over alleged corruption in its procurement of speed guns.
“They will have to submit a report on that officially to the President and the President will act accordingly,” Mr. Panelo said on Thursday.
Earlier this week, Mr. Duterte said he will transfer the procurement authority of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to the DILG after learning that
P950,000 was supposedly spent for speed guns.
The President said this seemed overpriced, citing similar equipment purchased for his hometown Davao City.
However, DILG Undersecretary Jonathan E. Malaya, in a statement on Wednesday, said the PNP made an honest mistake by failing to explain that the speed guns being purchased are more advanced with its capability to detect not just over-speeding but also drunk-driving.
The equipment are still under the pre-procurement stage. — Gillian M. Cortez
DoH reports 4 new polio cases
BW/LSDAVALJR.
THE DEPARTMENT of Health (DoH) confirmed on Thursday four new polio cases in the country.
In a statement, the DoH said the Research Institute of Tropical Medicine (RITM) reported two additional cases in Maguindanao, both male, a two- and three-year old; another two-year old male in Sultan Kudarat; and a three-year old male in Quezon City.
The new cases arose despite the intensified nationwide vaccination program, which is still ongoing in some areas.
The polio outbreak was declared in September 2019, after the country has been polio-free since 2000.
“I urge all parents and caregivers of children under five years old to take part in the coming SPKP (Sabayang Patak Kontra Polio) campaign rounds scheduled in your respective areas. Have your children, including those with private physicians or pediatricians, vaccinated with oral polio vaccine by health workers and bakunators. Additional polio doses can provide additional protection to your children. There is no overdose with the oral polio vaccine,” Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said.
The DOH also called on all health facilities to strengthen their Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) surveillance.
“The outbreak must be put to a halt, and we can only do this if all our health facilities are achieving the targets for all AFP surveillance indicators, and if every SPKP round, ALL of the target population are reached and vaccinated,” Mr. Duque said. — Gillian M. Cortez
Robredo welcomes 44% rating in short anti-illegal drugs post
VICE PRESIDENT Maria Leonor G. Robredo said the 44% satisfaction rating she got in the Social Weather Survey report as the co-chair on the Inter-agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD) is good news.
“Masayang balita kung (It’s good news that) 44% ‘yung nag-a-agree kasi alam natin (agreed because we know) how vilified I was (as) ICAD chair,” Ms. Robredo told reporters on the sidelines of the community-based drug rehabilitation summit in Caloocan City.
According to the SWS survey of 1,200 people, 44% were satisfied with Ms. Robredo’s less than three-week stint as co-chairperson of ICAD, while 26% were dissatisfied and the remaining 30% undecided.
President Rodrigo R. Duterte appointed Ms. Robredo to the post in November last year, but fired her after just 18 days.
She, however, said that she could have done more if she was still in the ICAD, including influencing policy and strengthening partnerships with other government agencies.
She noted that community-based drug rehabilitation program, such as the one in Caloocan, is an alternative to the drug war, which has drawn criticisms for alleged human rights violations.
Meanwhile, the Presidential Palace dismissed the SWS survey result.
“She was being given the rare chance of introducing other schemes that will improve the campaign against the prohibited drugs and she blew it. ‘Yan ang tingin ko doon (That is how I see it),” Presidential Spokesperson Salvador S. Panelo said on Thursday.
Mr. Panelo again defended the government’s campaign, citing that many are satisfied with the drug war and that the President also has a high satisfaction rating among majority of Filipinos. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas and Gillian M. Cortez
Anti-graft court denies petition to re-arrest former party-list rep Valdez
THE SANDIGANBAYAN has junked for lack of merit the prosecution’s motion to have former party-list representative Edgar D. Valdez and his co-accused, businesswoman Janet L. Napoles, re-arrested in relation to their plunder case involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.
The prosecution filed the motion last Nov. 18, citing that a warrant of arrest should be issued against the two given the Sandiganbayan’s denial of their demurrers to evidence.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficient evidence.
The anti-graft court, in a resolution promulgated Jan. 9, said the prosecution’s motion was “bereft of merit” and cited that Mr. Valdez “correctly pointed out that there is no basis to recall the grant of bail. As correctly argued by the defense, the denial of the accused’s demurrer to evidence is merely a preliminary examination of the merits of the prosecution’s allegations.”
Mr. Valdez countered the prosecution’s motion, arguing that “the denial of the demurrer to evidence does not mean that the evidence against the accused is strong.”
The Sandiganbayan also noted that Mr. Valdez, while out on bail, has “religiously” attended the proceedings of his case.
Ms. Napoles, who has been tagged as the PDAF scam mastermind, is currently in jail for a separate plunder case relating to Senator Ramon “Bong” B. Revilla, Jr.
Lawyer Antonio G. M. La Viña, former dean of the Ateneo School of Government, explained that an arrest warrant can be issued for every case, even if the accused is already imprisoned.
“He will be ‘arrested’ again but it will just be formality,” Mr. La Viña said in a text message to BusinessWorld.
Mr. Valdez, who represented the Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives party-list, and Ms. Napoles are accused of violating Republic Act 7080, or the Plunder Law, for the alleged anomalous use of the former’s P57.78 million PDAF through fake non-government organizations of the latter from 2004 to 2010. — Genshen L. Espedido
SMOKE AND ASH erupted Sunday from the Taal volcano in the Philippines, with the plume rising almost nine miles into the atmosphere and threatening hundreds of thousands of people. The Philippine government mobilized quickly. By Wednesday, more than 38,000 people were staying in evacuation centers, and many thousands more had dispersed to family throughout the country. Meanwhile, the government began to distribute supplies, including 100,000 protective face masks, in and around the eruption zone. There’s little time to waste: Volcanologists are warning that a hazardous eruption could come at any time.
Thanks to their planning, leaders in the Philippines hope that that eruption, if and when it comes, won’t be nearly as catastrophic as it would have been 10 years ago. Back then, the Philippines, like most emerging-market countries, mostly responded to disasters by cleaning up afterward. Today, preparedness is a national priority, and the Philippines is a model for how emerging-market governments in the world’s most disaster-prone region can be ready for the worst.
Since 1970, 59% of the global death toll from disasters — about 2 million people — occurred in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a United Nations report. Economic losses have also been profound, totaling about $675 billion annually. The region’s disaster outlook is growing worse because of urbanization in vulnerable areas, degradation of the environment, and the influence of a warming climate on extreme weather. In 2018, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for almost half of the world’s 281 natural disasters, and eight of the 10 deadliest. Already in 2020, at least 60 people died as a result of flooding in Jakarta, and tens of thousands remain in temporary shelters.
Thanks to its location, the Philippines is more vulnerable to disaster than its neighbors. On average, eight or nine tropical cyclones make landfall on its coasts annually, bringing storm surges, flooding, and landslides — phenomena that are likely to become more frequent and intensify as the climate warms. The country is perched atop the “Ring of Fire” — a geologically active path along the Pacific Ocean — and is home to 53 active volcanos and fault lines capable of major earthquakes near the country’s biggest cities. Further raising the risk profile is the country’s drive to urbanize: Half the population currently lives in cities, with roughly a quarter of its residents (25 million people) in the Manila metro area.
Officials in the Philippines historically didn’t view disasters as recurrent problems worth mitigating or preventing. Rather, their focus was almost entirely concentrated on rapid response after the disaster. That’s neither new nor uncommon in emerging Asian countries. In Jakarta, for example, the Indonesian government has struggled to manage regular, catastrophic floods, much less fund systems to control them. The situation has grown so bad that victims of this month’s floods are filing a class-action lawsuit against the government for failing to plan for them.
What changed the disaster calculus in the Philippines was the scale of the catastrophes. In 2009, metro Manila was hit by Typhoon Ketsana [Known as tropical storm Ondoy in the Philippines. — Ed.], which dumped more than a month’s worth of rain in 12 hours, killed more than 700 people, and paralyzed the city’s economy. The government’s tepid response precipitated a political crisis and the passage of legislation that prioritized proactive disaster management and risk reduction. Among other reforms, local governments are now required to prepare maps of areas prone to disasters like landslides, and make them public for planning and zoning purposes.
To finance the shift, the country’s main disaster fund is mandated to spend 70% on prevention, preparedness, and mitigation, with 30% allocated to quick response operations. Among other benefits, the funding enables local governments to invest in hazard monitoring and forecasting equipment, including tsunami detection stations and volcano observatories (including those watching the Taal volcano). This spending is mostly administered by local governments, but since 2010 their disaster responses are monitored, integrated, and supervised by a high-level agency. This framework not only provides accountability, but also ensures that planning and response to large-scale disasters can be coordinated nationally. Civil society and religious organizations also play a grass-roots role in disaster planning and response.
Of course, no system is perfect. In the Philippines, it’s fair to question whether a disaster preparedness system that depends on forging consensus within and among communities can be effective in the event of a major crisis. Likewise, there are legitimate concerns that the government will not fund the system’s needs adequately. So far, at least, investments in detection and preparation have clearly left the Philippines in a better place to manage the disastrous impacts of an eruption at the Taal volcano than it was a decade ago. That’s a lesson that Indonesia and other disaster-prone Asian countries can afford to emulate.
As irresponsible and as criminal as United States President Donald Trump’s decision to have Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani assassinated may appear to be, there were at least two reasons of a sort in its madness.
The first was personal, and driven by domestic politics. It was obviously meant to divert the American public’s attention from Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial before the US Senate, reenergize his white nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist base, and build added support for his election to a second term. It was cynical, manipulative, and completely indifferent to the possible consequences on the Middle East, the US itself, and the rest of the world. But it was also calculated to be to his benefit.
The second reason was strategic and economic. Whether Democratic or Republican, every US administration has regarded Iran as an important element of its Middle East policy of ensuring access to, and exploiting that region’s vast oil reserves. After the Second World War, a client state of US and British oil interests, Iran committed the unpardonable offense of having chosen Mohammed Mossadegh for its prime minister in the 1950s. Mossadegh nationalized his country’s oil resources and drove the British and US oil companies out of Iran. He was consequently overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British intelligence.
The coup returned to power one of the Western countries’ favorite US-compliant tyrants, Shah Reza Pahlavi, whose murderous rule the Imam-led Iranian revolution overthrew in 1979. The occupation by Iranian militants of US Embassy premises in Tehran and the hostage-taking of its personnel followed the Imams’ seizure of State power. It made it clear that under the new leadership, Iran would no longer be a US neo-colony.
Iran has since then been a thorn in the US side because of its insistence in maintaining its independence and, in anticipation of a possible reprise of the US invasion of Iraq, its nuclear weapons development program. The US’ 2003 attack on Iraq and the execution of Saddam Hussein, which it carried out without a declaration of war, has warned the countries it despises that the same fate may befall them and their leaders. It explains Iran and North Korea’s determination to develop the means, including nuclear arms, to defend themselves. Even the CIA has acknowledged the logic in North Korea’s, and by extension, Iran’s, and any other similarly threatened country’s development of nuclear weapons.
The members of the Republican Party have rallied behind Trump and have bought into his unproven claim that Soleimani was planning to launch an attack on US personnel and installations and was an “imminent threat.” The Democratic Party’s House of Representatives majority has been leery of the timing and basis of the Soleimani assassination. But no one in US ruling circles has questioned the assumption that the US has the right to intervene in any country in the world that it chooses. It’s a mindset shared by much of the US population, who regard their country as the rightful ruler of the planet. They think it only reasonable that Iran, or any country for that matter, bend to US wishes, because it knows best what’s good for them.
They applaud the use of force, including programmed assassinations and “regime change,” as totally justified against those countries and their leaders who defy US power. Hence the Trump decision to take the extreme option of assassinating Soleimani on the assumption that it would boost his popularity and approval ratings and help win him a second term during the November 2020 elections.
If there were reasons in the Trump madness that are rooted in both his personal interests as well as those of US ruling circles, one strives in vain to find something similar in the Duterte regime’s response to the US-fomented crisis.
Almost immediately reacting to the possibility of another war in the Middle East, President Rodrigo Duterte declared that the Philippines “will side” with the US in such an eventuality. Although he amended that declaration later by saying that the country would do so only if Iran harmed Filipino workers, his spokesperson Salvador Panelo, in explaining and elaborating on Mr. Duterte’s earlier statement, had already made it clear that the Philippines “will not be neutral” in the event of a US-Iran war. Panelo even made a veiled threat against Iran should some harm come to OFWs.
What possible benefit to either Mr. Duterte’s or the Philippines’ interests were served by those statements? The answer is none, zero, nil, nada. Their impact is in fact likely to be the exact opposite.
Mr. Duterte has often described his foreign policy as independent, meaning no longer tied to US interests. But far from being a departure from the Philippines’s long history of dependency on its former colonizer, Mr. Duterte’s declaration validated the argument that his administration is best described by the “US-Duterte dictatorship” tag rather than the widely proposed “China-Duterte regime” epithet. Beyond that, however, is the critical harm to which those statements could expose the country’s OFWs in Iran and the rest of the Middle East, where their number is estimated at some two million.
What is even more curious is that through the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) — incidentally without the evident participation of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) — the regime has focused on repatriating OFWs in apparent anticipation of the possible harm they can come to if the crisis intensifies. As expected, absent in the pronouncements of regime bureaucrats was any recognition of the fact that Mr. Duterte and company’s statements about taking sides would at least be partly responsible for whatever dangers Filipino workers already face and could still face in the region.
The supposed plans for worker repatriation are at the same time less than encouraging. The conflicting statements from regime bureaucrats haven’t helped mask how pathetically incapable the government is in carrying out the large-scale forced repatriation it is saying has to take place despite the seeming de-escalation of tensions in the region. Given the number of OFWs involved, the regime’s transportation options — one ship and two cargo planes — will hardly make a dent on those numbers, and neither will its booking OFWs on commercial flights.
Some OFWs, however, are saying they won’t heed the government’s forced repatriation program because they don’t want to lose the jobs that are keeping their families in food, clothing, and shelter in the Philippines. Assuming that the regime does somehow manage to transport at least several hundred thousand OFWs back to their Philippine homeland, how will the returnees and their families survive? DoLE says it can provide them jobs — the rarity and even absence of which is in the first place driving the continuing exodus of Filipinos from this country even to such war zones as Afghanistan and Iraq.
As appalling as this state of affairs is, the possible threat to Filipino lives in the Middle East could have been partly mitigated if the regime had relied on diplomacy rather than threats — if it had taken a less partisan, less pro-US stance, declared Philippine neutrality in any US war in the region, and appealed to the governments of Iran, Iraq, and other countries to respect Philippine neutrality and to protect the OFWs within their territories. As it is, the Philippine government, thanks to Mr. Duterte and company, created its own problems to which it hardly has any credible solution. There is no reason in this madness.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
Vociferous doubts continue regarding the legality of the US’ drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The crucial factor remains the unknown facts, over which hinges the applicable law and its implications.
The point being made here is not that a conclusive case presently exists for Trump’s actions to be categorized as legal or illegal, but only that an argument can be made for its legality. The significance of that distinction has to do with present political and military circumstances.
UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo makes it clear that “no American law prohibits the targeting of specific enemy leaders. Neither the Constitution nor federal statutes prevent the direct targeting of individual members of the enemy.”
This is bolstered by the US’ long practiced “policy of using targeted strikes to kill enemy leaders. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration launched a program of drone strikes and Special Forces attacks to kill leaders of al-Qaeda and insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only did Barack Obama continue these policies, he also launched an air war against Libya that sought as one of its goals to kill its leader, Moammar Qaddafi, in order to trigger regime change. Few, if any, Democratic officials criticized Obama for engaging in illegal assassination or for launching strikes in Libya or, later, in Syria, without congressional approval.”
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz agrees: “The targeting of Soleimani was more justified, as a matter of law, than the targeting of Osama bin Laden in 2011. The killing of Soleimani was in large part an act of prevention, whereas the killing of Bin Laden was primarily an act of retaliation. Would anyone doubt that if Mr. Clinton had succeeded in killing Bin Laden before 9/11, as he tried to do, such an action would have been legal under American law? So, too, was it legal for Mr. Trump to order the targeted killing of Soleimani, who was planning to continue his killing spree against Americans.
“The killing of Soleimani was also entirely legal under international law. The Quds Force commander was a combatant in uniform who was actively engaged in continuing military and terrorist activities against Americans. The rocket that killed him and a handful of others was carefully calibrated to minimize collateral damage, and the resulting death toll was proportionate to the deaths it may have prevented.
“The killing took place in a foreign country, but so did the killing of Bin Laden and others who have been targeted… All the relevant criteria for legality under international law — using authorized and proportionate force to kill a combatant who is engaged in continuing violence — have all been met in this case.”
What complicates the issue is the confused stance people have vis-à-vis the US: simultaneously hoping it goes away with depreciated power and yet burdening it with the responsibility of securing global peace and order.
Hence, the liberal progressive establishment and news media’s puzzlingly negative reaction to President Trump’s declaration that the US “will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” and that the “[US should be skeptical] of international unions that tie us up and bring America down.”
Compare this with President Barack Obama’s quite interventionist (and frankly, more violent) approach to foreign policy. As The Guardian’s Medea Benjamin reported in 2017, “the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.” And yet nary a complaint in media. This considering the bombings proven overall lack of strategic success.
Thus, as Foreign Policy tersely noted, “though Donald Trump loves military parades, flybys, and the other visible trappings of military power, he seems rather leery of war.” Trump’s strikes, though more publicized, are really the exception rather than the rule.
And the relative withdrawal from the world stage that Trump seeks hark back to the US Founding Fathers’ vision. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, wrote: “Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course… Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world… ”
All this should urge other countries to take a more grounded view of its position relative to and its expectations of the US.
This is so particularly with regard to the Philippines, considering its recent behavior towards the US juxtaposed with its history; starting from the fact that its own 1898 Declaration of Independence was done “under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The United States of America.”
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
The island offers a brief interlude from the oppressive urban congestion and frenzy. One finds instant relief. The city’s opaque toxic haze blurs and dissipates in the distance. The white cumulus clouds and the cerulean blue sky are a serene sight for world-weary eyes.
Gradually, the body and mind relax.
The sea breeze whirls like a bracing tonic of exotic scents in mint and citrus. A heady whiff of oxygen reawakens the senses. It is easy to breathe, to stretch and expand.
Floating on the pulsating sea calms the spirit as it empties the mind of thoughts. The rhythmic swell and ebb of waves washes away the clutter and cobwebs.
Gazing at the horizon where sky and sea meet and blend into cobalt, azure, and ultramarine blue, can be a startling experience. Accustomed to the artificial glare of indoor lights, the eye is overwhelmed by the brilliant colors. One’s vision adjusts to the subtle nuances of the seascape.
The churning clear water turns into a frothy wake of salty and foam as a boat cuts the shimmering surface. White-capped waves ripple for miles and miles until they break against the craggy coastline cliffs.
Seagulls swoop to catch fish and soar around like kites. Sometimes, a flying fish springs up and plunges, playing hide and seek. Close to the surface, the electric blue and yellow angelfish dart and weave patterns in the water.
The tiny fish vanish as one plunges in.
It is a different world. Sounds are muffled and figures are blurry. One can hardly hear anything save the bubbles exhaled from the snorkel tube.
The colors of nature are brighter, more vivid in a marinescape composition. Blues, greens, yellows, and pinks shimmer and glow from a phosphorescent palette.
A solitary sea star clings to the bottom near the corals. When it is brought to the surface it turns to brown and it gasps for breath. Tossed back into the sea, the seastar instantly turns bright blue, revived once again.
One listens to the eclectic symphony of wind and water at sea. Depending on the weather, the music of nature can be dramatic as the fortissimo passage of a piano concerto or as relaxing as the well-loved strains of a Brahms lullaby.
On a mild day, the tableau of fluffy cumulus, cirrus, and nimbus clouds move across the powder blue sky. One can discern furry shapes of animals — sheep, lions, and a mirage of angels drifting.
During a storm, the clashing cymbals, pounding drums, and percussion instruments mingle with the crescendo of the woodwinds and brasses heard in the flash of lightning and roll of thunder.
One see, hears, and feels the powerful climax as the clouds unleash angry torrents, tossing flimsy boats on the heaving ocean.
The breeze fades abruptly. The air is heavy with moisture. The clouds gather into towering layers of gray.
A heavenly growl sounds like distant rolling thunder and marching drums. A flash of lightning and electric streaks brightens the graphite sky. A loud clap echoes over the island. The rain pours like a waterfall onto the forest and the beach.
A strong gust of wind ruffles the sea’s surface, causing waves to cover the sandbars and islets.
On the beach, kids frolic — defiant of the wind and rain. Blue kingfishers and yellow orioles seek shelter in their favorite trees and swimmers take cover in scattered gazebos.
The rain suddenly stops and the crickets begin to chirp. The clouds dissipate and the sky is a clear pale canvas.
Sailboats float along the seashore. People gather in clusters to watch the dramatic command performance of light and sound.
The golden orb begins to descend. Fiery gold turns to orange, vermillion, tinged with crimson.
A river of yellow gold reflects glinting specks on the sea. It spills on the ripples and fades as the sun vanishes into the horizon. The afterglow now has streaks of violet, tangerine and peach.
Twilights casts a magical spell. The colors are elements of a divine work in progress.
A strong gust rustles through the palm and coconut fronds. As night falls, tiny fireflies light up a lone tree. The crickets chirp more loudly in a staccato rhythm counterpointed by the croaks of frogs.
The full moon rising is a silver spectacle to behold. She commands attention in the dark sky. One bright star dares to peep through a translucent veil. Then the constellations start to light up the sky.
Late at night, one can hear a distinct melody — the soothing song of the sea.
Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.
SANDWICHED between the mountains Banahaw and San Cristobal in the province of Quezon, Dhamma Phala, a meditation center, is surrounded by scores of coconut and mango trees and banana plants. The sky there is so blue and clear it seems as if it is possible to reach out and touch it.
Nearly 50 men and women from across the world gather there every few weeks to immerse themselves in 10 days of sitting still and silent while learning to look at life, humanity, and world as it really is. It is a centuries-old meditation technique called Vipassana. The regimen is demanding and rigorous while the results are amazingly transformative. For 10 days you don’t make eye contact, don’t touch and speak to anyone while living on two sparse meals of pinakbet and vegetarian sinigang.
On the seventh hour of the seventh day, while sitting still and soundlessly, as a large part of my mind was focused on my own breathing and bodily sensations, I couldn’t help but be cognizant of the subtle sounds of the breeze, of chirping birds, of crickets in the grass, large tuko lizards in the thatched roof, and the smell and crackling of burning leaves in the distance. The world was eerily quiet but alive when from a few feet away outside the meditation hall, I heard a female voice gently announce herself: “Tao po!”
With my eyes closed I heard quick whispers and footsteps hustling the source of the disruption away from where other humans, sitting cross-legged, were striving to lean in and listen to their own breathing, their own beings, and their own mind.
I sensed a gentle smile steal its way onto my face. I had loved that accidental and very Filipino intrusion into our fortress of solitude and solemnity. I call it a fortress because the hall was smack dab in the middle of a three-hectare property and the neighborhood knew that its inhabitants preferred absolute silence.
For long moments thereafter, instead on focusing on myself and my breathing, I began to think about the words, “Tao po.” I know they mean to announce a visitor into your domain. I also know that it is rooted partly in superstition, necessitating the announcement that it is a person, a human being, and not a creepy creature at your doorstep. What I loved about it is that it was evidence of how beautiful and how gentle the Filipino culture is. “Tao po” translates for me as “please excuse me but, I, a human being, am at your door. I am very sorry to be disturbing your peace but could you possibly spare me a few moments of your precious time as I have a need that you might be able to fulfill.”
Yes, exactly that.
As a culture we are wary of intrusions, impositions, and like to let people be people. We seek permission for most everything. To many it may appear as timidity and shyness, but it is more than just that. It totally represents the kindness, the courtesy and the care and respect that we, here in the Philippines, hold for other human beings. It is our values lived out loud, constantly and unconsciously. It is just perfect and we ought to be proud of it. “Tao po” is a tiny peek into a vast landscape of how care, courtesy, and compassion silently thrive in these 7,107 islands.
No, it wasn’t brought to us by the Spaniards. It grew when we were numerous tribes sporadically settled in these happy and abundant islands. Yes, kindness and courtesies like these do exist in many other cultures but I am grateful it surrounds me. We all ought to be too. In fact, we ought to be proud. It is the future of being human and we are the forefront of that frontier.
Paalam po!
Raju Mandhyan author, coach and learning facilitator.
IT IS HARD to credit now, but there was a time, only a decade ago, when Turkey described its foreign policy doctrine as one of “zero problems with our neighbors.” But since then, Ankara has burned its boats with Israel over the Gaza Freedom Flotilla; angered Egypt by bitterly criticizing Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s military coup and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood; broken with Syria by assisting anti-Assad rebels (and more recently, invading the country’s northeast, there to forcibly repatriate refugees); and antagonized Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates by siding with Qatar against their embargo.
Now, Turkey is providing direct military assistance to the government of Libya, while the UAE and Egypt — along with Russia — back the rebel army of General Khalifa Haftar. After the failure of cease-fire talks sponsored by Turkey and Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised to teach Haftar “a lesson.”
If anything, Turkey’s foreign policy now seems designed to aggravate problems with all of its neighbors.
How did it come to this? In the past 10 years, Turkey has descended from a vibrant Islamic democracy into a repressive authoritarian state. But this doesn’t explain its antagonistic relations with its neighbors: most governments across the Middle East are also repressive authoritarian states with predominantly Muslim populations.
The answer is that Erdogan has actively sought to advance the cause of political Islam, both domestically and internationally. This aligns him with Qatar and against most of the other Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.
Within Turkey, Islamization initially advanced with democratization. The Turkish military had been a stridently secular force; as its hold over the state waned, religion returned to politics, primarily in the shape of Erdogan’s Islamist AK Party. The military leadership formally opposed the AKP’s 2007 presidential candidate for being an Islamist, but Abdullah Gul was elected — a major turning point in Turkish politics. The political emasculation of the military allowed Erdogan, who had previously described democracy as “a vehicle, not a goal,” to dominate the scene.
The failed 2016 coup attempt can be seen as an opportunistic bid by some elements in the military to capitalize on growing dissatisfaction among Turks over Erdogan’s consolidation of power. It also represents a deep and ongoing contest between Erdogan’s Islamists and other political forces.
The fragility of Erdogan’s hold on power is illustrated by last year’s election of opposition party mayors in Istanbul and other major cities, and the fact that longtime political allies — including former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who conceived the “zero problems with neighbors” policy — have broken away from the AKP.
This domestic trajectory has its parallel in Turkey’s foreign policy, which has grown more Islamist and militarist as Erdogan’s political hold has become more brittle.
The falling out with Egypt holds the keys to understanding Turkey’s intervention in Libya. After the 2011 Arab Spring, Erdogan supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power in Egypt and assisted the government of President Mohammed Morsi. When Morsi was overthrown by the military in 2011, Erdogan described it as “state terrorism.” He seems to view events in Libya as a reprise of those in Egypt: a military leader threatening to unseat a government conducive to Turkey’s worldview.
Turkey has deep linkages to Libya, which is home to 25% of Turks living outside their country. Just as important, $18 billion in Turkish business contracts are underway in Libya, and the two countries share an exclusive economic zone. The Government of National Accord in Tripoli, backed by the United Nations and led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, has Islamist elements — natural allies of Erdogan and the AKP.
The GNA has been under sustained military attack by the Libyan National Army under Haftar, who opposes a political role for Islamists, as do his Egyptian and Emirati backers — potential allies of forces within Turkey that threaten Erdogan’s hold on power.
Long-suffering Libya has become the battleground for a proxy war about the role of Islam in Middle Eastern politics. Neither Turkey nor the Middle Eastern states arrayed against it are likely to concede their objectives.
With the failure of cease-fire talks, attention will return to the frontlines, where a bloody stalemate prevails. If Haftar had the military strength to take Tripoli, he would have done so by now. Significant increases in Turkish assistance could turn the tide in favor of the GNA, unless Haftar’s allies ratchets up their support for the LNA. Turkey’s problems with its neighbors, meanwhile, are only liken to get worse.
HOLDING a commanding 3-1 lead in their best-of-seven Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) Governors’ Cup finals series, the Barangay Ginebra San Miguel Kings are out to close out the Meralco Bolts in Game Five today at the Mall of Asia Arena in Pasay City.
Thrust themselves on the cusp of another league title after dominating their opponents in Game Four, 94-72, on Wednesday, the Kings said they will go out and finish things off in their scheduled 7 p.m. match, and reclaim the championship in the season-ending PBA tournament.
“I would love to end the series on Friday obviously. And we will try our best. But this team showed a lot of character in the past when we played them. We went up, 2-0, on them and they came back to beat us two straight in one series. So we know they are capable of coming back,” said Barangay Ginebra coach Tim Cone following Game Four.
“It will be silly of us to think that it’s going to be over in the next game but it’s going to be silly for us as well to say that we won’t be going to try to win it all on Friday,” he added.
The PBA’s winningest coach, with 21 titles, went on to underscore that holding a 3-1 series lead does not guarantee an outright title, having lost such a lead in a PBA finals in the past — 2006 Philippine Cup where Cone-coached Alaska lost to Purefoods.
“We are aware that a team could come back. That is why you should not give them the momentum that they need to in doing so,” he said.
In Game Four on Wednesday, the Kings were simply unrelenting when they found their collective groove in the second quarter.
After a tied count of 14-all at the end of the opening quarter, Barangay Ginebra outscored Meralco, 80-58, in the next three quarters en route to the dominant win.
Import Justin Brownlee paced the balanced Kings attack, finishing with 27 points, eight rebounds, eight assists, five steals and four blocks.
Stanley Pringle had 21 points while Scottie Thompson finished with 16 for Barangay Ginebra, which is gunning for a third Governors’ Cup title in the last four years.
For Meralco it was best import awardee Allen Durham who showed the way with 21 points, 27 rebounds and seven assists.
Raymond Almazan, who was expected to miss Wednesday’s game after injuring his knee in Game Three, had 12 points and nine boards.
Chris Newsome also had 12 markers for the Bolts
Meralco coach Norman Black admitted that his team was badly outplayed by Barangay Ginebra in Game Four and that moving forward they either sink or swim.
“They outplayed us. We did not give them a good fight. And as a coach I’m pretty embarrassed of the effort we put out there,” Mr. Black said postgame.
“I told the players after that we have two choices — either we pull together and play well in the next game or have of the same,” he added.
In the ongoing finals the Kings are looking to add a 12th PBA title in franchise history while the Bolts are gunning for their first-ever league championship.
The two teams met in the 2016 and 2017 Governors’ Cup finals with Barangay Ginebra claiming the title both times.
BOSTON — Whether the Boston Red Sox’s 2018 World Series title was won legitimately is up for debate after Alex Cora was involved in sign-stealing scandals in back-to-back seasons with the 2017 champion Houston Astros and Red Sox.
The Red Sox held a press conference on Wednesday — one day after parting ways with Cora — and team president Sam Kennedy made it clear he doesn’t believe the World Series win over the Los Angeles Dodgers is tainted.
Kennedy was asked, “Do you believe you beat the Dodgers fairly and squarely?”
His reply: “Absolutely, yes.”
The Red Sox repeatedly declined to answer questions involving their 2018 title, citing that Major League Baseball’s (MLB) investigation is still ongoing.
Cora was identified by MLB on Monday as a ringleader in the Astros’ scheme to steal signs en route to their 2017 World Series championship, when he was Houston’s bench coach. He became the Red Sox’s manager the next year and led his new team to the title — albeit with lingering suspicions regarding similar illegal sign-stealing.
On Monday, MLB announced major sanctions against Houston, including one-season suspensions for manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow, who were subsequently fired by the Astros.
On Tuesday, Red Sox brass met with Cora and all parties agreed that parting ways was necessary.
“Alex by his own admission, and we agreed, played a central role in what went on in Houston and we all agreed that it was wrong and that we had a responsibility as stewards where that sort of behavior is unacceptable,” Red Sox chairman Tom Werner said during the press conference.
Werner requested that the team’s fans withhold judgment on the 2018 team until the investigation is complete.
Kennedy said that it wasn’t anything that occurred in Boston that led to Cora no longer being the manager.
“It is also important to recognize that this collective mutual decision yesterday was related exclusively to the incidents that took place in Houston,” Kennedy said. “… Alex came to the conclusion that he could not effectively lead the organization going forward in light of the commissioner’s findings and the ruling and we came to that conclusion as well.”
While Cora was tabbed as the ringleader of the sign-stealing scheme in Houston, also mentioned was then-player Carlos Beltran, who was recently hired to be manager of the New York Mets.
The Mets haven’t indicated how they plan to handle the situation with Beltran at a time when Cora and Hinch have lost their jobs.
ESPN analyst Mark Teixeira, a former teammate of Beltran on the New York Yankees, says Beltran has to go.
“They have to fire Carlos Beltran,” Teixeira said on ESPN. “There’s no way that Carlos Beltran, especially in the pressure cooker of New York, there’s no way he can be the manager of the Mets. …
“You cannot have that guy lead your team. The New York papers, the Daily News and the Post and all of the tabloids, will eat up Carlos Beltran every single day until he’s fired.” — Reuters
