Koepka on Woods: ‘I’m going to catch him on majors’

September 16, 2021 | 7:48 pm

BROOKS Koepka is shooting for the moon in regard to winning major titles.

Koepka, who has four major championships to his credit, said time is on his side in his bid to catch Tiger Woods (15 majors) — or even Jack Nicklaus (18 majors).

“In my mind, I’m going to catch (Woods) on majors. I believe that. I don’t see any reason that can stop me,” Koepka said in a recent interview with Golf Digest.

“I’m 31. I have another 14 years left. If I win one a year, I got Jack. People misconstrue that as being cocky. No, that’s just my belief. If I don’t have that belief, I shouldn’t be out there. If you don’t think you can win, why the hell are you teeing it up?”

Koepka has won the 2017 and 2018 US Open as well as the 2018 and 2019 PGA Championship. He finished in a tie for second place in the 2019 Masters, which was won by Woods. — Reuters

Next-gen taekwondo athletes in PSC’s Rise Up Shape Up

September 16, 2021 | 7:43 pm

YOUNG and promising women and girls taekwondo practitioners of the country will headline the webisode of Rise Up Shape Up (RUSU) on Sept. 18.

RUSU is a weekly web series of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) under the Women in Sports program. It highlights the inspiring stories of women and girls who demonstrated excellence in the field and provides equal opportunity and exposure for them.

In the latest webisode, PSC-RUSU will feature 45 taekwondo rising stars who showcased what they could do in the recent 7^th Women’s Martial Arts Festival.

“Courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self-control, and an indomitable spirit — these are the five tenets of taekwondo that any practitioner or athlete knows by heart. These are also the same characteristics manifested by these 45 young taekwondo champions,” shared PSC Women in Sports Commissioner oversight Celia H. Kiram.

The brief history of taekwondo will also be discussed during the 10:30 a.m. web program which will be explained further by Commissioner Kiram in the “K-Isport: Kwentong Isport” segment.

“This project echoes the agency’s commitment to supporting and nurturing women in the field of sports.” told the lady commissioner.

In the previous webisodes, PSC’s Rise Up Shape Up also starred different martial arts presented in the 7^th Women’s Martial Arts Festival such as karatedo, judo, arnis, muay thai, wrestling, among others.

Long dragged-out story

September 16, 2021 | 7:39 pm

Ben Simmons has wanted out since Sixers head coach Doc Rivers and top dog Joel Embiid threw him under the bus for his poor showing in the 2021 Playoffs. True, he did admit that his confidence got the better of him to the point where he could not — did not — want to shoot, especially in the crunch. That said, he likely saw criticism of his extreme timidity on the court, particularly since it came from quarters supposed to close ranks with him, as the last straw.

Simmons cannot be blamed for thinking the way he did and thereafter moving to cut cleanly. Needless to say, the fact that the Sixers actively shopped him around did not help things any. And after a meeting with top brass, one also attended by super-agent Rich Paul, there was agreement that he would be dealt. Where didn’t seem important to him; the bottom line is that he no longer wanted to stay.

There was one problem, however: The Sixers didn’t feel like trading Simmons for pennies to the dollar. They were bona fide contenders, and far be it for them to thumb up a deal in which they stood to acquire draft picks instead of another vital cog. They wanted apples for apples, not a bunch of grapes. Which, as handicapped players in an already-depressed market, gave them little room to maneuver. His continued inability to shoot five seasons removed from being chosen first overall in the 2016 draft appeared to be a long-term concern.

The bottom line is that Simmons comes off as damaged goods. And he’s pushing to leave pronto, thus eroding whatever leverage the Sixers have left. That he’s prepared to sit out training camp when it begins on Sept. 28 does not help their cause any. And, nope, their threat to fine him in accordance with National Basketball Association rules and provisions on his contract won’t help. Were he compelled to return, he would be a distraction at best, and certainly far from motivated to perform up to par.

In other words, the Sixers would do well to move on, and fast. While general manager Daryl Morey has developed a reputation as a hard-nosed negotiator, he squeezes little to no value in encouraging a toxic atmosphere. Waiting may or may not have its rewards, but not taking action in the immediate to short term is a decidedly bad idea. In a dragged-out situation, there are no winners.

Anthony L. Cuaycong has been writing Courtside since BusinessWorld introduced a Sports section in 1994. He is a consultant on strategic planning, operations and Human Resources management, corporate communications, and business development.

Tax avoidance and moral issue

September 16, 2021 | 7:15 pm

1 of 2

If we rewind to 10 years ago when the global economy was busy recovering from the global financial crisis, and fiscal authorities were dialing back public spending and central banks were thinking of normalizing monetary policy, tax avoidance would not have made a lot of noise. But noise they made anyway when global firms such as Google and Amazon were accused of avoiding paying tax on their British sales.

The culture of naming and shaming big companies became more entrenched.

However, at the time, given these companies’ complicated tax structures, it proved difficult for tax authorities to prove illegal activities in what, for instance, Starbucks was reported to have done in 2013. With sales of about £400 million in UK, the British Broadcasting Co. (BBC) reported it “paid no corporation tax, transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.”

What about Google and Amazon?

The BBC cited Google’s UK unit payment of only £6 million from sales turnover of £395 million. Amazon made £3.35 billion in the UK in 2011 but only reported tax expense of £1.8 million.

Like the coffee giant, these Silicon Valley behemoths were found to have avoided, but not evaded, tax obligations. All that the civil society could do was to name and shame them by saying something like “avoiding tax robs our public services.”

Today, when the world is imprisoned in economic lockdowns in a never-ending cycle of health protocols and prohibition of face-to-face gatherings and the demand for public money has never been so high, even tax avoidance, not to mention plunder of public money, may be considered a moral issue.

Even if naming and shaming produced results and public opinion should force big companies to pay the right taxes, this is far from socially desirable. A “voluntary” tax system could not be sustainable and, more important, predictable, in programming public spending for both social and economic services and infrastructure.

There is nothing new to this so-called tax avoidance. If we go by the tax books, conglomerates do it but the issue arises when companies cross a line that may be considered morally and legally inappropriate. This occurs when their accountants start employing “black-box” arrangements in which transactions are done for no commercial reason but to avoid paying tax.

Of the so-called Silicon Six — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Netflix — it was reported by the Fair Tax Foundation that between 2011 and 2020, cash tax paid relative to their revenues ranged from only 0.4% for Amazon to Facebook’s 5.1%. Value-wise, Amazon made $1.6 trillion in revenues and paid only $5.9 billion in income tax. Facebook’s revenues of $327.8 million yielded income tax of a relatively big $16.8 million. In contrast, Apple’s $2.1 trillion in revenues resulted in tax payment of $101 billion and Microsoft’s $963 billion in revenues warranted a tax payment of $55 billion.

Amazon justified its modest tax payment based on its retail business model where profit margins are supposedly low and its huge investments in job creation and infrastructure. Facebook, on the other hand, explained that it would be more meaningful to compare their tax payment with their profits rather than revenues. Even if one were to do this, we see that Apple, with profits 4.5 times that of Facebook, paid nearly six times more than Facebook in taxes.

While Google and Amazon are the most visible of these digital companies that conduct business across borders, financial technology companies have mushroomed in recent years and have therefore posed new tax challenges on existing fiscal framework and ground rules.

In the Philippines, as in the rest of Asia, these new tax challenges could not have come at a more appropriate time than today. Digitalization has become more entrenched, opening up new grounds in driving fintech, e-commerce, and online services. These have enabled various applications in mobile money transfers, online procurement, and no-touch services transactions that are crucial in coping with the pandemic. With increased use of digitalization, tremendous opportunities have been opened to collect more revenues to finance the huge cost of containing the health crisis and to engineer economic recovery.

The view of the IMF’s Asia Pacific Department and Fiscal Affairs Department is reflected in their joint publication Digitalization and Taxation in Asia, and the webinar to launch it held three days ago, Sept. 14. A blog entry was also released in the IMF website by some of the 10 authors, Era Dabla-Norris, Ruud De Mooij, Andrew Hodge, and Dinar Prihardini. The common idea is that it’s been challenging for many Asian countries to tax tech giants because their presence is virtual.

First, what is the opportunity base in Asia? The Fund noted that in Asia, the market consists of about two billion internet users with great prospects for the future. Asia runs tech giants Alibaba, JD.com, Rakuten, and Tencent and hosts foreign tech giants like Facebook. Current tax regimes have issues on where these tech giants that straddle borders should pay. These tech giants are not exactly physically around Asia, their presence is limited in the digital platform. Collecting taxes on e-services and small-parcel deliveries is therefore less than straightforward.

Second, what are the potential issues? While some Asian countries have started to collect digital taxes by withholding taxes on payments for cross-border digital services or user-based turnover taxes on digital activities, it is possible this initial fiscal effort may be rendered superfluous should a new global system for profit taxation is agreed upon. The Fund reported that aside from the US and major Asian economies, some 134 countries under the umbrella of the Inclusive Framework of the Overseas Co-operation and Development have decided to allocate taxing rights on profits to countries where consumers and users are located, reflecting that tax administration is based on digital presence.

Does this mean trouble for multinational companies and tech giants? It might be too early to judge because innovative accounting techniques or the actual implementation of the future tax regime could change the possible outcome.

What is somewhat clear at this point is that some portion of the profits of those companies with global revenues in excess of a certain threshold would be allocated across countries in proportion to local sales and taxed under domestic laws.

The 75-page report of the Fund outlined the potential outcome of the proposal on corporate tax revenues across Asian countries. In addition, the Fund also laid down the merits of digital services taxes and their revenue potential. An estimate of potential gains from collecting value-added tax on digital services and cross-border e-commerce sales of goods was presented in the report.

It was clarified that while easier to implement, the potential of digital services taxes is not very significant. For the Philippines, together with Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Vietnam, the estimate is just about 0.02% of GDP. With our current GDP level of around P21.5 trillion in 2019, this would only be about P4.3 billion. The other side to this small gain is its possible distortionary effect on business decisions without the assurance that it would deter tax avoidance. Trade relations could also be strained.

On the other hand, implementing the value-added tax would be difficult because online sales are exempted. This may be resolved by requiring non-resident suppliers of digital services to register with local tax authorities and pay appropriate taxes on their local sales. From this source, the Fund estimated a possible additional revenue of some $365 million or P18.3 billion for the Philippines.

Our take of these computations is that the Department of Finance should carefully assess the dynamics of these proposals and their possible impact on both tax administration — on whether this type of taxation would be simple enough to encourage tax payment and discourage tax avoidance — and tax take — whether under different scenarios, the numbers would remain pathetically insignificant.

At this time, every peso of public revenue is too precious to be lost either in tax avoidance or the plunder of the government treasury.

Diwa C. Guinigundo is the former Deputy Governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). He served the BSP for 41 years. In 2001-2003, he was Alternate Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ International Ministries in Mandaluyong.

Dark legacy

September 16, 2021 | 7:13 pm

army-soldiers-fighting-with-guns-defending-their-country — SENIVPETRO-FREEPIK

Forty-nine years ago this month, on Sept. 21, 1972, then President Ferdinand Marcos, whose second four-year term under the 1936 Philippine Constitution was ending in 1973, signed Presidential Proclamation 1081 placing the entire country under martial law. By doing so he extended his time in office indefinitely, and made himself dictator of this rumored “show window of democracy in Asia.”

The military implemented PP 1081 on the 23^rd, with the arrest of independent journalists; academics; artists and writers; labor, student and farmer leaders; and members of the political opposition. Congress, newspapers, and broadcast stations were shut down, and international flights and passports canceled.

In the next few days and weeks, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Marcos issued one general order after another to tighten his grip on power, and, as the country’s sole lawmaker, presidential decrees that had the force of law. Already president for seven years, Marcos was to remain in power for 14 more until he was overthrown in 1986 by the civilian-military mutiny known as the EDSA 1 People Power “Revolution.”

The arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings; the economic decline; the surge in the numbers of the poor and hungry; and the centralized looting of the public treasury that went on during those 14 years were bad enough. But what was even worse was the further damage that the Marcos kleptocracy did to the country’s political culture from which it has yet to recover.

The political culture of violence and corruption is the creation of a ruling elite whose monopoly over public power is assured through the dominance of a few families in Philippine governance. Himself no stranger to political violence, Marcos was an astute student and practitioner of traditional Philippine politics who made himself president by skillfully manipulating the electoral system that that culture nourished. In full awareness of the fact that keeping his name in the public mind was crucial, he had begun spending millions in political advertising when he was campaigning for a seat in the House of Representatives and later, in the Senate. When he ran for President in 1965, he also financed the making of a film to assure his election to that office and put even more corrupt journalists on his payroll, while, at the same time, cobbling together alliances with local warlords.

The electoral system, generated and sustained by a corrupt political culture, was severely flawed. But it was nevertheless based on periodic, law-mandated elections, during which, so the fiction went, the citizenry chose whom it would delegate its sovereign powers of self-government. Marcos changed all that by demonstrating that the laws — and the very Constitution itself, which mandated that his two four- year terms as President would end in 1973 and could no longer be renewed — were only as good as the willingness of those in power to observe them. That is the one lesson that over the last five decades this country’s political dynasties have taken to heart: it is evident in their use and observance only of those laws that suit their interests, and their ignoring those that do not. They zealously implement the laws protecting their property rights but violate with impunity the Constitutionally protected rights to free expression and freedom of assembly, for example.

Absent from Marcos’ declared reasons for the declaration of martial rule — to curb a so-called “leftist-rightist” conspiracy, and to “save the Republic and reform society” — was the real reason behind it: his determination to remain in power beyond 1973 and to be president for life.

He did manage to last for 13 more years beyond the end of his second term, and would have achieved the second aim had EDSA 1 not happened. But he nevertheless left behind him a politicized police and military establishment whose support has since then been crucial to every regime and every aspirant for the presidency.

That the military and the militarized police forces have become power brokers was the implicit reminder to the nation of the coup attempts that military units, led by Marcos-era officers, launched during the Corazon Aquino presidency. They failed to oust Mrs. Aquino and to install their political patron in her place, but they nevertheless made their point clear each time they tried to overthrow the first Aquino administration: no president can rest easy without their support, and woe to those who lose it. Mrs. Aquino herself survived because she was supported by the Ramos wing of the military, but part of the same dark legacy of the martial law period was the demise of the democratic principle of civilian supremacy.

The presidency of former AFP Chief of Staff and Defense Secretary Fidel Ramos (who was also chief of the dreaded, now defunct Philippine Constabulary) that succeeded Mrs. Aquino’s was free from coup threats because Ramos was one of the military’s own. But concerns over military support has been a sub-theme in the political calculations of every regime since then.

The military’s withdrawal of support from former President Joseph Estrada was crucial to his removal from office in 2001. The Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regime had to contend with at least one attempted military coup, as a result of which Mrs. Arroyo was tempted to declare martial law in response to supposed attempts to overthrow her. The late President Benigno Aquino III, who succeeded her in 2010, had no problems with the military among other reasons because he continued its “modernization” and, at its urging, signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the United States.

The military and the supposedly civilian but actually militarized police have been most empowered during the incumbency of President Rodrigo Duterte. In 2017, Mr. Duterte declared that to prevent what he said was a brewing coup attempt, he would appoint former military personnel to his cabinet to “complete (his) junta” so that “they (the military) would be in charge” and would have no reason to oust him.

Mr. Duterte in effect launched his own coup, and has since kept his word about completing his junta. The upper levels of his administration, from defense to local governments to social welfare, are dominated by retired military and police officers. His is the most militarized regime on record, surpassing even that of Ferdinand Marcos, whose leading officials even during the martial law period were civilians with appropriate backgrounds and expertise in education, labor, agriculture, and other areas.

In addition to the dominance of the coercive military mindset in policy-making, one of the most obvious consequences of Mr. Duterte’s appointing officials on no other basis than their military backgrounds is many a top bureaucrat’s inability to competently do the tasks assigned their agencies. It has led to the gross incompetencies that have made the Philippines number one in the tally of COVID-19 cases in Southeast Asia, which has, in turn, made economic recovery difficult if not impossible.

The inevitable conclusion is that this dark legacy of the Marcos dictatorship in Philippine politics and governance has become a matter of life or death for the millions of Filipinos who have lost their jobs and are under threat from the pandemic. The martial law episode ended 35 years ago but still casts a long shadow on the lives of the Filipino people. That reality has thrust upon future administrations the responsibility of restoring civilian supremacy in government, and of choosing competent and honest officials so as to put some order and sanity in the way this country is governed.

Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).

www.luisteodoro.com

New ideas, new resources: ADB’s blue bond a big step toward healthy oceans

September 16, 2021 | 7:12 pm

THE Asia and Pacific region is home to three-quarters of global coral reefs and more than half of all mangrove areas. The region’s aquaculture production supplies 60% of the globe’s total fish consumption. However, the region is also the epicenter of marine plastic pollution. Overharvesting of fish here is also putting global food security and, indeed, the entire seafood industry in peril.

So why aren’t governments and multilateral institutions acting faster to fix the problems of ailing oceans? The progress toward healthy oceans is hugely limited by one challenge: money.

“So far, funding for ocean projects has been short-term, piecemeal, and generally focused on mitigating the impacts of marine industries. The severity of the problem requires a transition from small deals to transformative market transactions,” said Bruno Carrasco, Director General, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB).

This month, ADB issued its first blue bond, driving forward its ambitious plan to build sustainable blue economies and to use the financial markets to scale up ocean solutions. The A$208 million (around $151 million), 15-year issue was purchased by The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company and arranged by Citigroup Global Markets Limited. The NZ$217 million (around $151 million) 10-year issue was purchased by Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company and arranged by Credit Agricole CIB.

In 2019, ADB launched its Action Plan for Healthy Oceans and Sustainable Blue Economies for the Asia and Pacific region. The plan aims to expand financing and assistance for ocean health and marine economy projects to $5 billion from 2019 to 2024, including co-financing from partners. Blue bonds are debt instruments in which the proceeds are used to fund projects that benefit ocean health. They act by de-risking ocean projects and bringing new investors to the table.

While investor demand for blue products has been robust, the market has been plagued by a shortage of bankable deals due to high risks, low transaction sizes, and lack of universal investment standards. ADB is tackling some of these challenges through the blue bonds, backed by its successes in green bond issuances, totaling $705 million in 2020.

“The tipping point for ocean health, marine protection and livelihoods is largely controlled in the Asia and Pacific region,” said ADB Vice-President for Finance and Risk Management Ingrid van Wees. “ADB is bringing new ideas and new resources to catalyze funding — and we believe blue bonds are a good step forward to meet this challenge.”

The blue bond model is replicable and scalable, and ADB is working closely with partners to support their efforts in issuing their own blue bonds. This will generate jobs and stimulate economic growth by investing in fisheries, marine, and coastal tourism, reducing coastal pollution, accelerating a circular economy, and boosting marine renewable energy, green ports, and shipping projects.

ADB is Asia and the Pacific’s climate bank but the support of key partners such as the European Investment Bank, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and The Nature Conservancy is helping to make progress toward healthy and sustainable oceans. To go further in making systemic changes at scale, ADB is looking to attract more partners to support action to protect Asia and the Pacific’s oceans.

A healthy ocean is supported by strong, diverse ecosystems. Drawing inspiration from this, ADB is diversifying and strengthening the blue economy system. In addition to blue bonds, ADB is developing the use of insurance to protect coral reefs in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, innovating eco-compensation systems on the Yangtze River in the People’s Republic of China, and supporting coastal resilience in vulnerable countries through nature-based solutions.

The rapidly growing ASEAN Green Catalytic Finance Facility, which was developed to support ASEAN governments to access technical assistance and cofinance, is identifying, accelerating, and funding blue projects throughout Southeast Asia. ADB’s work on natural capital financing is transforming agriculture towards healthy, inclusive, and natural food systems, expanding forest protection, and restoring marine ecosystems and ocean health. The marine plastic pollution program is finding policy and fiscal solutions to stop the tide of marine plastics entering the coastal ocean.

“If action in one country can bring many countries to their knees, the opposite is also true: the actions of one country can inspire others and accelerate change,” said Ms. Van Wees.

Ramoncito Dela Cruz is a Communications Specialist at the Asian Development Bank.

Is this lockdown even legal?

September 16, 2021 | 7:09 pm

Nineteen months into the world’s longest continuous lockdown and we’ve run the gamut of letters from GCQ, MECQ, to ECQ such that the government felt the need to shift to numerals (as of this writing), something about Alert Levels 1 to 4. The question that remains, however, is still: what legal authority or basis actually allows all this?

To reiterate, lockdowns conceivably, maybe, can be issued under the police power of the State. But that comes with a huge caveat: it must comply with the Constitution and legislation but also must have a lawful subject and lawful means.

The Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases, more popularly (or perhaps infamously) known as the IATF, was created through President Noynoy Aquino’s Executive Order No. 168 (S. 2014). It listed the IATF’s functions as: a.) establish a system to identify and assist Filipinos infected with emerging infectious diseases (EID); b.) prevent the entry of EID patients into the country, including by a quarantine system in all ports of entry; c.) prevent the spread of EID in the country by screening possible EID patients, contact tracing, identification of the mode of exposure to the virus, and implementation of effective quarantine and proper isolation procedures; d.) prevent mortality through effective clinical management; e.) educate the public on EID; f.) adopt measures to strengthen the Department of Health (DoH) Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases Program; g.) notify the World Health Organization (WHO); h.) submit regular reports to the President; i.) develop and implement the EID Preparedness Manual; and, j.) perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Executive Order (EO).

Notably, the word “lockdown” or its equivalent does not appear in EO 168. If at all, what was mentioned was “quarantine.” But “quarantine” is defined as “the period of time during which a person or animal that has a disease or that might have a disease is kept away from others to prevent the disease from spreading” (Webster Dictionary). In other words, it refers to sick or infected individuals. It does not cover the wholesale locking down of otherwise healthy people.

The Constitution does allow the Executive Branch the authority necessary to confront emergencies but, unless specifically mentioned by the Constitution (e.g., Article VII.18), legislation is needed (EO 168, for instance, emanates from the 1987 Administrative Code, as well as the Constitution). And in the case of lockdowns, legislation is necessary.

We know this because Article III.6 expressly points out: “the right to travel [shall not] be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.” This provision precludes the argument that the president can simply impose lockdowns, restrict travel, impose curfews, etc., on the basis of his “residual powers.” A law is needed to serve as exception to that express constitutional right.

The Bayanihan Act (RA 11469), interestingly, makes reference to Presidential Proclamation No. 929, S. 2020, “declaring a State of Calamity throughout the Philippines and imposed an Enhanced Community Quarantine throughout Luzon.” But presidential proclamations need constitutional and legislative backing, hence, why PP 929 in turn refers to RA 10121 (or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010). Section 16 authorizes the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) to recommend to the president declarations of “state of calamity.”

But nothing in RA 10121 authorizes lockdowns. Note that the NDRRMC’s power is with regard to “policy-making, coordination, integration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation functions.”

Reference was made to the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act of 2018 (RA 11332). One particular provision seems relevant, which is Section 6.e giving the Department of Health the authority to impose “rapid containment, quarantine and isolation, disease prevention and control measures, and product recall.” Jurisprudence states that legislation granting authority to a departmental office is also authority to the president.

But even RA 11332 provides no authority for lockdowns. The main thrust of RA 11332 is disease reportage, not on the response to it. Second, “quarantine and isolation” here clearly only cover those infected with a disease and not the locking up of healthy people. Finally, not even PP 929 makes reference to it.

RA 11469 is taken widely as the main authority for the continued lockdown in Luzon and other parts of the country. It expired on June 25, 2020 and was replaced by RA 11494 (Bayanihan to Recover as One Act), which essentially reiterates what was written in previous legislation. But both RA 11469 and RA 11494 (the latter extended by RA 11519) gave no express authority granting or even mention of the word “lockdown.” “Quarantine” was mentioned but only to reference (but not ratify) PP 929.

The reported “granular lockdowns,” which reportedly seems to mean isolating and closing off of specific and limited localities that have a high incidence of COVID-19 infections is still of questionable legality if such would involve relatively healthy individuals.

So, what is the authority for the continued lockdowns?

The closest could have been RA 11469, Section 4.a (“prevent or suppress further transmission or spread of COVID”; repeated in RA 11494). Yet such emphatically doesn’t mention lockdowns. This is important: the Constitution’s Article III.6 requires a law expressly and specifically (not merely impliedly) authorizing restrictions on travel. And finally, Section 4.a itself says that prevention or suppression of the coronavirus should be done by “effective education, detection, protection, and treatment.” In fact, RA 11469’s penal provisions don’t even punish private individual violations of 4.a. (most of the penalties mentioned therein are for violations by local officials, obstructing supplies, price gouging, etc.). RA 11494, Section 4.b merely provides for the compulsory and immediate isolation, and treatment of confirmed, suspected, and probable COVID patients but not for the locking up of healthy individuals.

The Constitution does allow the president extraordinary powers in cases of “lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion” (Article VII.18), none of which are present. Article VI.23 allows Congress to grant special powers to the president for a limited time, hence RA 11469 and RA 11494, but both don’t contain authorizations for lockdown.

So that leaves us with this question: Is there actually any legal authority or basis for this lockdown? A lockdown that closed down businesses, churches, and schools, and restricted domestic travel? All aside from devastating the economy. A lockdown, if without legal basis, has resulted in the wholesale overriding of constitutional rights, including that of due process, property, expression, religion, and travel.

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.

https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/

Twitter @jemygatdula

Australia to welcome top overseas talent

September 16, 2021 | 7:06 pm

HUNDREDS of overseas workers could be welcomed to Australia in the next 10 months, under travel exemptions for holders of a government visa created to aid the post-pandemic recovery — even as tens of thousands of its own citizens remain stranded overseas.

The exemption will streamline entry requirements to allow the rapid relocation of workers critical to establishing a business in Australia. Fewer than 500 exemptions are expected to be granted to holders of the temporary Activity (subclass 408) “Post COVID-19 Economic Recovery Event” visas during the next 10 months, before the program is designed to expire.

“This government’s initiatives to bring top talent to Australia are cementing our economic recovery,” Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said in an emailed statement. “Returning Australians remain the priority, however this automatic travel exemption recognizes the importance of significant investment.”

At the start of the pandemic in March 2021, Australia implemented a ban on non-citizens and non-residents from entering the nation that’s exacerbated skills shortages in some key industries and services. Strict caps have also been placed on its own citizens; as of late July, some 38,000 Australians were still stranded abroad.

The measures, some of the strictest in the world, earned the country the nickname “Fortress Australia.” In recent months, the government cut international arrivals by 50% and barred non-resident citizens who enter the country from leaving again to reduce pressure on a quarantine system that’s being tested by the Delta variant.

That strain seeded itself in Sydney in mid-June; now around half the nation’s population of 26 million people are in lockdown as authorities seek stem an outbreak that’s infecting more than 1,500 people a day. New South Wales, the most-populous state, is seeking to start remove lockdown restrictions and start allowing international travel again later this year when vaccination thresholds are reached.

The government’s automatic exemption for skilled non-Australians will be restricted to businesses deemed by the Global Business and Attraction Taskforce as likely to make a significant contribution to economy, including investment value and job creation potential. Arrivals will still need to meet all standard health requirements and quarantine protocols, as administered by states and territories.

“These visa holders are bringing the skills, investment, and new ideas that employ Australians and keep us internationally competitive for years to come,” Ms. Andrews said in the statement. “They’re adding to our economy, generating new jobs, and contributing to our tax base so we can continue to provide the essential services all Australians rely on.” — Bloomberg

Taiwan plans $9-B boost in arms spending

September 16, 2021 | 7:05 pm

TAIPEI- — Taiwan proposed on Thursday extra defense spending of T$240 billion ($8.69 billion) over the next five years, including on new missiles, as it warned of an urgent need to upgrade weapons in the face of a “severe threat” from giant neighbor China.

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen has made modernizing the armed forces — well-armed but dwarfed by China’s — and increasing defense spending a priority, especially as Beijing ramps up its military and diplomatic pressure against the island it claims as “sacred” Chinese territory.

The new money, which comes on top of planned military spending of T$471.7 billion for 2022, will need to be approved by parliament where Ms. Tsai’s ruling party has a large majority, meaning its passage should be smooth.

“The Chinese Communists have continued to invest heavily in national defense budgets, its military strength has grown rapidly, and it has frequently dispatched aircraft and ships to invade and harass our seas and airspace,” Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said in a statement after a weekly Cabinet meeting.

“In the face of severe threats from the enemy, the nation’s military is actively engaged in military building and preparation work, and it is urgent to obtain mature and rapid mass production weapons and equipment in a short period of time.”

Deputy Defense Minister Wang Shin-lung told reporters the new arms would all be made domestically, as Taiwan boosts its own production prowess, though the United States will probably remain an important parts and technology provider.

Taiwan has been keen to demonstrate that it can defend itself, especially amid questions about whether the United States would come to its aid if China attacked.

“Only if we ensure our security and show determination will the international community think well of us,” said Cabinet spokesman Lo Ping-cheng. “Others will only help us if we help ourselves.”

The weapons Taiwan aims to buy with the money include cruise missiles and warships, the ministry added.

Taiwan has been testing new, long-range missiles off its southern and eastern coasts, and while it has not given details, diplomats and experts have said they are likely to be able to hit targets far into China.

The additional cash will likely be well received in Washington, which has been pushing Taiwan to modernize its military to make it more mobile so it can become a “porcupine,” hard for China to attack.

Taiwan has already put into service a new class of highly agile stealth warships, which Taiwan refers to as an “aircraft carrier killer” due to its missile complement, and is developing its own submarines. — Reuters

When it comes to messaging apps, one is not enough

September 16, 2021 | 6:12 pm

Businesses are turning to encrypted messaging apps like Signal and Telegram for internal communication as security becomes a pressing concern, even as they remain active on established platforms like Messenger and WhatsApp — both owned by Facebook — for the convenience of their clients.

“I learned that it [Signal] has better encryption than WhatsApp and Viber,” said Charles O. de Belen, founder of renting platform Dibi.Rent, on using Signal for communicating with his team despite its “limited functionality.”

According to data from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower, Telegram and Signal grew by 1200% in the first four months of 2021 after WhatsApp announced that under its revised terms of service, it would share information with Facebook.

At a recent book launch, Mario R. Domingo, founder of machine learning shop Neural Mechanics Inc., said local businesses need to get on Facebook (despite privacy concerns), since that’s where all the Filipinos are.

“You’ve got to find a way somehow to put your business in front of users,” he said at the event. “In the context of the pandemic, it’s just a requirement.”

Neural Mechanics itself uses Slack for work; Viber for informal chats like birthday greetings; and Slack, Telegram, and WhatsApp for clients.

“As far as external messaging is concerned, we go with where the clients are,” Mr. Domingo said.

Doctors, too, are using messaging apps for consultations despite being on telemedicine platforms like SeeYouDoc and Medifi. “Viber is good because almost all doctors have it. So is Facebook Messenger,” said Dr. Janie-Vi Ismael-Gorospe, a general practitioner of Sta. Rosa Community Hospital. The issue with Messenger, she added, is the mingling of personal and professional messages (unless a doctor maintains a separate account for teleconsultations).

SELF-DESTRUCTING MESSAGES

WhatsApp is used by almost 90% of people in most countries, according to Internet security firm Nord VPN. There are only 25 out of 195 countries where WhatsApp isn’t the most used messaging app.

Viber, another ubiquitous messaging app, ended 2020 with a 421% growth in its number of users and a 509% growth in sent messages. In the Philippines, it has a penetration rate of 71%.

Sought for a response to concerns about user privacy, Viber’s senior business director for APAC David Tse reaffirmed its commitment to such. The platform, he said, has a default end-to-end encryption and contains features that give users control of their data. Among these are Disappearing Messages, which enables each message with a self-destruct timer, and Community interactions, which allows for direct chats without the sharing of phone numbers.

“Viber can’t read your personal chats, or listen in on your one-on-one calls,” Mr. Tse added. “Nothing you share is ever stored on Viber’s servers once delivered.”

Kaspersky, a digital privacy company, noted that the key considerations for evaluating messaging app security are:

End-to-end encryption – By scrambling private chat messages, only the sender and the user have the “keys” to read them.
Open-source code – This opens the app to accountability and auditing by external experts.
Self-destructing messages – A feature that allows messages to vanish after a set period of time.
Use of data – Certain types of information called metadata, such as your phone number, can still be collected despite end-to-end encryption.

— Patricia B. Mirasol

BW One-on-One with Betty T. Ang

September 16, 2021 | 5:48 pm

As BusinessWorld celebrates its 34^th anniversary this year, the One-on-One interview series returns with timely discussions with the country’s top business leaders.

Watch Monde Nissin Corp. President Betty T. Ang discuss the food and beverage firm’s plans to expand and innovate through the current crisis, with an advocacy for sustainable products.

As cyberattacks rise in the PHL, white hat hackers come to the rescue

September 16, 2021 | 5:34 pm

A September study by digital privacy firm Kaspersky found that cyberattacks in the Philippines almost doubled to 4.88 million cases from January to June, compared to only 2.46 million in the same period last year.

Data showing brute-force attacks vs users of Kaspersky solutions in the Philippines from January–June 2020 and January–June 2021. Table via Kaspersky.

Cyberattacks are inevitable, said AJ Dumanhug, chief information security officer of Secuna, a cybersecurity testing platform. In a recent cybersecurity webinar co-organized with the FinTech Philippines Association, he likened such attacks as an 8 out of 10 in terms of impact — “almost the same as natural disasters.”

Companies are vulnerable to cyberattacks because they aren’t concerned with cybersecurity, as evidenced by the absence of an information security officer dedicated to responding to such issues, he told BusinessWorld in an e-mail.

“Most of the time companies don’t have an allotted budget for this,” Mr. Dumanhug said. “They see cybersecurity as an item in the checklist [they need] to be compliant [with].”

The Philippines’ 2020 Global Cybersecurity Index score is 77, which places it at number 13 in the Asia Pacific region, right below Iran and a notch above Pakistan.

White hat hackers (WHHs) or ethical hackers are being touted as a means to improve the country’s cybersecurity measures.

In the Philippines, there exists a community of WHHs numbering almost 4000, Mr. Dumanhug told BusinessWorld.

“WHHs offer their service during their free time to find security flaws,” he said. “Most of them are already employed full time.”

The difference between black hat hackers and white hat hackers is their moral compass. The former finds flaws in a system to exploit these vulnerabilities, whereas the latter does the same so an organization can fix them.

“We incentivize WHHs for finding valid security vulnerability in our clients by paying the first hacker who finds those problems,” added Mr. Dumanhug.

There are over 3.1 million vacant positions in cybersecurity worldwide, a majority of which are in the Asia Pacific.

According to information security magazine CISOMAG, one reason for this lack of supply is a lack of understanding about what ethical hackers do. India, for instance, produces more ethical hackers than anywhere else in the world but ranks only 10th in the 2020 Global Cybersecurity Index.

India’s ethical hackers, CISOMAG said, earn millions protecting foreign corporations from cyberattacks, but “are largely ignored at home.” — Patricia B. Mirasol