GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English, Tagalog or both?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 16, 2008
Russ Sandlin, an American businessman in the Philippines, recently closed his call center in Manila because he said he could not find enough English proficient workers. “Not even 3 percent of the students who graduate college here are employable in call centers,” he complained.
Sandlin cited a Philippine Department of Education report disclosing that 80 percent of secondary school teachers in the Philippines failed an English proficiency test last year. “English is the only thing that can save the country,” he wrote, “and no one here cares or even understands that the Filipinos have a crisis.”
Sandlin’s discouraging comments came in the form of an e-mail blasting the Philippine Daily Inquirer for publishing the op-ed article of Ateneo English Prof. Isabel Pefianco Martin, president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, who criticized the “persistent efforts of lawmakers to institutionalize English as the sole language of learning in basic education.”
“Good luck to the Inquirer. It needs to reevaluate its writers,” Sandlin wrote, “unless it supports such a misguided set of ideas. God save the Philippines. I hate to see the country falling ever deeper into an English-deprived abyss.”
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece, which was published on April 8, 2008 (“Myths about languages in the Philippines”), criticized the narrow thinking behind a bill in the Philippine Congress (House Bill 305) mandating the use of English as the medium of instruction in all academic subjects from Grade 3 onwards and encouraging the use of English as the medium of interaction outside the classrooms. It also proposes English as the language of assessment in all government examinations and entrance tests in all public schools and state universities and colleges.
The bill which was sponsored by Cebu Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas and co-sponsored by 207 other legislators (more than 2/3rds of the House membership) was approved on its third and final reading in the Lower House late last year. The Senate is slated to take up the bill in June.
If enacted into law, the bill will repeal a 33-year old policy of bilingual teaching in Philippine schools which encouraged the use of English and Filipino (Tagalog) as mediums of instruction.
“Targeting the learning of two languages is too much for the Filipino learners, especially in the lower grades. And if the child happens to be a non-Tagalog speaker, this task actually means learning two foreign languages at the same time, an almost impossible task,” Gullas said.
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece criticized the bill for its underlying premise that “if you don’t know English, you simply don’t know.” She explained that the link between intelligence and English language proficiency is very flimsy. “In this world, you will find intelligent people who cannot speak a word of English, as well as not-so-smart ones who are native speakers of the language,” she asserted.
Prof. Martin criticized the narrow goal of the bill which is “to produce English-proficient graduates for contact centers, hospitals and medical transcription offices, never mind if these graduates are unthinking products of the schools.”
“The ability to speak like an American will certainly not ensure excellent performance in the contact center jobs,” she wrote, if the students lack “the ability to manage culture-diverse environments,” she wrote.
Even if there were universal agreement that Filipinos should aspire to English proficiency, there is still the question of how best to reach that goal. According to Prof. Martin, “research studies prove that learning a language becomes more effective when emotional barriers are eliminated.” She cited Linguist Stephen Krashen who taught that the formula for success in learning a language is painfully simple: the lower the feelings of fear (low affective filter), the higher the chances of learning
California adopted a policy of bilingual education in public elementary schools to help non-English speaking students transition to regular classes that were taught in English. The Filipino Education Center (FEC) on Harrison Street in San Francisco, for example, was set up by the San Francisco Unified School District in 1976 to offer bi-lingual classes to newly-arrived Filipino immigrant students in a program where Tagalog-speaking teachers would teach the traditional elementary courses in both Tagalog and English so that the students would not fear English and not be traumatized by native American students ridiculing their accents.
My friend Marivic Bamba immigrated to the US with her family when she was 5 and couldn’t speak English. Her parents enrolled her in the FEC and she then transitioned into the regular school curriculum after three years of bilingual education. Marivic went on to graduate from college and obtain a master’s degree and be appointed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to be a department head (Director of the SF Human Rights Commission).
Studies showed that immigrant students (Latinos, Chinese, etc.) who went through bi-lingual education learned English more effectively than students who were enrolled directly into regular American English-speaking classes without the benefit of a bi-lingual transition program.
Prof. Martin points out that most Filipinos speak at least three different languages and English might not even be one of them. “So when English is first introduced to them, it should be introduced slowly and gently, with much respect for their first languages,” she urged.
“Teaching and learning English in the Philippines may be a difficult task, but it need not be a frightening experience,” Prof. Martin wrote. “So much has already been spent on testing the proficiency of teachers and then training these teachers to become more proficient in the language. But simply focusing on testing and training, without recognizing the multilingual context of teaching and learning English in the Philippines, only reinforces fear of the language.”
English proficiency should not be viewed as the measure of a nation’s success. How can we explain the economic ascendancies of Japan, China, and Korea where English is hardly spoken? Those countries educated their populations in their native languages using their languages as tools of communication. English should be similarly seen as a tool of communication, not as the goal of education.
Contrary to Sandlin's impression, Prof. Martin was not opposed to the use of English as a medium of instruction in Philippine schools (she's an English professor at the Ateneo) but the reservations she expressed concerned the lack of thought given to how to best teach English to the population. The goal is the same – an educated English-speaking population. It is the path – bilingual or monolingual – to the goal that is in dispute.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Friday, April 18, 2008
English, Tagalog or both?
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English, Tagalog or both?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 16, 2008
Russ Sandlin, an American businessman in the Philippines, recently closed his call center in Manila because he said he could not find enough English proficient workers. “Not even 3 percent of the students who graduate college here are employable in call centers,” he complained.
Sandlin cited a Philippine Department of Education report disclosing that 80 percent of secondary school teachers in the Philippines failed an English proficiency test last year. “English is the only thing that can save the country,” he wrote, “and no one here cares or even understands that the Filipinos have a crisis.”
Sandlin’s discouraging comments came in the form of an e-mail blasting the Philippine Daily Inquirer for publishing the op-ed article of Ateneo English Prof. Isabel Pefianco Martin, president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, who criticized the “persistent efforts of lawmakers to institutionalize English as the sole language of learning in basic education.”
“Good luck to the Inquirer. It needs to reevaluate its writers,” Sandlin wrote, “unless it supports such a misguided set of ideas. God save the Philippines. I hate to see the country falling ever deeper into an English-deprived abyss.”
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece, which was published on April 8, 2008 (“Myths about languages in the Philippines”), criticized the narrow thinking behind a bill in the Philippine Congress (House Bill 305) mandating the use of English as the medium of instruction in all academic subjects from Grade 3 onwards and encouraging the use of English as the medium of interaction outside the classrooms. It also proposes English as the language of assessment in all government examinations and entrance tests in all public schools and state universities and colleges.
The bill which was sponsored by Cebu Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas and co-sponsored by 207 other legislators (more than 2/3rds of the House membership) was approved on its third and final reading in the Lower House late last year. The Senate is slated to take up the bill in June.
If enacted into law, the bill will repeal a 33-year old policy of bilingual teaching in Philippine schools which encouraged the use of English and Filipino (Tagalog) as mediums of instruction.
“Targeting the learning of two languages is too much for the Filipino learners, especially in the lower grades. And if the child happens to be a non-Tagalog speaker, this task actually means learning two foreign languages at the same time, an almost impossible task,” Gullas said.
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece criticized the bill for its underlying premise that “if you don’t know English, you simply don’t know.” She explained that the link between intelligence and English language proficiency is very flimsy. “In this world, you will find intelligent people who cannot speak a word of English, as well as not-so-smart ones who are native speakers of the language,” she asserted.
Prof. Martin criticized the narrow goal of the bill which is “to produce English-proficient graduates for contact centers, hospitals and medical transcription offices, never mind if these graduates are unthinking products of the schools.”
“The ability to speak like an American will certainly not ensure excellent performance in the contact center jobs,” she wrote, if the students lack “the ability to manage culture-diverse environments,” she wrote.
Even if there were universal agreement that Filipinos should aspire to English proficiency, there is still the question of how best to reach that goal. According to Prof. Martin, “research studies prove that learning a language becomes more effective when emotional barriers are eliminated.” She cited Linguist Stephen Krashen who taught that the formula for success in learning a language is painfully simple: the lower the feelings of fear (low affective filter), the higher the chances of learning
California adopted a policy of bilingual education in public elementary schools to help non-English speaking students transition to regular classes that were taught in English. The Filipino Education Center (FEC) on Harrison Street in San Francisco, for example, was set up by the San Francisco Unified School District in 1976 to offer bi-lingual classes to newly-arrived Filipino immigrant students in a program where Tagalog-speaking teachers would teach the traditional elementary courses in both Tagalog and English so that the students would not fear English and not be traumatized by native American students ridiculing their accents.
My friend Marivic Bamba immigrated to the US with her family when she was 5 and couldn’t speak English. Her parents enrolled her in the FEC and she then transitioned into the regular school curriculum after three years of bilingual education. Marivic went on to graduate from college and obtain a master’s degree and be appointed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to be a department head (Director of the SF Human Rights Commission).
Studies showed that immigrant students (Latinos, Chinese, etc.) who went through bi-lingual education learned English more effectively than students who were enrolled directly into regular American English-speaking classes without the benefit of a bi-lingual transition program.
Prof. Martin points out that most Filipinos speak at least three different languages and English might not even be one of them. “So when English is first introduced to them, it should be introduced slowly and gently, with much respect for their first languages,” she urged.
“Teaching and learning English in the Philippines may be a difficult task, but it need not be a frightening experience,” Prof. Martin wrote. “So much has already been spent on testing the proficiency of teachers and then training these teachers to become more proficient in the language. But simply focusing on testing and training, without recognizing the multilingual context of teaching and learning English in the Philippines, only reinforces fear of the language.”
English proficiency should not be viewed as the measure of a nation’s success. How can we explain the economic ascendancies of Japan, China, and Korea where English is hardly spoken? Those countries educated their populations in their native languages using their languages as tools of communication. English should be similarly seen as a tool of communication, not as the goal of education.
Contrary to Sandlin's impression, Prof. Martin was not opposed to the use of English as a medium of instruction in Philippine schools (she's an English professor at the Ateneo) but the reservations she expressed concerned the lack of thought given to how to best teach English to the population. The goal is the same – an educated English-speaking population. It is the path – bilingual or monolingual – to the goal that is in dispute.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Global Networking : English, Tagalog or both?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 16, 2008
Russ Sandlin, an American businessman in the Philippines, recently closed his call center in Manila because he said he could not find enough English proficient workers. “Not even 3 percent of the students who graduate college here are employable in call centers,” he complained.
Sandlin cited a Philippine Department of Education report disclosing that 80 percent of secondary school teachers in the Philippines failed an English proficiency test last year. “English is the only thing that can save the country,” he wrote, “and no one here cares or even understands that the Filipinos have a crisis.”
Sandlin’s discouraging comments came in the form of an e-mail blasting the Philippine Daily Inquirer for publishing the op-ed article of Ateneo English Prof. Isabel Pefianco Martin, president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, who criticized the “persistent efforts of lawmakers to institutionalize English as the sole language of learning in basic education.”
“Good luck to the Inquirer. It needs to reevaluate its writers,” Sandlin wrote, “unless it supports such a misguided set of ideas. God save the Philippines. I hate to see the country falling ever deeper into an English-deprived abyss.”
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece, which was published on April 8, 2008 (“Myths about languages in the Philippines”), criticized the narrow thinking behind a bill in the Philippine Congress (House Bill 305) mandating the use of English as the medium of instruction in all academic subjects from Grade 3 onwards and encouraging the use of English as the medium of interaction outside the classrooms. It also proposes English as the language of assessment in all government examinations and entrance tests in all public schools and state universities and colleges.
The bill which was sponsored by Cebu Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas and co-sponsored by 207 other legislators (more than 2/3rds of the House membership) was approved on its third and final reading in the Lower House late last year. The Senate is slated to take up the bill in June.
If enacted into law, the bill will repeal a 33-year old policy of bilingual teaching in Philippine schools which encouraged the use of English and Filipino (Tagalog) as mediums of instruction.
“Targeting the learning of two languages is too much for the Filipino learners, especially in the lower grades. And if the child happens to be a non-Tagalog speaker, this task actually means learning two foreign languages at the same time, an almost impossible task,” Gullas said.
Prof. Martin’s op-ed piece criticized the bill for its underlying premise that “if you don’t know English, you simply don’t know.” She explained that the link between intelligence and English language proficiency is very flimsy. “In this world, you will find intelligent people who cannot speak a word of English, as well as not-so-smart ones who are native speakers of the language,” she asserted.
Prof. Martin criticized the narrow goal of the bill which is “to produce English-proficient graduates for contact centers, hospitals and medical transcription offices, never mind if these graduates are unthinking products of the schools.”
“The ability to speak like an American will certainly not ensure excellent performance in the contact center jobs,” she wrote, if the students lack “the ability to manage culture-diverse environments,” she wrote.
Even if there were universal agreement that Filipinos should aspire to English proficiency, there is still the question of how best to reach that goal. According to Prof. Martin, “research studies prove that learning a language becomes more effective when emotional barriers are eliminated.” She cited Linguist Stephen Krashen who taught that the formula for success in learning a language is painfully simple: the lower the feelings of fear (low affective filter), the higher the chances of learning
California adopted a policy of bilingual education in public elementary schools to help non-English speaking students transition to regular classes that were taught in English. The Filipino Education Center (FEC) on Harrison Street in San Francisco, for example, was set up by the San Francisco Unified School District in 1976 to offer bi-lingual classes to newly-arrived Filipino immigrant students in a program where Tagalog-speaking teachers would teach the traditional elementary courses in both Tagalog and English so that the students would not fear English and not be traumatized by native American students ridiculing their accents.
My friend Marivic Bamba immigrated to the US with her family when she was 5 and couldn’t speak English. Her parents enrolled her in the FEC and she then transitioned into the regular school curriculum after three years of bilingual education. Marivic went on to graduate from college and obtain a master’s degree and be appointed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to be a department head (Director of the SF Human Rights Commission).
Studies showed that immigrant students (Latinos, Chinese, etc.) who went through bi-lingual education learned English more effectively than students who were enrolled directly into regular American English-speaking classes without the benefit of a bi-lingual transition program.
Prof. Martin points out that most Filipinos speak at least three different languages and English might not even be one of them. “So when English is first introduced to them, it should be introduced slowly and gently, with much respect for their first languages,” she urged.
“Teaching and learning English in the Philippines may be a difficult task, but it need not be a frightening experience,” Prof. Martin wrote. “So much has already been spent on testing the proficiency of teachers and then training these teachers to become more proficient in the language. But simply focusing on testing and training, without recognizing the multilingual context of teaching and learning English in the Philippines, only reinforces fear of the language.”
English proficiency should not be viewed as the measure of a nation’s success. How can we explain the economic ascendancies of Japan, China, and Korea where English is hardly spoken? Those countries educated their populations in their native languages using their languages as tools of communication. English should be similarly seen as a tool of communication, not as the goal of education.
Contrary to Sandlin's impression, Prof. Martin was not opposed to the use of English as a medium of instruction in Philippine schools (she's an English professor at the Ateneo) but the reservations she expressed concerned the lack of thought given to how to best teach English to the population. The goal is the same – an educated English-speaking population. It is the path – bilingual or monolingual – to the goal that is in dispute.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Imaginary Rice
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080409-129257/Imaginary-Rice
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Imaginary Rice
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 09, 2008
I asked a friend in Manila what he was doing nowadays and he replied that he wasn’t doing much, just waiting for GMA (Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) to fall. I asked him if he was at all concerned about the rice crisis we have been hearing so much about. He said that he thought it was just a ploy used by GMA to divert attention from the many scandals facing her government.
The irony is that GMA just announced that there is no rice shortage in the country and that talk about such a shortage is “imaginary”.
The reality is that talk about the crisis has pushed the Philippine Senate hearings on government corruption out of the front pages of Manila’s dailies which are now filled with stories about the “imaginary” crisis.
The other reality is that there is a real rice crisis that has been brought about by external and internal factors within and without the control of the government. In the Philippines, the world-wide skyrocketing of food and fuel costs has been exacerbated by the government’s actions and inactions.
In 2003, the world price of rice was $200 per metric ton. Four years later, in 2007, it jumped to $300. In less than a year since then, the price has doubled to $600 per metric ton, and it is expected to rise to as much as $1,000 per metric ton within a year.
The Philippines consumes approximately 18-M metric tons of rice a year to feed its growing 90-M population. But the country only produces about 90% of the rice it needs requiring it to import about 1.8-M metric tons, making it the world’s largest importer of rice.
Less than a month ago, the Philippines signed an agreement with Vietnam to purchase 1.5-M metric tons of rice for the year. But the agreement has an escape clause that would allow Vietnam to back off from the deal in “circumstances of natural disaster and harvest loss.” One major storm in Vietnam could easily precipitate a major rice crisis in the Philippines.
According to Sen. Mar Roxas, president of the Liberal Party, the Philippines is facing a metaphorical “perfect storm" with the steep rise in the price of rice being compounded by skyrocketing fuel costs (oil at $110 a barrel) and a recession in the US economy. The latter is certain to dramatically reduce the remittances of overseas Filipinos which the country has relied on to stabilize the economy.
To avert the impending rice shortage, the Philippine government has asked fast food chains like Jollibee and MacDonald’s to lessen the rice served with their meals in order to conserve.
One serious solution is to improve the country’s post-harvest facilities. According to Rep. Abraham Mitra, “post-harvest losses in rice hovers around 14 to 25 percent.” If the country invested in more modern post-harvest facilities, there would be no need to import rice. At a cost of $600 per metric ton of rice for a total of 1.8 million metric tons, which the Philippines will be purchasing in the open market, the government will spend about $1 billion (P40 billion pesos), more than 100 times the Philippines annual post-harvest budget.
An official of the Philippine Department of Agriculture told the Manila Times that the country spends only 1,000 pesos per farmer, which is low compared to the equivalent of 3,000 to 4,000 pesos per farmer spent by countries like Thailand, Japan and other developed countries.
Former President Fidel Ramos blamed part of the problem on the conversion of farmlands into subdivisions and industrial zones. He said the government should change its land-use policy and prohibit the conversion of arable lands to commercial and industrial use.
But even where the land remains agricultural, much of the rice land has been converted into banana plantations, notably in Mindanao, because the price for banana exports is higher than the price of rice on the domestic market.
The Comprehensive Agricultural Reform Program (CARP) has also caused problems as millions of hectares of land have been divided up into small parcels of land where farmers can’t afford to buy and use tractors and machineries to improve production because of the economies of scale so they use carabaos instead, producing the average current yield of 2.5 tons of rice per hectare, the lowest in Asia.
Of the 8.5 million hectares of arable land in the Philippines, about 6.5 million hectares have been distributed under CARP to 4 million farmer-beneficiaries, about half of the area devoted to rice and corn. More than 3 million of the farmer beneficiaries have not received the support services and access to the credit they were promised and which they need to maximize the production of their land. The government spent 157 billion pesos to purchase the lands but has precious little to help the farmers once they own the land.
Former Pres. Ramos pointed out another problem exacerbating the rice crisis - too many mouths to feed. “The population issues, of course,” he said, “must also be revisited because the government has prohibited artificial family planning methods to be supported by the budget and therefore this is a very big withdrawal of support to the poorest families especially those in the countryside.”
As a concession to the powerful Catholic Church, the Arroyo government has refused to accept millions of dollars in aid from the United Nations and the USAID in support for population and family planning programs. Ramos denounced the rejection of UN family planning assistance “because we are going contrary to what is being practiced in the most Catholic countries in the world, like Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Ireland, which are enjoying a population growth rate of less than one percent,” he said.
Ramos said the country’s birthrate is three times that of the countries mentioned, “so that this infringes on all of these new problems that we are now encountering including rice, and potable water.”
A growing Filipino population cannot be fed with imaginary rice.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue , San Francisco , CA 94127 , or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080409-129257/Imaginary-Rice
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Imaginary Rice
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 09, 2008
I asked a friend in Manila what he was doing nowadays and he replied that he wasn’t doing much, just waiting for GMA (Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) to fall. I asked him if he was at all concerned about the rice crisis we have been hearing so much about. He said that he thought it was just a ploy used by GMA to divert attention from the many scandals facing her government.
The irony is that GMA just announced that there is no rice shortage in the country and that talk about such a shortage is “imaginary”.
The reality is that talk about the crisis has pushed the Philippine Senate hearings on government corruption out of the front pages of Manila’s dailies which are now filled with stories about the “imaginary” crisis.
The other reality is that there is a real rice crisis that has been brought about by external and internal factors within and without the control of the government. In the Philippines, the world-wide skyrocketing of food and fuel costs has been exacerbated by the government’s actions and inactions.
In 2003, the world price of rice was $200 per metric ton. Four years later, in 2007, it jumped to $300. In less than a year since then, the price has doubled to $600 per metric ton, and it is expected to rise to as much as $1,000 per metric ton within a year.
The Philippines consumes approximately 18-M metric tons of rice a year to feed its growing 90-M population. But the country only produces about 90% of the rice it needs requiring it to import about 1.8-M metric tons, making it the world’s largest importer of rice.
Less than a month ago, the Philippines signed an agreement with Vietnam to purchase 1.5-M metric tons of rice for the year. But the agreement has an escape clause that would allow Vietnam to back off from the deal in “circumstances of natural disaster and harvest loss.” One major storm in Vietnam could easily precipitate a major rice crisis in the Philippines.
According to Sen. Mar Roxas, president of the Liberal Party, the Philippines is facing a metaphorical “perfect storm" with the steep rise in the price of rice being compounded by skyrocketing fuel costs (oil at $110 a barrel) and a recession in the US economy. The latter is certain to dramatically reduce the remittances of overseas Filipinos which the country has relied on to stabilize the economy.
To avert the impending rice shortage, the Philippine government has asked fast food chains like Jollibee and MacDonald’s to lessen the rice served with their meals in order to conserve.
One serious solution is to improve the country’s post-harvest facilities. According to Rep. Abraham Mitra, “post-harvest losses in rice hovers around 14 to 25 percent.” If the country invested in more modern post-harvest facilities, there would be no need to import rice. At a cost of $600 per metric ton of rice for a total of 1.8 million metric tons, which the Philippines will be purchasing in the open market, the government will spend about $1 billion (P40 billion pesos), more than 100 times the Philippines annual post-harvest budget.
An official of the Philippine Department of Agriculture told the Manila Times that the country spends only 1,000 pesos per farmer, which is low compared to the equivalent of 3,000 to 4,000 pesos per farmer spent by countries like Thailand, Japan and other developed countries.
Former President Fidel Ramos blamed part of the problem on the conversion of farmlands into subdivisions and industrial zones. He said the government should change its land-use policy and prohibit the conversion of arable lands to commercial and industrial use.
But even where the land remains agricultural, much of the rice land has been converted into banana plantations, notably in Mindanao, because the price for banana exports is higher than the price of rice on the domestic market.
The Comprehensive Agricultural Reform Program (CARP) has also caused problems as millions of hectares of land have been divided up into small parcels of land where farmers can’t afford to buy and use tractors and machineries to improve production because of the economies of scale so they use carabaos instead, producing the average current yield of 2.5 tons of rice per hectare, the lowest in Asia.
Of the 8.5 million hectares of arable land in the Philippines, about 6.5 million hectares have been distributed under CARP to 4 million farmer-beneficiaries, about half of the area devoted to rice and corn. More than 3 million of the farmer beneficiaries have not received the support services and access to the credit they were promised and which they need to maximize the production of their land. The government spent 157 billion pesos to purchase the lands but has precious little to help the farmers once they own the land.
Former Pres. Ramos pointed out another problem exacerbating the rice crisis - too many mouths to feed. “The population issues, of course,” he said, “must also be revisited because the government has prohibited artificial family planning methods to be supported by the budget and therefore this is a very big withdrawal of support to the poorest families especially those in the countryside.”
As a concession to the powerful Catholic Church, the Arroyo government has refused to accept millions of dollars in aid from the United Nations and the USAID in support for population and family planning programs. Ramos denounced the rejection of UN family planning assistance “because we are going contrary to what is being practiced in the most Catholic countries in the world, like Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Ireland, which are enjoying a population growth rate of less than one percent,” he said.
Ramos said the country’s birthrate is three times that of the countries mentioned, “so that this infringes on all of these new problems that we are now encountering including rice, and potable water.”
A growing Filipino population cannot be fed with imaginary rice.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue , San Francisco , CA 94127 , or call (415) 334-7800.
Murder at Home
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080401-127637/Murder-at-Home
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Murder at Home
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 01, 2008
It was never a factual issue that William Corpuz murdered his wife Marissa in their San Francisco home in September of 2004. Corpuz turned himself in to the police and confessed that he had slashed his wife’s throat with his fishing knife. The legal question was whether he was guilty of murder in the first degree (with a mandatory sentence of 26 years to life) or the second degree (16 years to life).
After a four-week trial in May 2007, a San Francisco jury deliberated for 1 ½ days and unanimously agreed that Corpuz was guilty of murder 1. But on March 14, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jerome Benson overruled the jury and reduced the charge to murder 2. Because he confessed to the crime, the facts were never in dispute. Corpuz, a caregiver in a home for the elderly, had been previously arrested in September of 2003 for domestic violence (DV) – having choked his wife then slammed her head face-first into the headboard of their bed.
Despite a long history as a victim of her husband’s violence, Marissa stood by her man and minimized her injury to get the District Attorney to reduce the DV felony charge to a misdemeanor. He was released on probation on condition that he attended a 52-week domestic abuse program. Corpuz enrolled in a year of weekly two-hour sessions at AVACA, the Abuse, Violence and Anger Cessation Alliance, a program stressing “a new technique that focuses on abusers' thought patterns and cultural conditioning, in hopes of changing the way they deal with stress.”
Among the 150 people who have gone through this program, Corpuz was considered a model student – always on time for his sessions, he paid his fees, actively engaged in class discussions, bought and read books on domestic violence. He attended 39 weekly sessions, the last one just four days before he killed his wife.
In his police confession, Corpuz admitted that he had originally intended to shoot his wife that morning and prepared a gun with a single bullet two hours before the murder, but decided instead to get two knives from the kitchen. After two hours watching TV together in their bedroom, Corpuz said Marissa’s laughs and insults caused him to “explode” and slash his wife's throat. "I don't know. It just happened," he told police.
Corpuz’s attorney, Randall Martin, said his client was "extremely remorseful" and that he had suffered long-standing emotional abuse during the marriage. "He was emasculated, depressed, ashamed and suicidal," Martin said in asking the judge to reduce the charge to murder 2.
In announcing his decision, Judge Benson said that while the killing was an "outrageous and savage domestic violence murder... (he) found that under state law, deliberation had been absent from Corpuz's acts." According to California Penal Code § 189, however, murder in the first degree includes “lying in wait” or “any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.” Judge Benson did not believe Corpuz had deliberated enough for a murder 1 conviction and instead blamed state law for not including domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction.
"Now why should a person who beats and kills his wife or girlfriend be treated differently from a stranger who kills someone during a robbery?" asked Marily Mondejar, President of the Filipina Women's Network (FWN). Mondejar’s group had attended the trial and the March 14 sentencing hearing of Corpuz and was outraged at the sentence reduction. At a press conference on March 26, FWN members denounced the Benson decision and called for legislation that would include domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction like a murder committed during a robbery attempt.
But this would be a double-edged sword. Wives who kill their abusive husbands, though in self-defense, may be charged with this special circumstance allegation as well. The solution, according to Beverly Upton for the Domestic Violence Consortium, may be found in “encouraging judges to look at how they can interpret the law to do more justice for women and communities in domestic violence and sexual assault."
At the FWN press conference, Upton disclosed that in the year she first assumed her post in San Francisco in 1998, there were 10 women who were murdered in the city as a result of domestic violence and four of the victims were Filipino women. On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the US every day.
In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. According to the Domestic Violence Prevention Fund (endabuse.org), as many as three million women in America are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends per year. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. According to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report physical or sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
What accounts for this violence against women? A clue may be found in a new 2004 Spanish law which redefined domestic violence as "violence originating from the position of power of men over women.” The rationale for the law is that as long as men grow up in a culture which emphasizes male superiority over women and views women as the property of men, there will be male violence against women.
"Marisa Corpuz is at peace now, but this murder really heightened awareness of domestic violence in the Filipino community," Mondejar noted.
Heighten your awareness of domestic violence by watching the premier performance of “A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer” at the Herbst Theatre at 401 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco. This production of the Filipina Women’s Network includes men for the first time (I’m in it and so is Filipinas magazine publisher Greg Macabenta). Please call (415) 278-9410 or log on to www.ffwn.org for more information.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. You can also log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis: 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080401-127637/Murder-at-Home
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Murder at Home
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 01, 2008
It was never a factual issue that William Corpuz murdered his wife Marissa in their San Francisco home in September of 2004. Corpuz turned himself in to the police and confessed that he had slashed his wife’s throat with his fishing knife. The legal question was whether he was guilty of murder in the first degree (with a mandatory sentence of 26 years to life) or the second degree (16 years to life).
After a four-week trial in May 2007, a San Francisco jury deliberated for 1 ½ days and unanimously agreed that Corpuz was guilty of murder 1. But on March 14, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jerome Benson overruled the jury and reduced the charge to murder 2. Because he confessed to the crime, the facts were never in dispute. Corpuz, a caregiver in a home for the elderly, had been previously arrested in September of 2003 for domestic violence (DV) – having choked his wife then slammed her head face-first into the headboard of their bed.
Despite a long history as a victim of her husband’s violence, Marissa stood by her man and minimized her injury to get the District Attorney to reduce the DV felony charge to a misdemeanor. He was released on probation on condition that he attended a 52-week domestic abuse program. Corpuz enrolled in a year of weekly two-hour sessions at AVACA, the Abuse, Violence and Anger Cessation Alliance, a program stressing “a new technique that focuses on abusers' thought patterns and cultural conditioning, in hopes of changing the way they deal with stress.”
Among the 150 people who have gone through this program, Corpuz was considered a model student – always on time for his sessions, he paid his fees, actively engaged in class discussions, bought and read books on domestic violence. He attended 39 weekly sessions, the last one just four days before he killed his wife.
In his police confession, Corpuz admitted that he had originally intended to shoot his wife that morning and prepared a gun with a single bullet two hours before the murder, but decided instead to get two knives from the kitchen. After two hours watching TV together in their bedroom, Corpuz said Marissa’s laughs and insults caused him to “explode” and slash his wife's throat. "I don't know. It just happened," he told police.
Corpuz’s attorney, Randall Martin, said his client was "extremely remorseful" and that he had suffered long-standing emotional abuse during the marriage. "He was emasculated, depressed, ashamed and suicidal," Martin said in asking the judge to reduce the charge to murder 2.
In announcing his decision, Judge Benson said that while the killing was an "outrageous and savage domestic violence murder... (he) found that under state law, deliberation had been absent from Corpuz's acts." According to California Penal Code § 189, however, murder in the first degree includes “lying in wait” or “any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.” Judge Benson did not believe Corpuz had deliberated enough for a murder 1 conviction and instead blamed state law for not including domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction.
"Now why should a person who beats and kills his wife or girlfriend be treated differently from a stranger who kills someone during a robbery?" asked Marily Mondejar, President of the Filipina Women's Network (FWN). Mondejar’s group had attended the trial and the March 14 sentencing hearing of Corpuz and was outraged at the sentence reduction. At a press conference on March 26, FWN members denounced the Benson decision and called for legislation that would include domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction like a murder committed during a robbery attempt.
But this would be a double-edged sword. Wives who kill their abusive husbands, though in self-defense, may be charged with this special circumstance allegation as well. The solution, according to Beverly Upton for the Domestic Violence Consortium, may be found in “encouraging judges to look at how they can interpret the law to do more justice for women and communities in domestic violence and sexual assault."
At the FWN press conference, Upton disclosed that in the year she first assumed her post in San Francisco in 1998, there were 10 women who were murdered in the city as a result of domestic violence and four of the victims were Filipino women. On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the US every day.
In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. According to the Domestic Violence Prevention Fund (endabuse.org), as many as three million women in America are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends per year. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. According to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report physical or sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
What accounts for this violence against women? A clue may be found in a new 2004 Spanish law which redefined domestic violence as "violence originating from the position of power of men over women.” The rationale for the law is that as long as men grow up in a culture which emphasizes male superiority over women and views women as the property of men, there will be male violence against women.
"Marisa Corpuz is at peace now, but this murder really heightened awareness of domestic violence in the Filipino community," Mondejar noted.
Heighten your awareness of domestic violence by watching the premier performance of “A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer” at the Herbst Theatre at 401 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco. This production of the Filipina Women’s Network includes men for the first time (I’m in it and so is Filipinas magazine publisher Greg Macabenta). Please call (415) 278-9410 or log on to www.ffwn.org for more information.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. You can also log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis: 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco.
English Psychosis
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080325-126283/English-Psychosis
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English Psychosis
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 25, 2008
Though I had never been to a boxing fight before, curiosity drove me to Las Vegas to watch the hyped-up rematch of Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao and Juan Manuel “Dinamita” Marquez for the Super Featherweight Championship of the World last March 15.
As it turned out, “Super” in the billing was no hype; it was the real deal as the two evenly-matched gladiators fought toe-to-toe for 12 rounds, fighting with all the power and heart they could muster. In the end, the Pacman won in a controversial split-decision but by barely one razor-thin point.
In the post-fight press conference, Pacquiao commented on the fight in English, without using an interpreter: “The first knockdown, I was very happy," he said. "I think I controlled the fight already. In the next rounds, I had a bad cut on my eye and I didn’t see his punches. It was hard to punch back to him.”
With a Spanish interpreter, Marquez said: “Yes, I thought I won this fight and I still think I won this fight. Maybe the judges were thinking I was the challenger, but I connected with the most powerful punches and the most accurate punches.”
In previous press interviews where the Pacman spoke, always without an interpreter, he would often find himself grammatically challenged (though he is getting better) and his fight assessments always appeared simple-minded as though the English words that would articulate his actual insights were beyond his reach. In contrast, whenever the Mexican fighters spoke, with interpreters, they seemed to express more depth in their analysis.
I always wondered why the Pacman didn’t just speak in Tagalog and have an interpreter translate his words so that he could also appear to be articulate and intelligent. Is it pride?
That same question popped up at the 2008 Bb. Pilipinas beauty pageant at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City on March 9. Janina San Miguel, a 17 year old freshman student at the University of the East, made it to the finals after winning awards for Best in Swimsuit and Best in Long Gown. And then came the interview:
One of the judges, Vivian Tan, asked her “what role did your family play to you as candidate to Binibining Pilipinas?” Janina’s answer on www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKwmseoKFCo has already drawn more than two million hits (combining all versions). Here it is:
Janina: “Well, my family’s role for me is so important b’coz there was the wa- they’re, they was the one who’s… very… hahahaha… Oh I’m so sorry, ahhmm… My pamily… My family… Oh my god… I’m… Ok, I’m so sorry… I… I told you that I’m so confident… Eto, ahhmm, Wait… hahahaha, ahmmm. Sorry, guys because this was really my first pageant ever b’coz I’m only 17 years old and hahaha I, I did not expect that I came from, I came from one of the tuff ten. Hmmm, so… but I said that my family is the most important persons in my life. Thank you.”
In the YouTube video, the sounds of audience guffaws were as audible as the looks of consternation and bemusement by the judges. Despite this gaffe, however, Janina won the contest and will represent the Philippines in the Miss World competition to be held in the Ukraine.
But overnight, dozens, if not hundreds, of Filipino blogs, commented on Janina’s selection with most making fun of her accent and poor grammar. Many questioned how she could possibly hope to win the world title when she can’t speak English properly.
But if anyone of these blog commentators ever watched any of those international beauty pageants, they would note that the questions were always posed to the Spanish-speaking contestants in English, translated by interpreters into Spanish, and the Spanish answers then translated into English. The translated answers showed the candidates' poise and articulation which accounts for why so many South American beauty queens have won these contests.
Why couldn’t the question to Janina have been posed to her in Tagalog and her answer delivered in Tagalog and then translated into English for US Ambassador Kristie Kenney who was a judge? The contest that used to be “Miss Philippines” is now called “Binibing Pilipinas” to emphasize its nationalist character. Hello?
The online web portal, philnews.com, observed that “the use of English is not an issue for some contestants who can speak it fluently. There are a few young girls however, who did not have the luxury of attending an expensive private school where English is taught, or who do not belong to that social strata of Philippine society where proficiency in English is the norm.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo asked his readers to “Give the young girl a break! If she speaks ungrammatical English, blame it on the country’s educational system…You expect Janina to speak fluent English when our former president, Joseph “Erap” Estrada, speaks carabao English? C’mon, guys, you expect too much from a 17-year-old girl!”
The best insight about this “national psychosis with regards to the English language” came from the Philnews.com editorial which provided this observation “Tune in to most radio stations in Metro Manila and you'll hear Filipino DJ's straining to sound like Americans; sit-in on corporate meetings in boardrooms along Ayala Avenue and you will notice that greater deference is given to those who can say what they have to say in English. Say the same thing in Tagalog and it somehow carries a lot less weight or importance.
“While proficiency in a foreign language is commendable, especially in this era of globalization," Philnews.com noted further, "the value of a foreign language should not be gained by denigrating our national language. Tagalog or Pilipino should be given the respect it deserves and be allowed to co-exist alongside all other languages...only then will we begin to appreciate and respect who we really are as a people.”
Psychosis is a psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality." People suffering from it are said to have delusional beliefs. What is our delusional belief about ourselves and our ability to speak English?
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080325-126283/English-Psychosis
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English Psychosis
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 25, 2008
Though I had never been to a boxing fight before, curiosity drove me to Las Vegas to watch the hyped-up rematch of Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao and Juan Manuel “Dinamita” Marquez for the Super Featherweight Championship of the World last March 15.
As it turned out, “Super” in the billing was no hype; it was the real deal as the two evenly-matched gladiators fought toe-to-toe for 12 rounds, fighting with all the power and heart they could muster. In the end, the Pacman won in a controversial split-decision but by barely one razor-thin point.
In the post-fight press conference, Pacquiao commented on the fight in English, without using an interpreter: “The first knockdown, I was very happy," he said. "I think I controlled the fight already. In the next rounds, I had a bad cut on my eye and I didn’t see his punches. It was hard to punch back to him.”
With a Spanish interpreter, Marquez said: “Yes, I thought I won this fight and I still think I won this fight. Maybe the judges were thinking I was the challenger, but I connected with the most powerful punches and the most accurate punches.”
In previous press interviews where the Pacman spoke, always without an interpreter, he would often find himself grammatically challenged (though he is getting better) and his fight assessments always appeared simple-minded as though the English words that would articulate his actual insights were beyond his reach. In contrast, whenever the Mexican fighters spoke, with interpreters, they seemed to express more depth in their analysis.
I always wondered why the Pacman didn’t just speak in Tagalog and have an interpreter translate his words so that he could also appear to be articulate and intelligent. Is it pride?
That same question popped up at the 2008 Bb. Pilipinas beauty pageant at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City on March 9. Janina San Miguel, a 17 year old freshman student at the University of the East, made it to the finals after winning awards for Best in Swimsuit and Best in Long Gown. And then came the interview:
One of the judges, Vivian Tan, asked her “what role did your family play to you as candidate to Binibining Pilipinas?” Janina’s answer on www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKwmseoKFCo has already drawn more than two million hits (combining all versions). Here it is:
Janina: “Well, my family’s role for me is so important b’coz there was the wa- they’re, they was the one who’s… very… hahahaha… Oh I’m so sorry, ahhmm… My pamily… My family… Oh my god… I’m… Ok, I’m so sorry… I… I told you that I’m so confident… Eto, ahhmm, Wait… hahahaha, ahmmm. Sorry, guys because this was really my first pageant ever b’coz I’m only 17 years old and hahaha I, I did not expect that I came from, I came from one of the tuff ten. Hmmm, so… but I said that my family is the most important persons in my life. Thank you.”
In the YouTube video, the sounds of audience guffaws were as audible as the looks of consternation and bemusement by the judges. Despite this gaffe, however, Janina won the contest and will represent the Philippines in the Miss World competition to be held in the Ukraine.
But overnight, dozens, if not hundreds, of Filipino blogs, commented on Janina’s selection with most making fun of her accent and poor grammar. Many questioned how she could possibly hope to win the world title when she can’t speak English properly.
But if anyone of these blog commentators ever watched any of those international beauty pageants, they would note that the questions were always posed to the Spanish-speaking contestants in English, translated by interpreters into Spanish, and the Spanish answers then translated into English. The translated answers showed the candidates' poise and articulation which accounts for why so many South American beauty queens have won these contests.
Why couldn’t the question to Janina have been posed to her in Tagalog and her answer delivered in Tagalog and then translated into English for US Ambassador Kristie Kenney who was a judge? The contest that used to be “Miss Philippines” is now called “Binibing Pilipinas” to emphasize its nationalist character. Hello?
The online web portal, philnews.com, observed that “the use of English is not an issue for some contestants who can speak it fluently. There are a few young girls however, who did not have the luxury of attending an expensive private school where English is taught, or who do not belong to that social strata of Philippine society where proficiency in English is the norm.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo asked his readers to “Give the young girl a break! If she speaks ungrammatical English, blame it on the country’s educational system…You expect Janina to speak fluent English when our former president, Joseph “Erap” Estrada, speaks carabao English? C’mon, guys, you expect too much from a 17-year-old girl!”
The best insight about this “national psychosis with regards to the English language” came from the Philnews.com editorial which provided this observation “Tune in to most radio stations in Metro Manila and you'll hear Filipino DJ's straining to sound like Americans; sit-in on corporate meetings in boardrooms along Ayala Avenue and you will notice that greater deference is given to those who can say what they have to say in English. Say the same thing in Tagalog and it somehow carries a lot less weight or importance.
“While proficiency in a foreign language is commendable, especially in this era of globalization," Philnews.com noted further, "the value of a foreign language should not be gained by denigrating our national language. Tagalog or Pilipino should be given the respect it deserves and be allowed to co-exist alongside all other languages...only then will we begin to appreciate and respect who we really are as a people.”
Psychosis is a psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality." People suffering from it are said to have delusional beliefs. What is our delusional belief about ourselves and our ability to speak English?
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Global Networking :
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Global Networking :
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Arab view of Pinoy People Power
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080312-124223/Arab-view-of-Pinoy-People-Power
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Arab view of Pinoy People Power
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 12, 2008
The 22nd anniversary of People Power came and went on February 25 without commemoration by a single US newspaper editorial. I googled the Internet and found none. But while googling, I stumbled on a March 9, 2008 editorial in the Arab News, the “Middle East's Leading English Language Daily,” commenting on People Power in an editorial entitled “What’s Best for the Philippines.”
The 30-year old publication based in Saudi Arabia commented that “the million-strong people power demonstrations that drove Philippine’s dictator Ferdinand Marcos from office and into exile in 1986 was another epic demonstration of what a public fed up with a corrupt and inept regime can achieve. Indeed, what the Filipinos achieved may well have inspired the mass demonstrations in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally Romania that brought about the collapse of state communism.”
I was completely surprised by this observation coming from a country that is an absolute monarchy, with a Sharia religious court system administered by Muslim clerics and faithfully based on the Koran. In its website, however, Arab News presented itself as a much more democratic institution priding itself as “the most frequently read and quoted source of information about Saudi Arabia, while in the Kingdom, Arab News has become a forum for ideas — a place for voices to be heard and controversies debated, a place for the common man to consider uncommon ideas and gain understanding about a variety of issues in an increasingly interconnected world.”
In that editorial on the Philippines, it observed a “big difference” between People Power experiences in Eastern Europe and the Philippines. “While the countries of the former Soviet bloc have settled down to democracy,” the paper remarked, “the mass protest has become dangerously embedded in Philippine politics. It was used a second time in 2001 to bring half a million people onto the streets demanding the ouster of the blatantly corrupt and woefully disappointing President Joseph Estrada.”
“Now public protest is being used a third time against his then deputy and successor President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who in the last seven years has survived four attempted coups and three motions to impeach her,” the Arab News noted.
President Arroyo, the paper reported, is accused “of covering up a payola scandal involving her husband and senior aides and at worst of being involved herself. She has used her executive powers to try and stop officials from giving evidence to a commission of enquiry. Some who have challenged her have been subjected to harassment, for instance by the tax authorities. The aide who blew the whistle faces prosecution for violating state confidentiality rules. All in all, it is not an edifying spectacle nor unfortunately is it out of the ordinary for Philippine politics, so deeply stained with a tradition of graft, made worse by a consistent failure to drive through social and welfare reforms.”
There are close to four million Filipinos in the US and yet not one US publication has made a similar observation or has even commented on the current crisis in the Philippines. There are only about a million Filipinos living and working in Saudi Arabia, but they constitute a larger percentage of the Saudi population than we do in the US. That may explain the Arab News interest in the Philippines.
It appears well-informed about the Philippines, especially when it observes that “Arroyo seems determined to face down the popular protest and complete her term. She doubtless takes comfort from the smaller numbers of people who have been bothered to take to the streets yet again to protest. Her attitude is, however, as wrong as is the idea that unpopular governments should be driven from power by mass demonstrations.”
So "what's best for the Philippines" according to Arab News?
It doesn't endorse another People Power - “The problem with crowds that topple governments is they leave a leadership vacuum that can be filled by rogues. If Filipinos value democracy, they must use the ballot box, not the streets to register their opinions,” the paper concluded.
In a throwback to the Marcos era, its suggestion is for President Arroyo to call for a “snap election” to “give Filipinos a chance to consider who should best be leading them.”
Arab News may not understand that there is no constitutional basis for President Arroyo to hold “snap elections” even if she agreed to do so. Marcos was able to do it because, as a dictator, he was the Constitution.
But even if it were constitutionally viable, it would be highly impractical. To set up the machinery for snap elections would take at least six months and cost several billion pesos. And then what? Will the winner serve only until May of 2010 when the Constitution calls for the next presidential elections?
May 2010 is just around the corner. Already the list of presidential wannabes is growing longer with the following mentioned as possible candidates: Vice President Noli De Castro, Senate President Manny Villar, Sen. Mar Roxas, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Sen. Richard Gordon, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Antonio V. Trillanes IV, former Pres. Joseph Estrada, Metro Manila Gov. Bayani Fernando, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte, Manila Mayor Fred Lim, billionaire industrialist Jaime Zobel, Jesus is Lord chief Brother Eddie Villanueva, and El Shaddai leader Mike Velarde. Who else, Jun Lozada?
Thanks for the suggestion, Arab News, but snap elections ain't it. Been there, done that.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080312-124223/Arab-view-of-Pinoy-People-Power
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Arab view of Pinoy People Power
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 12, 2008
The 22nd anniversary of People Power came and went on February 25 without commemoration by a single US newspaper editorial. I googled the Internet and found none. But while googling, I stumbled on a March 9, 2008 editorial in the Arab News, the “Middle East's Leading English Language Daily,” commenting on People Power in an editorial entitled “What’s Best for the Philippines.”
The 30-year old publication based in Saudi Arabia commented that “the million-strong people power demonstrations that drove Philippine’s dictator Ferdinand Marcos from office and into exile in 1986 was another epic demonstration of what a public fed up with a corrupt and inept regime can achieve. Indeed, what the Filipinos achieved may well have inspired the mass demonstrations in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally Romania that brought about the collapse of state communism.”
I was completely surprised by this observation coming from a country that is an absolute monarchy, with a Sharia religious court system administered by Muslim clerics and faithfully based on the Koran. In its website, however, Arab News presented itself as a much more democratic institution priding itself as “the most frequently read and quoted source of information about Saudi Arabia, while in the Kingdom, Arab News has become a forum for ideas — a place for voices to be heard and controversies debated, a place for the common man to consider uncommon ideas and gain understanding about a variety of issues in an increasingly interconnected world.”
In that editorial on the Philippines, it observed a “big difference” between People Power experiences in Eastern Europe and the Philippines. “While the countries of the former Soviet bloc have settled down to democracy,” the paper remarked, “the mass protest has become dangerously embedded in Philippine politics. It was used a second time in 2001 to bring half a million people onto the streets demanding the ouster of the blatantly corrupt and woefully disappointing President Joseph Estrada.”
“Now public protest is being used a third time against his then deputy and successor President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who in the last seven years has survived four attempted coups and three motions to impeach her,” the Arab News noted.
President Arroyo, the paper reported, is accused “of covering up a payola scandal involving her husband and senior aides and at worst of being involved herself. She has used her executive powers to try and stop officials from giving evidence to a commission of enquiry. Some who have challenged her have been subjected to harassment, for instance by the tax authorities. The aide who blew the whistle faces prosecution for violating state confidentiality rules. All in all, it is not an edifying spectacle nor unfortunately is it out of the ordinary for Philippine politics, so deeply stained with a tradition of graft, made worse by a consistent failure to drive through social and welfare reforms.”
There are close to four million Filipinos in the US and yet not one US publication has made a similar observation or has even commented on the current crisis in the Philippines. There are only about a million Filipinos living and working in Saudi Arabia, but they constitute a larger percentage of the Saudi population than we do in the US. That may explain the Arab News interest in the Philippines.
It appears well-informed about the Philippines, especially when it observes that “Arroyo seems determined to face down the popular protest and complete her term. She doubtless takes comfort from the smaller numbers of people who have been bothered to take to the streets yet again to protest. Her attitude is, however, as wrong as is the idea that unpopular governments should be driven from power by mass demonstrations.”
So "what's best for the Philippines" according to Arab News?
It doesn't endorse another People Power - “The problem with crowds that topple governments is they leave a leadership vacuum that can be filled by rogues. If Filipinos value democracy, they must use the ballot box, not the streets to register their opinions,” the paper concluded.
In a throwback to the Marcos era, its suggestion is for President Arroyo to call for a “snap election” to “give Filipinos a chance to consider who should best be leading them.”
Arab News may not understand that there is no constitutional basis for President Arroyo to hold “snap elections” even if she agreed to do so. Marcos was able to do it because, as a dictator, he was the Constitution.
But even if it were constitutionally viable, it would be highly impractical. To set up the machinery for snap elections would take at least six months and cost several billion pesos. And then what? Will the winner serve only until May of 2010 when the Constitution calls for the next presidential elections?
May 2010 is just around the corner. Already the list of presidential wannabes is growing longer with the following mentioned as possible candidates: Vice President Noli De Castro, Senate President Manny Villar, Sen. Mar Roxas, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Sen. Richard Gordon, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Antonio V. Trillanes IV, former Pres. Joseph Estrada, Metro Manila Gov. Bayani Fernando, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte, Manila Mayor Fred Lim, billionaire industrialist Jaime Zobel, Jesus is Lord chief Brother Eddie Villanueva, and El Shaddai leader Mike Velarde. Who else, Jun Lozada?
Thanks for the suggestion, Arab News, but snap elections ain't it. Been there, done that.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
