PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte witnessed the formal signing last Thursday of a $1.3 billion loan, the first tranche of a total $2.75 billion facility, between the Philippines and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for the Malolos-Clark Railway Project (MCRP).
The loan agreement was signed by Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III and ADB Vice-President Ahmed M. Saeed.
“The Malolos-Clark railway is part of the Philippine government’s North-South Commuter Railway project, which aims to link New Clark City to Calamba by 2025,” the ADB said in a statement.
The project, according to the ADB, will use “cutting-edge technology to build an elevated railway line, with a maximum train speed of 160 kilometers per hour, to help ease chronic road congestion in and around Metro Manila, reduce air pollution, cut the costs of transport and logistics, and encourage economic growth and a population shift outside the capital.”
Mr. Saeed was quoted as saying: “Our work in the Philippines has always held a special place in the history of ADB. Now, under President Duterte’s ‘Build, Build, Build’ infrastructure program, ADB is considerably scaling up its own support to the government… The Malolos-Clark Railway Project is ADB’s single largest infrastructure project financing ever at $2.75 billion. We are pleased to be supporting this important flagship project in our host country.”
The President said in his speech during the ceremony: “I am directing the Department of Transportation (DoTr) to fast-track the completion the MCRP and observe the highest quality standards as we complete this railway project.”
“By the time it is completed, I expect that our people, especially those from Central Luzon, will greatly feel the impact of our ‘Build, Build, Build’ program,” he added.
The ADB noted that the project is the result of its “close collaboration” with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the DoTr.
“During project preparation, a joint technical team from the department and the two institutions conducted regular ‘Build, Build, Build’ meetings, with reporting to Transportation Secretary Mr. Arthur Tugade. ADB’s safeguard and resettlement policies were adopted and are being implemented for the project,” it also said. — Arjay L. Balinbin
THE procurement of palay, or unmilled rice, amounted to more than 5.4 million bags in the first half, exceeding the target by 16%, the National Food Authority said in a statement, as the agency concluded its first half-year focused only on domestic rice procurement.
“With a very high rate of procurement during the previous months, we were able to raise the NFA’s total palay procurement for the first half of 2019 to 5.412 million bags. In total, our palay procurement is 16% higher than our 4.649 million target during the first six months this year,” NFA Administrator Judy Carol L. Dansal said in the statement Thursday.
The Rice Tariffication Law opened up rice imports to private firms, leaving the NFA to concentrate on procuring palay from domestic farmers to build its emergency reserves. It offers various incentives to make selling to the NFA attractive relative to prices offered by private rice traders.
Ms. Dansal also noted that the agency was able to front-load its procurement before the onset of the lean months. In June procurement totaled 626,100 bags, beating the target by 140%.
“It is very favorable because the agency is now preparing for the lean months, from July to early September, and for calamities that may hit the country during the rainy season. The rice import liberalization law still requires us to ensure at least 15-30 days of buffer stock and since the agency can no longer source its stock from imports, it is fortunate that our agency is performing well in procuring palay from our own farmers and that we were able to meet our mandated level of buffer stock,” she said.
The Rice Tariffication Act, or Republic Act 1120, opened up the import market to private entities while charging tariffs on their shipments. Imports used to be a key part of the NFA’s operations.
In October, the agency increased its buying price to P20.40 per kilogram (/kg) for individual farmers and P20.70/kg for members of farmer cooperatives or organizations, from P17.40/kg and P17.70/kg previously.
It has also added a P3.00/kg buffer stock incentive on top of the P0.20/kg drying, P0.20/kg delivery, and P0.30/kg Cooperative Development Incentive Fee.
Ms. Dansal said she has instructed NFA field offices to start milling palay in preparation for the lean months to ensure adequate supplies ready for release anytime.
“We have to efficiently manage our stocks, both to ensure our financial stability, and to see to it that by the time the main crop harvest starts in September until December, we will be ready again to serve our clients. We must be able to sustain our procurement operations with sufficient logistics, especially warehouse space to store the stock that we will be continuously procuring from our farmers,” she said.
She also noted that NFA rice is still being distributed at P27 per kilogram through accredited retailers. — Vincent Mariel P. Galang
NEGOTIATIONS for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with South Korea are expected to finish by September in time for possible signing in November, according to Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez.
“September, kasi yung major agreements, anong produkto ang kasama, ilang percent ma-liberalize, tariff reduction program, yung mga basic terms syempre kailangan mag-agree na kayo doon so that you can work on the text, the components,” (The talks are due to wrap up in September because the two sides need to agree on included products, the percentage which will be liberalized, a tariff reduction program, the basic terms — of course you have to agree on that so that you can work on the text, the components) Mr. Lopez told reporters Thursday during the Philippines-Korea Business Forum organized by Korean Importers Association (KOIMA) at the Conrad Manila.
Asked if it could be signed in time for President Duterte’s visit, he said, “That’s the target nga, November. So that should be the highlight of the visit as well, that there’s a new FTA. The original intention is for us to really have better tariff rates sa (on) banana.”
The Philippines and South Korea mark the 70th year of diplomatic relations this year.
The Philippines is seeking lower tariffs for agricultural products like bananas, pineapple and mango as well as processed food, industrial products and auto parts. South Korea on the other hand is pushing for more leeway to ship in auto-related products.
The Philippines is hoping to get tariffs for bananas to be reduced to around 5% from 30% currently, amid stiff competition from other suppliers like Ecuador.
“Di naman kailangan zero, I think i-match lang (It doesn’t have to be zero, I think we’ll be happy to match the rates for other countries)… A single-digit rate… in the vicinity of 5% (will suffice),” he said.
Mr. Lopez also said that to reciprocate, import tariffs on South Korean fruits like strawberries and pears could be lowered to 5% as well.
FTA talks started earlier this month.
In 2018, imports from South Korea were valued at $10.55 billion, while the exports were worth $2.54 billion. — Katrina T. Mina
CUSTOMS OFFICIALS posted to the Manila International Container Port (MICP) seized P15.5 million worth of food shipments from China which were misdeclared, the Bureau of Customs (BoC) said Thursday.
One of the four shipments was declared as 3,300 boxes of fresh apples which the BoCs discovered were red onions after X-ray and physical inspection. According to BoC, the onions were valued at P1.8 million at market price.
Two of the shipments were declared as red beans but turned out to be 5,300 sacks of refined sugar worth P9.6 million.
One shipment, meanwhile, was declared as 1,058 packages of clothing but instead contained 200 sacks of rice, 1,300 packs of other food products, 30 packs of medicine and 425 packs of non-perishable items. The goods were valued at P4.1 million, BoC said.
According to the BoC, the goods arrived at MICP on separate dates in June.
“BoC heightened its efforts against the smuggling of agricultural products in a bid to improve revenue collection and protect our local farmers,” the bureau said in the statement.
Earlier this month, the BoC seized 800 grams of Kush, a strain of cannabis, valued at P1.4 million, hidden in tortilla chip packages.
In February, the Department of Agriculture (DA) said that imported fruit, vegetables and meat brought into the country without proper sanitary permits will be confiscated to protecting the farm sector from the possible entry of animal and plant diseases. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio
FINANCE SECRETARY Carlos G. Dominguez III has ordered the Bureau of Customs (BoC) to create a team to guard against future attempts to bring waste material into the Philippines.
“[t]he strike team that he wants at the BoC will be akin to a special environmental strike force that will be activated to guard against the entry of hazardous materials in the country,” the Department of Finance (DoF) said in a statement on Thursday.
“It’s time we put up something like an environmental unit in the Customs (bureau) to really act on this garbage issue,” Mr. Dominguez was quoted as saying in the statement.
According to the Finance Department, Customs Commissioner Rey Leonardo B. Guerrero proposed to his agency’s counterparts in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region to cooperate not only on preventing the entry of drugs but also garbage.
The DoF said other countries responded positively to Mr. Guerrero’s proposal.
Between 2013 and 2014, 69 containers with garbage were shipped to the Philippines from Canada. On May 30 the containers were finally shipped back.
“Malaysia was thanking the Philippines for setting the example in this waste problem, because now it has come to the consciousness of the international community,” Mr. Guerrero was quoted as saying in the statement.
Meanwhile, the DoF also noted that the South Korean government has committed to take back 5,176 metric tons (MT) of waste material shipped to the Philippines last year.
The South Korean shipments are currently stored at a PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority site in Misamis Oriental. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio
THE United States awarded two grants Thursday worth P20 million for projects intended to help rehabilitate Manila Bay.
Through the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Municipal Waste Recycling Program, the US embassy in Manila said the recipients were the Ecowaste Coalition and the Mother Earth Foundation, to fund research and implement projects that will reduce plastic waste.
“These grantees promote and expand community-based recycling programs, improve solid waste management, and conduct research on plastic waste and as mentioned, much of that will take place in historic Manila Bay,” Deputy Chief of Mission John Law said during a signing ceremony in Quezon City.
“It’s priority for the government, it’s priority for President Duterte, and it’s priority for the US Embassy.”
The Embassy noted that the US earlier awarded five grants to non-governmental organizations under the program, supporting projects in Manila, Puerto Princesa and Bacolod.
The newly-awarded grants bring total USAID assistance to the Philippines under the program to around P57 million.
The Municipal Waste Recycling Program was created to support solid waste management and water recycling efforts at the community level, and is active in the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. — Charmaine A. Tadalan
The officials of the Duterte regime contradict themselves and each other daily and almost by the hour. They have, individually and collectively, outdone and are outdoing every other administration in the incoherence, contradictions, unreason, and non sequiturs of their declarations. A reality that is arguably as alarming as the lawlessness and the extrajudicial killings that are continuing to ravage the ranks of human rights defenders, political activists, and regime critics, it is specially evident in their foreign policy discourse.
Foreign policy should serve and advance national interests, but there is hardly any evidence that that principle guides the regime. The incoherence and contradictions in its approach to foreign relations are particularly evident in the public declarations of Mr. Duterte, whose half finished sentences, profanities, fraudulent claims, and even worse logic contribute little if at all to citizen understanding of what his foreign policy is, much less to any illumination of such issues as China’s occupation and militarization of the West Philippine Sea (WPS).
His latest venture into what is for him the rarified air of foreign relations is illustrative. Speaking in Leyte last week, Mr. Duterte implied that if the United States of America ever declares war against China and even “fires the first shot” it would be defeated by the armed forces of his Chinese friends. He also suggested that, having failed to prevent China’s militarization of the West Philippine Sea, the US is egging him on to wage war against that country.
In another mish-mash of claims based on the assumption that only war could have stopped Chinese aggression in the WPS, Mr. Duterte also used the occasion to woo the police and military, whose support he has been courting out of his fears of a coup d’état, by validating their historic inability to defend this country from external threats by saying that he does not want to risk the lives of “[his] soldiers” to defend Philippine sovereignty.
Although a lawyer, he failed to point out that the Philippines has sovereign rights over those portions of the WPS that are part of the country’s territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone as mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and by the 2016 ruling of the UN Arbitral Tribunal.
Mr. Duterte was also gravely mistaken on several counts. He said the US has to make the first move against China before the Philippines can invoke the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Under its terms, the Philippines can invoke the MDT if it is under threat. An attack on the Philippines by a third party can also provoke a US response. The latter possibility has in fact been emphasized by both US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo as well as by US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim. Kim recalled Pompeo’s declaration about the US’ commitment to meeting its MDT obligations during his visit to the Philippines earlier this year. The US ambassador was clearly conveying to China his country’s warning that any other “incident” involving its armed forces similar to the June 9 ramming and sinking of the Filipino fishing boat F/B Gem-Vir would “trigger” a US response.
Mr. Duterte has made much of his allegedly “independent” foreign policy as a justification for his bias for China. He wants Filipinos and the world to believe that he’s setting the country free from US influence and dependency. But his blaming the US for allowing China’s occupation of the West Philippine Sea assumes that rather than the Philippines, it is the US that is responsible for the defense of Philippine interests. And quite contrary to his earlier claims, that dependency is actually unabating, with US military aid to his regime even increasing.
Meanwhile, his implication that the US will lose in any confrontation with its imperialist rival is totally baseless. With two million men and women under arms, China does have the largest standing army in the world. But its weaponry is far from as developed as that of the US. Surrounded by US military bases, and its cities vulnerable to long-range US missiles and nuclear bombers, China’s leaders do not want a war they will surely lose, focused as they are on their country’s continuing economic development.
Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy, May 21, 2015. — US NAVY/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS/FILE PHOTO
Not that they’re moved by benign means and motives. But the most that country is doing to force others to do its bidding is to intimidate smaller countries like the Philippines over whose military capabilities it has the advantage, and to use its economic power to bring them into its orbit. But it has also demonstrated its unwillingness and inability to do anything militarily against those countries that have stood up to it, among them Indonesia and Vietnam in Southeast Asia and Argentina in Latin America.
If there is anything consistent in Mr. Duterte’s confused and confusing foreign policy narrative regarding China, it is his insistence that only war is the alternative to allowing that country free rein in Philippine territorial waters and even to exploit, deplete and destroy the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EZZ).
The reality he won’t accept is that, as Indonesia and Vietnam have done, the Philippines could have declared those waters and its EEZ off-limits to other countries while it protests Chinese incursions before world bodies like the United Nations. Unfortunately, Mr. Duterte has already declared the Philippine case lost by saying, even before it does anything, that it can’t win a war against China and that the UN is useless. He has also discouraged the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard from protecting Filipino fishermen by saying he won’t risk their lives to do that, in effect instead risking the lives and livelihoods of the country’s fisherfolk.
Either Mr. Duterte is severely disinformed and fact-challenged about what is at stake for the Philippines in the WPS, or he’s pretending to be so because of some secret pact with China similar to his agreement with its President Xi Jinping to allow Chinese fishermen free access to the EEZ in clear violation of the Philippine Constitution. If the latter is indeed the case, he does have a foreign policy despite suspicions to the contrary — and it can be summed up in one phrase: submission to China no matter the cost to the country of which he happens to be President.
In any case, whether Mr. Duterte’s agreement with Xi was a policy or not was itself another occasion for his own leading officials to contradict each other. His mouthpiece, Salvador Panelo, said it was binding, but later denied its existence. His Foreign Secretary, who incidentally said “f–k the international community” on Twitter while claiming to be the regime vanguard against stupidity, said it is not a policy, in one more vivid demonstration of the incoherence that characterizes regime discourse on practically every issue.
The inevitable conclusion is that these worthies are not even talking to each other to get their stories right, let alone consulting each other and even their boss of bosses. But that is not the worst part.
What is chilling is that what passes for foreign and domestic policies in the Duterte administration, rather than based on well-thought-out rational analysis, are merely what happens to cross the mind of Mr. Duterte as he gropes for words to justify what he has already decided to do for his, his family’s, his cronies’, and his foreign patrons’ benefit regardless of its consequences to this country, its people, and its future. He’s just winging it in the worst sense of that phrase — and it shows. In the process he has brought this country closer and closer to the brink of total ruin.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
Vividly and fondly remembered is former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano who, years ago, long after he stepped down from the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body, met with some government trade officials regarding alleged Philippine discriminatory treatment of some imported goods. A lady official pontificated about the “unfortunate” Philippine “discrimination.”
“Madam,” Justice Feliciano softly asked, “are you an international trade law judge?” No, came the reply. Then why, politely asked the man who practically organized the WTO’s highest tribunal, are you so quick to conclude that the Philippines committed a wrong?
Indeed. And Filipino lawyers (and definitely law students) would do well to remember this: if you’re going to interpret a treaty or international law, then do so in accordance with Philippine interests and values.
Lawyers instinctively (even aggressively) interpret contracts or laws to support their client’s mere personal interests. Treaties are nothing but that: legal documents. Documents of national interests. Our reading thereof should be to benefit the Philippines.
No Filipino should “lawyer” for other countries, they have their own.
Consequently, in relation to the ongoing dispute over the West Philippine Sea (and, yes, we will insist in using that term): the areas we claim in Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Islands are ours, as we declared through our Constitution and supporting legislation.
It is incorrect to say that international law grants us our rights or territory. International law merely recognizes them. With or without international law, our rights and territory are ours, and what matters is our willingness to assert it.
Benham Rise, for example, was not given to us by the United Nations. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf merely recognized our claim. That continental shelf has always been ours because we say so.
As far as the 2016 arbitral ruling on Philippines v. China is concerned, such did not identify ownership of or sovereignty over the subject maritime features. That would be for the International Court of Justice to decide if China would be willing (and it clearly isn’t).
The arbitral ruling merely makes the following pronouncements: Scarborough Shoal is a rock entitled to territorial waters but without EEZ or continental shelf entitlements; Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations without territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf; Subi Reef is a low-tide elevation without territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf; Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations without territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf; Gaven Reef (South) and Hughes Reef are low-tide elevations without territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf; Gaven Reef (North), Namyit Island, McKennan Reef and Sin Cowe Island are high-tide features; and Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are rocks without EEZ or continental shelf but are entitled to territorial waters.
The concluding relevant portions are as follows:
“The Tribunal concludes that, as between the Philippines and China, China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention. The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.”
“Scarborough Shoal has been a traditional fishing ground for fishermen of many nationalities and DECLARES that China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented fishermen from the Philippines from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal”
Proceeding from the foregoing, as Scarborough Shoal is indeed owned by the Philippines, then Chinese traditional (not commercial) fishermen’s rights are only those as “vested” within the 12 nautical miles territorial sea of the Shoal. Scarborough being also within the EEZ of the Philippines, the general rule is that “traditional fishing rights are extinguished” at least as far as that within the zone is concerned, although Chinese traditional fishermen may have limited rights but only to those of “artisanal” nature and not commercial, and may be subject to regulation by the Philippines (as the coastal state). Finally, the Philippines may come to an agreement with China over said traditional fishing rights over the EEZ but such is not required by UNCLOS. And any such agreement definitely must consider the dictates of the Constitution.
Incidentally, would a verbal agreement between heads of States be valid? Customary international law says yes. That is, assuming constitutional requirements are complied with.
As far as the Philippines is concerned, if the nature of the verbal agreement categorizes it as a treaty, then Senate concurrence is needed. Consequently, the Executive branch may likely need to endorse a written document embodying the verbal agreement to the Senate for the latter’s deliberation. Of course, verbal agreements come with certain disadvantages, particularly in relation to dispute settlement mechanisms.
But that’s another discussion.
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.
For three decades, there have been attempts to pass the divorce bill in Congress. It has provoked waves of arguments and nothing happened.
The Philippines is now the only country in the world (except the Vatican) that does not have divorce. The other Catholic countries passed the law many years ago. Italy was one of the first. Ireland passed it a few years ago.
The ultra-conservative politicians and the religious leaders are consistently and vehemently against it. They consider divorce a threat to the family, the basic unit of society.
Liberal thinkers and women’s groups have been actively lobbying for the passage of the bill. They argue that divorce shall protect women and children.
Well-known and respected family lawyers/professors have explained the situation. “Divorce is a great equalizer. It will strengthen marriages. The Constitution does not contemplate the protection and strengthening of a marital relationship that is abusive,” Katrina Legarda emphasized. “Why will a woman stay with a man who rapes his children and batters her? Why will a husband stay with a woman who nags all day, plays mahjong, spends his money, and neglects his children?,” she asked. “[Divorce] takes out the hypocrisy! We have to recognize that we are human beings and we make mistakes.
“God has nothing to do with civil law. There are Church declarations of nullity. Just because there is a divorce law, it won’t mean that people will take advantage of it.”
A woman legislator noted, “Men are against divorce because they are afraid that their wives will leave.
“The real problem is — Men want to have their cake and eat it, too.”
“Not necessarily,” a male banker countered. “A divorce would give women equal rights. It would give protection to the spouse and the children.”
The debate on the issue has raged since the mid-1980s. The forces opposed to divorce continue to wield their influence to block and delay the passage of the law. For as long as possible.
Meanwhile, the plight of the battered spouses and abused children shall not be addressed,
FREEPIK
Until a divorce law is passed, abandoned wives shall remain legally chained to abusive, philandering, irresponsible husbands. They would be left “holding the bag.” They would continue to suffer in limbo because they have no other choice.
Men and women are created equal. However, in Filipino society, the cultural double-standard favors the man. More so in marriage.
Unless a wife is financially independent, she is at a disadvantage. The woman is at the mercy of her husband-provider. If he is abusive — physically or emotionally — toward her and the children, she has to bear it with martyr-like stoicism. If a husband walks out and refuses to support the family, the separated wife cannot sue for alimony.
Under the Family Code of 1988, Article 35 cites “psychological incapacity” as a ground for annulment. (The Family Code was patterned after Canon Law.) There are similar grounds in a civil annulment and an Ecclesiastical Declaration of Nullity. However, acquiring one does not automatically guarantee the granting of the other.
A marriage that is declared null and void by the State is one that never existed because of legal obstacles or severe psychological impediments at the time of the marriage — i.e. homosexuality, alcoholism, and mental instability — may exist at the time of the wedding but are manifested after. Sometimes, years later.
In the case of an annulled marriage, the State recognizes the legitimacy of children born during the marriage and they are entitled to support. The “ex-wife” does not necessarily receive any financial settlement.
The main difference between a divorce and an annulment is obvious. With a divorce law, the State recognizes that there was a valid marriage. If the marriage breaks up, the husband is required to provide financial support for the wife and children.
One of the major arguments against the divorce bill is that there would be so many broken marriages.
Tess Herbosa, senior partner of ACCRA Law Office, disagrees. She offered an interesting insight.
“The result of the enactment of a law allowing divorce is not necessarily a drastic increase in the number of broken marriages. Having a jack and a spare tire does not mean that you would change a tire whenever you feel like it.
“You will use the jack and spare tire only when you have flat tire and you can no longer drive on,” she said.
“If your marriage is a flat tire, then you can and should be able to resort to divorce in order to get on with your life. Otherwise, going through a divorce proceeding is like using the jack and spare tire to replace a good one.
“All the time and effort for what?”
Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.
IT MUST be our digital culture that compels us to think of life as binary. Most things, including organizational charts, relationships, diplomatic courtesies, invasions, fishing accidents, and working arrangements in families cannot be neatly categorized as either on or off, zero or one, win or lose, black or white. There are many shades of gray, and not just 50.
Still, gray areas make people uncomfortable. They are deemed to be unpredictable, drifting along aimlessly, spilling over unmarked boundaries, inconsistent, and difficult to characterize as a headline story — it is what it is.
Informally accepted situations can keep going without formal contracts or specified obligations and expectations. When difficulties arise, as when third parties get into the picture, there is the urge to put arrangements into a more defined footing. This may entail forcing a commitment or simply ending a bumpy relationship once and for all, after negotiating some acceptable settlement. This type of situation can cover blended families as well as supplier contracts for restaurants.
A definite “closure” to end an ambiguous relationship is unnecessary, serving only the function of having one last opportunity for bitter words to be exchanged and then a messy exit with slammed doors.
Ambiguity is an uncomfortable state for a relationship, even one that is no longer working well and for which an informal “modus vivendi” is taking shape or disintegrating. With missed promises and failed financial commitments, a lingering ending is not far behind.
Celebrity couples linked only by some acronyms combining their first names, whose joint accounts have been raided by one or the other, may still feel obliged to issue a public statement on their ambiguous status. They are undergoing difficulties and trying to work through a process of determining the best way forward. And when asked when the last time the two had a conversation, some vague period is referred to — not since her last movie flopped.
Even corporate relationships, which seem grounded on employment contracts and fixed by hierarchical boxes, have an ambiguous side. An informal structure of friendships, envy, and credit-grabbing permeates the organization. They also include undisclosed business interests that drive policies on outsourcing and procurement.
Even though the old paradigm of connected boxes in the formal chart seems no longer applicable in a more flexible, project-based, task-forced, and flatter organization, the dynamics of delegation and influence can shift without any formal announcement. (Sir, you have to step out. The excom has been shrunk to fewer members while you were sleeping.)
Someone previously considered very influential with the boss on hiring decisions, promotions, and appointments may abruptly fall from grace. While she may retain her formal title, her influence may wane even when there is no formal notice that she has been transformed from the boss’s constant companion to a mere employee getting instructions by e-mail.
Why are gray areas so unsettling?
After all, ambiguity offers flexibility. Couples or business colleagues that can live with uncertainty without closure can probably function more effectively in a disruptive world. Accepting the reality of unfinished business allows, if not the return of old passions, the possibility of warm friendship which perhaps started the whole relationship. Closure brings too much finality on situations. Nuances are lost and the ability to function can be choked by either-or conditions.
The etymology of “ambiguous” springs from Latin ambi — both ways — plus agere — to drive. To be able to drive to more than one possible direction allows the driver to change course in an instant. Gray areas allow flexibility which a more defined contract of rights and obligations (like a pre-nuptial agreement) can only resolve with litigation. Isn’t company loyalty and going the extra mile for the customer eroded by assigned deliverables and penalties for missed targets?
Does ambiguity apply to politics?
Deals in the political arena thrive on ambiguity. Backroom negotiations and imprecise commitments based on a handshake are the currency of politicians. (Money can work too.) Ambiguous pronouncements, which include silence while “getting more facts,” allow a freer interpretation of events to avoid conflict without hints of caving in or surrender.
Sometimes, facts are slanted and twisted to support an ambiguous relationship of people and nations. And in these arrangements, even in the least murky situation, it’s only too clear which side gets the benefit of the doubt.
THE PESO recovered sharply against the dollar on Thursday on the back of dovish remarks from US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell.
The local unit closed Thursday’s session at P51.19 versus the greenback, 27 centavos stronger than its P51.46-per-dollar finish on Wednesday.
The peso opened the session stronger at P51.30 against the US currency. Its worst showing stood at P51.34, while the local unit closed yesterday’s session at its intraday high.
Dollars traded climbed to $883.31 million from the $729.69 million that changed hands the previous session.
“The peso strengthened sharply after US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell reinforced dovish policy cues in his US congressional testimony last night and similar dovish indications from the June 2019 Fed policy minutes,” a trader said in an e-mail on Thursday.
In a prepared speech to the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Powell hinted of a cut in interest rates, saying the central bank will “act as appropriate” to sustain expansion as “crosscurrents” such as trade tensions and concern on global growth are weighing on the economy.
The US was embroiled in a trade war against China as both countries hurled tariffs against each other’s imports. However, tensions cooled late last month after Washington and Beijing agreed to resume negotiations.
Mr. Powell’s testimony strengthens the case of a rate cut from the Fed when its policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets again later this month. According to the minutes of FOMC’s June 18-19 meeting, several Fed officials said a near-term rate cut was warranted to quell the effects of possible economic headwinds.
“Powell’s testimony was seen as more dovish than expected, that’s why the dollar fell against basically all currencies,” another trader said.
The trader added that the peso still has a room to strengthen, although any upward move might be limited by the expectation of a rate cut from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
For today, the first trader expects the peso to trade between P51.05 and P51.25 versus the dollar, while the other gave a P51.10-P51.30 range. — Karl Angelo N. Vidal
LOCAL SHARES extended their gains on Thursday as investors continued to price in possible rate cuts by the US and local central banks.
The 30-member Philippine Stock Exchange index (PSEi) gained 76.28 points or 0.94% to close at 8,154.49 yesterday. The broader all-shares index also went up 35.80 points or 0.72% to 4,957.97
“Our index finished strong today after news from the [US Federal Reserve] and BSP (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) buoyed market sentiment. The US Fed minutes showed a “strengthened” possibility of a rate cut which investors have been anticipating. BSP [Governor] Benjamin E. Diokno also said (on Wednesday) that a rate cut will precede the reduction in bank reserves,” Jervin S. de Celis, equity trader at the Timson Securities, Inc., said in a text message on Thursday.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in his congressional testimony on Wednesday set the stage for the rate cut this month, as records from policy makers’ latest meeting showed increasing fear that a US-China trade war that has done little to directly restrain growth is indirectly causing businesses to hold back on buying equipment, giving workers a raise and hiking their prices.
Luis A. Limlingan, head of sales of Regina Capital Development Corp. shared the same sentiment: “The local market hence rallied, following the S&P 500, which briefly pushing past 3,000 for the first time following the dovish testimony from Fed chairman. The Nasdaq also closed at a record high on Wednesday with strength in the semiconductors with news that US trade delegate team had make contact with its Chinese counterparts, with plan of a China visit in the coming weeks.”
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 76.71 points or 0.29% to 26,860.2; the S&P 500 gained 13.44 points or 0.45% to 2,993.07; and the Nasdaq Composite added 60.80 points or 0.75% to 8,202.53.
Most Southeast Asian stock markets also rose on Thursday, with Singapore leading gains, as investors cheered Mr. Powell’s comments bolstering prospects of an interest rate cut.
Back home, sub-sectors mostly ended in the green. Property went up by 95.32 points or 2.19% to 4,438.50; financials gained 30.53 points or 1.75% to 1,766.18; holding firms rose 17.29 points or 0.22% to 7,812.97; and services climbed 13.93 points or 0.83% to 1,687.90.
Meanwhile, industrials lost 40.91 points or 0.34% to end at 11,853.80. The mining and oil counter also declined 19.15 points or 0.25% to close at 7,397.69.
Some 1.27 billion issues valued at P6.09 billion switched hands on Thursday, higher than the previous session’s P5.36 billion.
Advancers trumped losers, 124 to 74, while 49 names closed unchanged.
Foreigners were sellers with P253.73 million in net outflows yesterday, a reversal of Wednesday’s net purchases worth P19.40 million. — Vincent Mariel P. GalangwithReuters
