ceaweed

Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore ambassador to the UN, offered valuable advise to the developing world. Third-worldists for years screamed neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism; however the problems are often much closer at home. Kishore Mahbubani came up with Ten Commandments for Developing Countries – development economic in a nutshell. 

I. Thou shalt blame only thyself for thy failures in development. Blaming imperialism, colonialism, and neo-imperialism is a convenient excuse to avoid self-examination.

II. Thou shalt acknowledge that corruption is the single most important cause of failures in development. Developed countries are not free from corruption, but with their affluences they can afford to indulge in saving and loan scandals.

III. Thou shalt not subsidize any product, nor punish the farmer in order to favor the city dweller. High prices are the only effective signal to increase production. If there are food riots, thou shalt resign from office.

IV. Thou shalt abandon state control for free markets. Thou shalt have faith in thine own population. An alive and productive population naturally causes development.

V. Thou shalt borrow no more. Thou shalt get foreign investment that pays for itself. Thou shalt build only the infrastructure that is needed and create no white elephants or railways that end in the deserts. Thou shalt accept no aid that is intended only to subsidize ailing industries in developed countries.

VI. Thou shalt not reinvent the wheel. Millions of people have gone through the path of development. Take the well-traveled roads. Be not prisoners of dead ideologies.

VII. Thou shalt scrub the ideas of Karl Marx out of thy mind and replace them with ideas of Adam Smith. The Germans have made their choice. Thou shalt follow suit.

VIII. Thou shalt be humble when developing and not lecture the developed world on their sins. They listened politely in the 1960s and 1970s. they no longer will in the 1990s. [still relevant in 2000s]

IX. Thou shalt abandon all North-South forums, which only encourage hypocritical speeches and token gestures. Thou shalt remember that countries that have received the greatest amount of aid per capita have failed most spectacularly in development. Thou shalt throw out all theories of development.

X. Thou shalt not abandon hope. People are the same the world over. What Europe achieved yesterday, the developing world will achieve tomorrow. It can be done.

Doctor Mahbubani is a Singaporean and an expert on development economic, a country that in a few decades move from abject poverty to incredible prosperity. A country that defies the ideology of third-worldism. Singapore has absolutely no natural relsource, it even has to import fresh water. It has no place for waste and sewage, it has to pay Malaysia for sewage and waste service. It is behoved us to listen to Doctor Mahbubani.

 Last month, Erica Goldson graduated as valedictorian of Coxsackie-Athens High School. Instead of using her graduation speech to celebrate the triumph of her victory, the school, and the teachers that made it happen, she channeled her inner Ivan Illich and de-constructed the logic of a valedictorian and the whole educational system.

Erica originally posted her full speech on Sign of the Times, and without need for editing or cutting, here's the speech in its entirety:

Here I stand

There is a story of a young, but earnest Zen student who approached his teacher, and asked the Master, "If I work very hard and diligently, how long will it take for me to find Zen? The Master thought about this, then replied, "Ten years . ." The student then said, "But what if I work very, very hard and really apply myself to learn fast -- How long then?" Replied the Master, "Well, twenty years." "But, if I really, really work at it, how long then?" asked the student. "Thirty years," replied the Master. "But, I do not understand," said the disappointed student. "At each time that I say I will work harder, you say it will take me longer. Why do you say that?" Replied the Master, "When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."

This is the dilemma I've faced within the American education system. We are so focused on a goal, whether it be passing a test, or graduating as first in the class. However, in this way, we do not really learn. We do whatever it takes to achieve our original objective.

Some of you may be thinking, "Well, if you pass a test, or become valedictorian, didn't you learn something? Well, yes, you learned something, but not all that you could have. Perhaps, you only learned how to memorize names, places, and dates to later on forget in order to clear your mind for the next test. School is not all that it can be. Right now, it is a place for most people to determine that their goal is to get out as soon as possible.

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contest that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer - not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition - a slave of the system set up before him.But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost? I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I'm scared.

John Taylor Gatto, a retired school teacher and activist critical of compulsory schooling, asserts, "We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness - curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids into truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. But we don't do that." Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same. We are trained to ace every standardized test, and those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt.

H. L. Mencken wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not "to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States."

To illustrate this idea, doesn't it perturb you to learn about the idea of "critical thinking." Is there really such a thing as "uncritically thinking?" To think is to process information in order to form an opinion. But if we are not critical when processing this information, are we really thinking? Or are we mindlessly accepting other opinions as truth?

This was happening to me, and if it wasn't for the rare occurrence of an avant-garde tenth grade English teacher, Donna Bryan, who allowed me to open my mind and ask questions before accepting textbook doctrine, I would have been doomed. I am now enlightened, but my mind still feels disabled. I must retrain myself and constantly remember how insane this ostensibly sane place really is.

And now here I am in a world guided by fear, a world suppressing the uniqueness that lies inside each of us, a world where we can either acquiesce to the inhuman nonsense of corporatism and materialism or insist on change. We are not enlivened by an educational system that clandestinely sets us up for jobs that could be automated, for work that need not be done, for enslavement without fervency for meaningful achievement. We have no choices in life when money is our motivational force. Our motivational force ought to be passion, but this is lost from the moment we step into a system that trains us, rather than inspires us.

We are more than robotic bookshelves, conditioned to blurt out facts we were taught in school. We are all very special, every human on this planet is so special, so aren't we all deserving of something better, of using our minds for innovation, rather than memorization, for creativity, rather than futile activity, for rumination rather than stagnation? We are not here to get a degree, to then get a job, so we can consume industry-approved placation after placation. There is more, and more still.

The saddest part is that the majority of students don't have the opportunity to reflect as I did. The majority of students are put through the same brainwashing techniques in order to create a complacent labor force working in the interests of large corporations and secretive government, and worst of all, they are completely unaware of it. I will never be able to turn back these 18 years. I can't run away to another country with an education system meant to enlighten rather than condition. This part of my life is over, and I want to make sure that no other child will have his or her potential suppressed by powers meant to exploit and control. We are human beings. We are thinkers, dreamers, explorers, artists, writers, engineers. We are anything we want to be - but only if we have an educational system that supports us rather than holds us down. A tree can grow, but only if its roots are given a healthy foundation.

For those of you out there that must continue to sit in desks and yield to the authoritarian ideologies of instructors, do not be disheartened. You still have the opportunity to stand up, ask questions, be critical, and create your own perspective. Demand a setting that will provide you with intellectual capabilities that allow you to expand your mind instead of directing it. Demand that you be interested in class. Demand that the excuse, "You have to learn this for the test" is not good enough for you. Education is an excellent tool, if used properly, but focus more on learning rather than getting good grades.

For those of you that work within the system that I am condemning, I do not mean to insult; I intend to motivate. You have the power to change the incompetencies of this system. I know that you did not become a teacher or administrator to see your students bored. You cannot accept the authority of the governing bodies that tell you what to teach, how to teach it, and that you will be punished if you do not comply. Our potential is at stake.

For those of you that are now leaving this establishment, I say, do not forget what went on in these classrooms. Do not abandon those that come after you. We are the new future and we are not going to let tradition stand. We will break down the walls of corruption to let a garden of knowledge grow throughout America. Once educated properly, we will have the power to do anything, and best of all, we will only use that power for good, for we will be cultivated and wise. We will not accept anything at face value. We will ask questions, and we will demand truth.

So, here I stand. I am not standing here as valedictorian by myself. I was molded by my environment, by all of my peers who are sitting here watching me. I couldn't have accomplished this without all of you. It was all of you who truly made me the person I am today. It was all of you who were my competition, yet my backbone. In that way, we are all valedictorians.

I am now supposed to say farewell to this institution, those who maintain it, and those who stand with me and behind me, but I hope this farewell is more of a "see you later" when we are all working together to rear a pedagogic movement. But first, let's go get those pieces of paper that tell us that we're smart enough to do so!


Source: blog.swiftkickonline.com 

WOWOWEE
These are questions and actual answers of contest participants!

1. Q: "Ano sa Tagalog ang teeth?" A: "Utong!"

2. Q: "Kung ang light ay ilaw, ano naman ang lightning?" A: "Umiilaw!"

3. Q: "Kung vegetarian ang tawag sa kumakain ng gulay, ano ang tawag sa
kumakain ng tao? A: "Humanitarian? "

4. Q: "Sina Michael at Raphael ay mga." A: "Ninja?"

5. Q: "Ano ang karaniwang kasunod ng kidlat?" A: "Sunog!"

6. Q: "Magbigay ng sikat na Willie." A: "Willie da pooh!"

7. Q: "Ang mga Hindu ay galing sa aling bansa?" A: "Hindunesia? "

8. Q: "Anong hayop si King Kong?" A: "Pagong!"

9. Q: "Magbigay ng mabahong pagkain." A: "Tae!"

10. Q: "Saang bansa matatagpuan ang mga Canadians?" A: "Canadia!"

11. Q: "Kumpletuhin - Little Red." A: "Ribbon!"

12 Q: "Ano ang tinatanggal sa itlog bago ito kainin?" A: "Buhok?"

13. Q: "Magbigay ng pagkain na dumidikit sa ngipin." A: "Tinga!"

14. Q: "Anong oras kadalasang pinapatay ang TV?" A: "Pag balita?"

15. Q: "Ano ang tawag mo sa anak ng taong grasa?" A: "Baby oil?"

16. Q: "Saan karaniwang ginagawa ang mga sweets na ginagamit sa
halu-halo?" A: "Sweetserland? "

17. Q: "Sinong higanteng G ang tinalo ni David?" A: "Godzilla?"

18. Q: "Ano ang mas malaki, itlog ng ibon o sanggol ng tao?" A: "Itlog ng
tao!"

19. Q: "Anong S ang tawag sa duktor nag nago-opera?" A: "Sadista?"

20. Q: "Blank is the best policy." A: "Ice tea?"

22. Q: "Saan binaril si Jose Rizal?" A: "Sa likod!"

23. Q: "Fill in the blanks - Beauty is in the eye of the ____." A:
"Tiger?"

24. Q: "Ano ang kinakain ng monkey-eating eagle?" A: "Saging!"

25. Q: "Kung ang suka ay vinegar, ano naman ang Inggles ng toyo?" A:
"Baliw!"

26. Q: "Anong tawag mo sa kapatid ng nanay mo?" A: "Kamag-anak! "

27. Q: "Saan nakukuha ang sakit na AIDS?" A: "Sa motel?"

28. Q: "Kung ang H2O ay water, ano naman ang CO2?" A: "Cold water!"

29. Q: "Sinong cartoon charcater ang sumisigaw ng yabba dabba doo?" A: "Si
scooby dooby doo?"

30. Q: "Heto na si kaka, bubuka-bukaka. " A: "Operadang bakla?"

31. Q: "Ilan ang bituin sa American flag?" A: "Madami!"

32. Q: "Ano ang tawag mo sa taong isa lang ang mata?" A: "Abnormal!"

Note: I got this from a blog. But I lost the link. So whoever is the original author of this, I'm acknowledging you :D

1. Know who I am.
2. Know what I want.
3. Learn my limits.
4. Recognize my capabilities.
5. Be contented.
6. Improve as well. Always.
7. Don't try to please everyone.
8. Lear how to say NO.
9. Be firm and decisive.
10. Take criticisms positively. Always.
11. Never be insecure.
12. Always look at the positive side of life.

This list could go a long way. This goes to show how imperfect I am. I have a lot to learn. There is nothing substantial I have achieved yet. 

I am very passionate in everything that I indulge in. People who know me know that. In every aspect of life that I indulge myself in, I immerse that whole of myself; in school, in my organizations, hobbies, and in my relationships. Quite honestly, the same passion has brought me to some of my victories. Little as they may be, but they have brought me a sense of fulfillment, which I highly value. This same passion has also brought me all the confidence I have now, built up my pride and ego, and made me a better person. 

However, I did not quite realize that passion alone is not enough for success to be achieved. Certain factors need to be recognized and assessed thoroughly, owing to the fact that the world and life itself is not constant and monolithic. It is very much fluid and dynamic. Thus, I need to be extra-adaptive to my environment. But the question comes, when the environment forces you situations, instances or principles that are not parallel to what you believe in, will you stay idle and passive, be resistant and try to affect change, or transfer to a new environment? 

I am currently faced with this questions. Ideally, as a UP student, I would say NO! "When the culture and environment does not work, I don't have to buy it. If there's something wrong, something has to be done! " But what if you are alone in that endeavor? Should you pursue? Even if, its a lost cause. Even if the problems are of great magnitude and the harms can't be mitigated. Should you pursue? Would I pursue? 

Realistically, I am faced with a realization that passion indeed is not enough. You have to be in the right environment to make things work. Especially if the changes you want to happen in status quo can't be achieved collectively. Because the fact that collective action does not seem to work, how much more If you will try to do it alone. I need to definitely choose my environment. Invest my time and effort properly. More importantly, specialized in an environment that i love. 

It might be early to say this, but I have been tested to my mettle and I know what I am worth. I want to be in a circumstance and environment where my passion and effort is being reciprocated. And I am currently not in it. 

Sison: ‘Villar Offers Relatively Better Program; Noynoy to Frustrate Land Reform’

from Bulatlat

Published on April 10, 2010

Claims are persistent that the Arroyo ruling clique is engineering a failure of elections and will remain in power after the 2010 elections. Do you believe such claims? Why?

JMS: I don’t believe such claims. Arroyo will not dare to stay in power beyond June 2010 without the consent of her imperialist master. I do not think that the US has any special interest in keeping her in power and offending all those presidential candidates who have spent money and effort in the current electoral campaign. Arroyo is not indispensable to the US.

She herself is smart enough to know that she does not have the advantages that Marcos had in 1972 to be able to declare martial law and that if she dared to stay in power beyond June 2010 a broad united front of opposition forces and military factions would sweep her away from power within a short period of time.

It would be greatly advantageous for the people and the revolutionary forces if Arroyo would make the foolish mistake of keeping herself in power beyond June 2010. Such a mistake would further inflame the broad masses of the people to rebel and boost the strategic plan of the revolutionary forces to advance from strategic defensive to strategic stalemate in the people’s war.

What is your general view of the character and conduct of the electoral contest in 2010, especially among the four major presidential candidates?

JMS: The general character of the electoral contest is determined by the overwhelming predominance of candidates who are themselves big compradors and landlords and who are political agents of the evil forces of foreign monopoly capitalism, domestic feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism.

The debate among the four major presidential candidates is shallow and superficial. It has not dealt seriously with the basic problems that are the root causes of the oppression and exploitation of the Filipino people. It has trivialized the people’s clamor for change. All the four major candidates are oblivious of the crisis now wracking the world capitalist system and the domestic ruling system due to the US policy dictates of neoliberal globalization and global war of terror.

The two frontrunners, Aquino and Villar, are very simplistic in presenting themselves as the best choice for the electorate. Aquino presents himself as the paragon of clean and honest government in contrast to the corrupt Arroyo regime. Villar presents himself as the example of a poor man who overcomes poverty through sheer personal diligence and perseverance.

Between Aquino and Villar, who is likely to win? What are the factors to consider in making estimates?

JMS: Aquino remains No. 1 in the latest polls by the Social Weather Station and Pulse Asia. And Villar has lost substantial points supposedly because of the effectiveness of the Villarroyo line against him. Now, he is trying hard to react by harping on the Gloriaquino line and pointing to the Aquino relatives occupying high positions in the Arroyo regime.

There are several important factors involved in winning the presidential post. These include the personal characteristics of the candidates, the money and political skills for using the media (especially the infomercials), street level propaganda and buying the support of those who deliver votes at the provincial, district and municipal levels.

In the few remaining weeks, all factors will be at play with full intensity. But the most important factor will be the distribution of money to the local leaders who deliver the votes. The source of money usually includes the big comprador-landlord interests and the US and other foreign interests through cutouts among the local big businessmen. The final-month push by Ramos in vote buying in 1992 is a classic example.

You seem to dismiss both Aquino and Villar as having the same class characteristics. But which one offers a relatively better program?

JMS: Manny Villar offers the relatively better program, which unfortunately has been underplayed during the campaign. He promises land reform and self-reliant food production, expansion of local manufacturing to generate employment, support for small and middle entrepreneurs, conservation of natural resources, ecological protection, peace negotiations, review of the Visiting Forces Agreement, respect for human rights, indemnification of the victims of human rights violations and independent foreign policy.

Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas are rabid exponents of the US-dictated policy of neoliberal globalization, which has put the Philippine economy in severe crisis and is inflicting terrible suffering on the people. In this regard, they are the economic policy soulmates and the real presidential and vice presidential candidates of the ”free marketeer” and ”Tax gouger” Arroyo in view of the weakness of the administration presidential candidate Gibo Teodoro.

Like his late mother, Aquino will pay lip service to land reform but will actually prevent it in so many clever ways. In the particular case of Hacienda Luisita, he will insist on the scam or swindle called the stock distribution option in order to prevent land reform. He promises a clean and honest government but the Kamag-Anak, Inc. and other vested interests are financing his campaign and are prepared to collect the spoils of bureaucrat capitalism and subservience to foreign economic interests.

 

Claims are persistent that the Arroyo ruling clique is engineering a failure of elections and will remain in power after the 2010 elections. Do you believe such claims? Why?

JMS: I don’t believe such claims. Arroyo will not dare to stay in power beyond June 2010 without the consent of her imperialist master. I do not think that the US has any special interest in keeping her in power and offending all those presidential candidates who have spent money and effort in the current electoral campaign. Arroyo is not indispensable to the US.

She herself is smart enough to know that she does not have the advantages that Marcos had in 1972 to be able to declare martial law and that if she dared to stay in power beyond June 2010 a broad united front of opposition forces and military factions would sweep her away from power within a short period of time.

It would be greatly advantageous for the people and the revolutionary forces if Arroyo would make the foolish mistake of keeping herself in power beyond June 2010. Such a mistake would further inflame the broad masses of the people to rebel and boost the strategic plan of the revolutionary forces to advance from strategic defensive to strategic stalemate in the people’s war.

What is your general view of the character and conduct of the electoral contest in 2010, especially among the four major presidential candidates?

JMS: The general character of the electoral contest is determined by the overwhelming predominance of candidates who are themselves big compradors and landlords and who are political agents of the evil forces of foreign monopoly capitalism, domestic feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism.

The debate among the four major presidential candidates is shallow and superficial. It has not dealt seriously with the basic problems that are the root causes of the oppression and exploitation of the Filipino people. It has trivialized the people’s clamor for change. All the four major candidates are oblivious of the crisis now wracking the world capitalist system and the domestic ruling system due to the US policy dictates of neoliberal globalization and global war of terror.

The two frontrunners, Aquino and Villar, are very simplistic in presenting themselves as the best choice for the electorate. Aquino presents himself as the paragon of clean and honest government in contrast to the corrupt Arroyo regime. Villar presents himself as the example of a poor man who overcomes poverty through sheer personal diligence and perseverance.

Between Aquino and Villar, who is likely to win? What are the factors to consider in making estimates?

JMS: Aquino remains No. 1 in the latest polls by the Social Weather Station and Pulse Asia. And Villar has lost substantial points supposedly because of the effectiveness of the Villarroyo line against him. Now, he is trying hard to react by harping on the Gloriaquino line and pointing to the Aquino relatives occupying high positions in the Arroyo regime.

There are several important factors involved in winning the presidential post. These include the personal characteristics of the candidates, the money and political skills for using the media (especially the infomercials), street level propaganda and buying the support of those who deliver votes at the provincial, district and municipal levels.

In the few remaining weeks, all factors will be at play with full intensity. But the most important factor will be the distribution of money to the local leaders who deliver the votes. The source of money usually includes the big comprador-landlord interests and the US and other foreign interests through cutouts among the local big businessmen. The final-month push by Ramos in vote buying in 1992 is a classic example.

You seem to dismiss both Aquino and Villar as having the same class characteristics. But which one offers a relatively better program?

JMS: Manny Villar offers the relatively better program, which unfortunately has been underplayed during the campaign. He promises land reform and self-reliant food production, expansion of local manufacturing to generate employment, support for small and middle entrepreneurs, conservation of natural resources, ecological protection, peace negotiations, review of the Visiting Forces Agreement, respect for human rights, indemnification of the victims of human rights violations and independent foreign policy.

Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas are rabid exponents of the US-dictated policy of neoliberal globalization, which has put the Philippine economy in severe crisis and is inflicting terrible suffering on the people. In this regard, they are the economic policy soulmates and the real presidential and vice presidential candidates of the ”free marketeer” and ”Tax gouger” Arroyo in view of the weakness of the administration presidential candidate Gibo Teodoro.

Like his late mother, Aquino will pay lip service to land reform but will actually prevent it in so many clever ways. In the particular case of Hacienda Luisita, he will insist on the scam or swindle called the stock distribution option in order to prevent land reform. He promises a clean and honest government but the Kamag-Anak, Inc. and other vested interests are financing his campaign and are prepared to collect the spoils of bureaucrat capitalism and subservience to foreign economic interests.

Which of the two frontrunners would be more amenable to having serious peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines? Why?

JMS: Both Aquino and Villar promise to have negotiations with the NDFP. The important question is which of them is more amenable to negotiate in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration and agree with the NDFP on the social, economic and political reforms in order to address the roots of the armed conflict and make a just and lasting peace.

Villar appears to be more amenable because of the program that he has spelled out. There are people around him to advise him to accelerate the peace negotiations.

If he becomes president, Aquino would likely continue to get advice from Bobby and Erin Tanada to move on honestly with the peace negotiations.

But there are many elements in the Aquino camp who are rabid anti-communists and pseudo-progressives who will advise Aquino to pretend being for peace negotiations as a way of deceiving the people and sharpening the sword of reaction in a renewed futile attempt to destroy the revolutionary movement.

What would you tell the new president as encouragement to engage in peace negotiations? Where and how should the peace negotiations be held. What degree of progress in the peace negotiations would allow you to return for a visit or permanent stay in the Philippines?

JMS: I would remind the new president that the socio-economic and political crisis is worsening, that the people and the revolutionary forces are already in the process of raising the level of the people’s war and that it is worth trying to agree on social, economic and political reforms in order to make a just and lasting peace in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration and the subsequent agreements.

The peace negotiations should continue to be held in a foreign neutral venue, with the help of the Norwegian government as third party facilitator. It is extremely complicated, costly and risky to hold peace negotiations in the Philippines. You can imagine the large-scale mobilization of security forces on both the sides of the GRP and NDFP every time that there are talks. It would take too much time for GRP and NDFP to formally agree on the scope of their respective territories as well as the neutral or buffer zones. The NDFP side would also have to take into account the dangers of GPS surveillance and the related electronic weapons.

I would certainly go back to the Philippines to live the rest of my life if there would be a just and lasting peace as a result of the peace negotiations. But I think that as soon as a comprehensive agreement on social and economic reforms can be signed by the principals of the GRP and NDFP I would consider going to the Philippines at least for a short visit.

Are the revolutionary forces helping in any way any of the electoral coalitions, parties and candidates? Is it true, as charged by the military, that the revolutionary forces are supporting any candidate so long as he or she pays for the permit to campaign or permit to win?

JMS: As chief political consultant of the NDFP in peace negotiations with the GRP, I am not in a position to know in sufficient detail about the concrete relations of the revolutionary forces with electoral coalitions, parties and candidates for presidential, legislative and local executive positions.

I presume that as a matter of principle the revolutionary forces do not endorse or support the ruling system and its electoral system in particular. However, in line with the policy of the broad united front, the revolutionary forces may have appropriate relations with their allies who are engaged in the electoral contest.

As to be expected, the military officials of the ruling system would hurl all kinds of allegations and invectives against the revolutionary forces. But I would presume that certain allies would extend various kinds of donations and support to the revolutionary forces in order to help them undertake programs, projects and activities that are of social benefit to the people.

In your view, is it all right for Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza to be in the NP senatorial slate and to be with Bongbong Marcos? What are the chances of Satur and Liza?

JMS: It is of public knowledge that Satur and Liza are on the NP senatorial slate on the basis of a bilateral alliance between Makabayan and the NP. Makabayan has considered the NP as a worthy ally because of its acceptable program, which is patriotic and progressive.

However, after the NP-Makabayan alliance was established, the NP included Bongbong Marcos as a candidate in its senatorial slate. We know from press reports that Satur and Liza protested and threatened to withdraw from the NP senatorial slate. And that they were satisfied only after Villar publicly clarified that they were not compromised as guest candidates in the senatorial slate by the inclusion of Bongbong as another guest candidate and that the program of the NP remains firm on respect for human rights and indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime.

The latest poll surveys done by SWS and Pulse Asia do not rank Satur and Liza above Nos. 26 to 29. I hope that their rating will improve in the remaining weeks.

What are the chances of the progressive party list groups?

JMS: The latest poll survey of Pulse Asia shows that they are doing well. Gabriela and Bayan Muna are at the top, each assured of three members of Congress. Anakpawis is assured of two and can aim for one more. Kabataan is also assured of one and can aim for one more. There are other progressive party list groups. My estimate is that there will be a significant increase of members of Congress who come from the progressive list groups.

Will the 2010 elections produce a new type of leadership to veer the ruling system away from its worst features? Will there be any significant change in the socio-economic and political system for the better as a result of the elections? How will the revolutionary movement respond to the crisis situation and to whatever kind of leadership will arise in the ruling system?

JMS: Without a sufficiently strong progressive mass movement, there can be no certainty that the 2010 elections will produce a new type of leadership to veer the ruling system away from its worst features and cause a significant change for the better. The kind of debate carried out by the four major presidential candidates in the electoral campaign shows that there is little or nothing to expect from the next president. Within its first six months or first year, the new regime will be tested whether it is interested in serious peace negotiations or not.

Without a strong mass movement to advance their national and democratic interests, the Filipino people will continue to be oppressed and exploited with impunity by the foreign monopolies, the big compradors-landlords and the corrupt bureaucrats. The socio-economic and political crisis of the ruling system will continue to worsen. The ruling clique and the ruling classes of big compradors and landlords will become more incapable than ever of ruling the old way.

The revolutionary forces and people will certainly demand revolutionary change. It is timely for the CPP to have issued the call for advancing the people’s war, from the strategic defensive to the strategic stalemate during the forty-first anniversaries of the CPP and the NPA. (Bulatlat.com)

 

Why Fighting Corruption is not Enough

By Walden Bello

From Philippine Daily Inquirer
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 05:02:00 03/22/2010

Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, Government, Poverty, Government Debt, Economy and Business and Finance


After nine years of witnessing increasing poverty among the masses and spiraling corruption in high places, it is understandable that Filipinos see a strong correlation between corruption and poverty. And the judgment of many is probably correct that the candidates that are free of the taint of corruption stand the best chance of turning this country around. Moral leadership may not be a sufficient condition for successful leadership but it certainly has become a necessary condition in a country that has been so deprived of exemplary public figures like the Philippines.

Corruption, however, has become the explanation for all our ills, and this brings with it the danger that, after the elections, campaign rhetoric might substitute for hard analysis on the causes of poverty, leading to wrong, ineffectual prescriptions for dealing with the country’s number one problem.

Let me be more explicit: Corruption must be condemned and corrupt officials must be prosecuted because being a violation of public trust, corruption undermines faith in government and leads to an erosion of the moral bonds among citizens that serve as the foundation of good governance. Corruption, however, is unlikely to be the main cause of poverty. Wrongheaded policies are, and clean-cut technocrats have been responsible for more poverty than corrupt politicians.

The complex of policies that have pushed the Philippines into the economic quagmire over the last 30 years might be summed up in that formidable term: structural adjustment. Also known as neoliberal restructuring, it involved prioritization of debt repayment; conservative macroeconomic management that involving huge cutbacks in government spending; trade and financial liberalization; privatization and deregulation; and export-oriented production. Structural adjustment came to the Philippines courtesy of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, but it was internalized and disseminated as doctrine by local technocrats and economists.

Prioritizing Debt Repayment

Corazon Aquino was personally honest and her contribution to the reestablishment of democracy was indispensable, but her submitting to the International Monetary Fund's demand to prioritize debt repayment over development brought about a decade of stagnation and continuing poverty. Interest payments as a percentage of total government expenditures went from 7 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1994. Capital expenditures, on the other hand, plunged from 26 percent to 16 percent. Since government is the biggest investor in the Philippines—indeed in any economy—the radical stripping away of capital expenditures goes a long way toward explaining the stagnant one percent average yearly growth in gross domestic product in the 1980’s and the 2.3 per cent rate in the first half of the 1990’s.

In contrast, our Southeast Asian neighbors ignored the IMF’s prescriptions. They limited debt servicing while ramping up government capital expenditures in support of growth. Not surprisingly, they grew by 6 to 10 percent from 1985 to 1995, attracting massive Japanese investment while the Philippines barely grew and gained the reputation of a depressed market that repelled investors.

Trade and Financial Liberalization

When Fidel Ramos came to power in 1992, the main agenda of his technocrats was to bring down all tariffs to 0 to 5 percent and bring the Philippines into the World Trade Organization and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), moves that were intended to make trade liberalization irreversible. A pick-up in the growth rate in the early years of Ramos sparked hope, but the green shoots were more apparent than real, and they were, at any rate, crushed as a result of another neoliberal policy: financial liberalization. The elimination of foreign exchange controls and restrictions of speculative investment attracted billions of dollars in the period 1993-1997. But this also meant that when panic hit the ranks of foreign investors in Asia in the summer of 1997, the same lack of capital controls facilitated the stampede of billions of dollars from the country in a few short weeks in mid-1997. This pushed the economy into recession and stagnation in the next few years.

The Estrada administration did not reverse course, and under the presidency of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, neoliberal policies continued to reign. New liberalization initiatives in the next few years were initiated on the trade front, with the government negotiating free trade agreements with Japan and China. These pacts were entered into despite clear evidence that trade liberalization was destroying the two pillars of the economy, industry and agriculture.

Radical unilateral trade liberalization severely destabilized our manufacturing sector, with textile and garments firms, for instance, being drastically reduced from 200 in 1970 to 10 in recent years. As one of Arroyo’s finance secretaries admitted, “there’s an uneven implementation of trade liberalization, which was to our disadvantage.” While he speculated that consumers might have benefited from the tariff liberalization, he acknowledged that “it has killed so many local industries.”

As for agriculture, the liberalization of our agricultural trade after we joined the World Trade Organization in 1995 transformed the Philippines from a net food exporting country and consolidated it into a net food importing country after the mid-1990’s. The year 2010 is the year that the China ASEAN Trade Agreement (CAFTA) negotiated by the Arroyo administration goes into effect, and the prospect of cheap Chinese produce flooding our markets has made our vegetable farmers fatalistic about their survival.

Depressive Fiscal Policy

What likewise became clear during the long Arroyo reign were the stifling effects of the debt repayment-oriented macroeconomic management policy that came with structural adjustment. With 20-25 percent of the national budget reserved for debt service payments owing to the draconian Automatic Appropriations Law, government finances were in a state of permanent and widening deficit, which the administration tried to solve by contracting more loans. Indeed, the Arroyo administration contracted more loans than the previous three administrations combined.

When the deficit reached gargantuan proportions, the government refused to take the necessary steps to contain the key factor acting as the main drain on expenditures; that is, it refused to declare a debt moratorium or at least renegotiate the terms of debt repayment to make them less punitive. At the same time, the administration did not have the political will to force the rich to take the brunt of bridging the deficit by increasing taxes on their income and improving their collection. Under pressure from the IMF, the government levied this burden on the poor and the middle class via the adoption of the expanded value added tax (EVAT) of 12 percent on purchases. The tax was passed on to poor and middle class consumers by commercial establishments, forcing them to cut back on consumption, which then boomeranged back on small merchants and entrepreneurs in the form of reduced profits, forcing many out of business.

Facing the Policy Challenge

The straitjacket of conservative macroeconomic management, trade and financial liberalization, and a subservient debt policy kept the economy from expanding significantly, resulting in the percentage of the population living in poverty, according to the World Bank, increasing from 30 to 33 percent between 2003 and 2006. By 2006, there were more poor people in the Philippines than at any other time in the country’s history.

The country’s plight under the lash of wrong policies over the last four administrations becomes even clearer in a comparative perspective. According to the United Nations Development Program Human Development Report, the Philippines registered the second lowest average yearly growth rate, 1.6 percent, in Southeast Asia in the period 1990 to 2005 —lower than that of Vietnam (5.9 percent), Cambodia (5.5 percent), and Burma (6.6 percent). The only country registering average growth below that of the Philippines was Brunei, which, being an oil-rich high-income country, could afford not to grow.

So yes, we must wage an unrelenting campaign against corruption because it destroys faith in government and weakens the moral fiber of the country. And yes, let us by all means punish corrupt officials and elect morally unquestionable people to power. But let us not mistake corruption as the principal cause of poverty and believe that anti-corruption crusades provide the main response to the country’s economic ills. The main source of our lack of economic dynamism is a wrong policy paradigm that we have allowed ourselves to be straitjacketed into.

It is disturbing that the policy errors that have led to our present state are hardly mentioned in the presidential debates. It is unfortunate that we are not taking advantage of the current international economic crisis that has dragged down our local economy to debate the wisdom of the policies of globalization and liberalization that have brought us to this impasse. Yes, the issues of corruption, management experience, and bureaucratic reform that dominate these debates are vital, but unless the winning team has the courage to reverse 30 years of failed neoliberal economic policies, the country will remain in the economic doldrums, unable to take off, with poverty possibly rising to the point of no return.

*The columnist is representative of the party-list Akbayan in the House of Representatives. He can be contacted at waldenbello@yahoo.com

Commencement Speech to the Harvard Class of 2000
by Conan O'Brien

I'd like to thank the Class Marshals for inviting me here today. The last time I was invited to Harvard it cost me $110,000, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious. I'd like to announce up front that I have one goal this afternoon: to be half as funny as tomorrow's Commencement Speaker, Moral Philosopher and Economist, Amartya Sen. Must get more laughs than seminal wage/price theoretician.

Students of the Harvard Class of 2000, fifteen years ago I sat where you sit now and I thought exactly what you are now thinking: What's going to happen to me? Will I find my place in the world? Am I really graduating a virgin? I still have 24 hours and my roommate's Mom is hot. I swear she was checking me out. Being here today is very special for me. I miss this place. I especially miss Harvard Square - it's so unique. No where else in the world will you find a man with a turban wearing a Red Sox jacket and working in a lesbian bookstore. Hey, I'm just glad my dad's working.

It's particularly sweet for me to be here today because when I graduated, I wanted very badly to be a Class Day Speaker. Unfortunately, my speech was rejected. So, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to read a portion of that speech from fifteen years ago: "Fellow students, as we sit here today listening to that classic Ah-ha tune which will definitely stand the test of time, I would like to make several predictions about what the future will hold: "I believe that one day a simple Governor from a small Southern state will rise to the highest office in the land. He will lack political skill, but will lead on the sheer strength of his moral authority." "I believe that Justice will prevail and, one day, the Berlin Wall will crumble, uniting East and West Berlin forever under Communist rule." "I believe that one day, a high speed network of interconnected computers will spring up world-wide, so enriching people that they will lose their interest in idle chit chat and pornography." "And finally, I believe that one day I will have a television show on a major network, seen by millions of people a night, which I will use to re-enact crimes and help catch at-large criminals." And then there's some stuff about the death of Wall Street which I don't think we need to get into....

The point is that, although you see me as a celebrity, a member of the cultural elite, a kind of demigod, I was actually a student here once much like you. I came here in the fall of 1981 and lived in Holworthy. I was, without exaggeration, the ugliest picture in the Freshman Face book. When Harvard asked me for a picture the previous summer, I thought it was just for their records, so I literally jogged in the August heat to a passport photo office and sat for a morgue photo. To make matters worse, when the Face Book came out they put my picture next to Catherine Oxenberg, a stunning blonde actress who was accepted to the class of '85 but decided to defer admission so she could join the cast of "Dynasty." My photo would have looked bad on any page, but next to Catherine Oxenberg, I looked like a mackerel that had been in a car accident. You see, in those days I was six feet four inches tall and I weighed 150 pounds. Recently, I had some structural engineers run those numbers into a computer model and, according to the computer, I collapsed in 1987, killing hundreds in Taiwan.

After freshman year I moved to Mather House. Mather House, incidentally, was designed by the same firm that built Hitler's bunker. In fact, if Hitler had conducted the war from Mather House, he'd have shot himself a year earlier. 1985 seems like a long time ago now. When I had my Class Day, you students would have been seven years old. Seven years old. Do you know what that means? Back then I could have beaten any of you in a fight. And I mean bad. It would be no contest. If any one here has a time machine, seriously, let's get it on, I will whip your seven year old butt. When I was here, they sold diapers at the Coop that said "Harvard Class of 2000." At the time, it was kind of a joke, but now I realize you wore those diapers. How embarrassing for you. A lot has happened in fifteen years. When you think about it, we come from completely different worlds. When I graduated, we watched movies starring Tom Cruise and listened to music by Madonna. I come from a time when we huddled around our TV sets and watched "The Cosby Show" on NBC, never imagining that there would one day be a show called "Cosby" on CBS. In 1985 we drove cars with driver's side airbags, but if you told us that one day there'd be passenger side airbags, we'd have burned you for witchcraft.

But of course, I think there is some common ground between us. I remember well the great uncertainty of this day. Many of you are justifiably nervous about leaving the safe, comfortable world of Harvard Yard and hurling yourself headlong into the cold, harsh world of Harvard Grad School, a plum job at your father's firm, or a year abroad with a gold Amex card and then a plum job in your father's firm. But let me assure you that the knowledge you've gained here at Harvard is a precious gift that will never leave you. Take it from me, your education is yours to keep forever. Why, many of you have read the Merchant of Florence, and that will inspire you when you travel to the island of Spain. Your knowledge of that problem they had with those people in Russia, or that guy in South America-you know, that guy-will enrich you for the rest of your life.

There is also sadness today, a feeling of loss that you're leaving Harvard forever. Well, let me assure you that you never really leave Harvard. The Harvard Fundraising Committee will be on your ass until the day you die. Right now, a member of the Alumni Association is at the Mt. Auburn Cemetery shaking down the corpse of Henry Adams. They heard he had a brass toe ring and they aims to get it. Imagine: These people just raised 2.5 billion dollars and they only got through the B's in the alumni directory. Here's how it works. Your phone rings, usually after a big meal when you're tired and most vulnerable. A voice asks you for money. Knowing they just raised 2.5 billion dollars you ask, "What do you need it for?" Then there's a long pause and the voice on the other end of the line says, "We don't need it, we just want it." It's chilling.

What else can you expect? Let me see, by your applause, who here wrote a thesis. (APPLAUSE) A lot of hard work, a lot of your blood went into that thesis... and no one is ever going to care. I wrote a thesis: Literary Progeria in the works of Flannery O'Connor and William Faulkner. Let's just say that, during my discussions with Pauly Shore, it doesn't come up much. For three years after graduation I kept my thesis in the glove compartment of my car so I could show it to a policeman in case I was pulled over. (ACT OUT) License, registration, cultural exploration of the Man Child in the Sound and the Fury...

So what can you expect out there in the real world? Let me tell you. As you leave these gates and re-enter society, one thing is certain: Everyone out there is going to hate you. Never tell anyone in a roadside diner that you went to Harvard. In most situations the correct response to where did you to school is, "School? Why, I never had much in the way of book larnin' and such." Then, get in your BMW and get the hell out of there.

You see, you're in for a lifetime of "And you went to Harvard?" Accidentally give the wrong amount of change in a transaction and it's, "And you went to Harvard?" Ask the guy at the hardware store how these jumper cables work and hear, "And you went to Harvard?" Forget just once that your underwear goes inside your pants and it's "and you went to Harvard." Get your head stuck in your niece's dollhouse because you wanted to see what it was like to be a giant and it's "Uncle Conan, you went to Harvard!?"

But to really know what's in store for you after Harvard, I have to tell you what happened to me after graduation. I'm going to tell you my story because, first of all, my perspective may give many of you hope, and, secondly, it's an amazing rush to stand in front of six thousand people and talk about yourself.

After graduating in May, I moved to Los Angeles and got a three week contract at a small cable show. I got a $380 a month apartment and bought a 1977 Isuzu Opel, a car Isuzu only manufactured for a year because they found out that, technically, it's not a car. Here's a quick tip, graduates: no four cylinder vehicle should have a racing stripe. I worked at that show for over a year, feeling pretty good about myself, when one day they told me they were letting me go. I was fired and, I hadn't saved a lot of money. I tried to get another job in television but I couldn't find one.

So, with nowhere else to turn, I went to a temp agency and filled out a questionnaire. I made damn sure they knew I had been to Harvard and that I expected the very best treatment. And so, the next day, I was sent to the Santa Monica branch of Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. When you have a Harvard degree and you're working at Wilson's House of Suede and Leather, you are haunted by the ghostly images of your classmates who chose Graduate School. You see their faces everywhere: in coffee cups, in fish tanks, and they're always laughing at you as you stack suede shirts no man, in good conscience, would ever wear. I tried a lot of things during this period: acting in corporate infomercials, serving drinks in a non-equity theatre, I even took a job entertaining at a seven year olds' birthday party. In desperate need of work, I put together some sketches and scored a job at the fledgling Fox Network as a writer and performer for a new show called "The Wilton North Report." I was finally on a network and really excited. The producer told me the show was going to revolutionize television. And, in a way, it did. The show was so hated and did so badly that when, four weeks later, news of its cancellation was announced to the Fox affiliates, they burst into applause.

Eventually, though, I got a huge break. I had submitted, along with my writing partner, a batch of sketches to Saturday Night Live and, after a year and a half, they read it and gave us a two week tryout. The two weeks turned into two seasons and I felt successful. Successful enough to write a TV pilot for an original sitcom and, when the network decided to make it, I left Saturday Night Live. This TV show was going to be groundbreaking. It was going to resurrect the career of TV's Batman, Adam West. It was going to be a comedy without a laugh track or a studio audience. It was going to change all the rules. And here's what happened: When the pilot aired it was the second lowest-rated television show of all time. It's tied with a test pattern they show in Nova Scotia.

So, I was 28 and, once again, I had no job. I had good writing credits in New York, but I was filled with disappointment and didn't know what to do next. I started smelling suede on my fingertips. And that's when The Simpsons saved me. I got a job there and started writing episodes about Springfield getting a Monorail and Homer going to College. I was finally putting my Harvard education to good use, writing dialogue for a man who's so stupid that in one episode he forgot to make his own heart beat. Life was good.

And then, an insane, inexplicable opportunity came my way . A chance to audition for host of the new Late Night Show. I took the opportunity seriously but, at the same time, I had the relaxed confidence of someone who knew he had no real shot. I couldn't fear losing a great job I had never had. And, I think that attitude made the difference. I'll never forget being in the Simpson's recording basement that morning when the phone rang. It was for me. My car was blocking a fire lane. But a week later I got another call: I got the job.

So, this was undeniably the it: the truly life-altering break I had always dreamed of. And, I went to work. I gathered all my funny friends and poured all my years of comedy experience into building that show over the summer, gathering the talent and figuring out the sensibility. We debuted on September 13, 1993 and I was happy with our effort. I felt like I had seized the moment and put my very best foot forward. And this is what the most respected and widely read television critic, Tom Shales, wrote in the Washington Post: "O'Brien is a living collage of annoying nervous habits. He giggles and titters, jiggles about and fiddles with his cuffs. He had dark, beady little eyes like a rabbit. He's one of the whitest white men ever. O'Brien is a switch on the guest who won't leave: he's the host who should never have come. Let the Late show with Conan O'Brien become the late, Late Show and may the host return to Conan O'Blivion whence he came." There's more but it gets kind of mean.

Needless to say, I took a lot of criticism, some of it deserved, some of it excessive. And it hurt like you wouldn't believe. But I'm telling you all this for a reason. I've had a lot of success and I've had a lot of failure. I've looked good and I've looked bad. I've been praised and I've been criticized. But my mistakes have been necessary. Except for Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. That was just stupid.

I've dwelled on my failures today because, as graduates of Harvard, your biggest liability is your need to succeed. Your need to always find yourself on the sweet side of the bell curve. Because success is a lot like a bright, white tuxedo. You feel terrific when you get it, but then you're desperately afraid of getting it dirty, of spoiling it in any way.

I left the cocoon of Harvard, I left the cocoon of Saturday Night Live, I left the cocoon of The Simpsons. And each time it was bruising and tumultuous. And yet, every failure was freeing, and today I'm as nostalgic for the bad as I am for the good.

So, that's what I wish for all of you: the bad as well as the good. Fall down, make a mess, break something occasionally. And remember that the story is never over. If it's all right, I'd like to read a little something from just this year: "Somehow, Conan O'Brien has transformed himself into the brightest star in the Late Night firmament. His comedy is the gold standard and Conan himself is not only the quickest and most inventive wit of his generation, but quite possible the greatest host ever."

Ladies and Gentlemen, Class of 2000, I wrote that this morning, as proof that, when all else fails, there's always delusion.

I'll go now, to make bigger mistakes and to embarrass this fine institution even more. But let me leave you with one last thought: If you can laugh at yourself loud and hard every time you fall, people will think you're drunk.

 

In the advent of computers and internet, computer cafés seem to sprout rapidly in random places. The computer environment has bred various personalities at present, namely: the hopeless romantics, the geek dudes and the hedonist. The salient feature of a hopeless romantic computer user is his/her number of accounts in various social networking sites. They are the ones who are willing to pay an extra amount of money for a good webcam and a headset with microphone. With make-up to boot, they put on their best smile as they turn on their webcam and chat with random people of their interest. They are the ones who usually catches your attention with their loud voice and peculiar English. These hopeless romantics are very active in their social networking sites. They even prefer multicultural chat mates online than our very own native counterparts, which explains the uniqueness of the way they speak English. Next are the geek dudes. Don’t get me wrong, but these geeks are not the bullied and “uncool” ones. They are the champions in the computer game world. Do not be surprised if you sit next to a geek dude and he randomly bursts out game jargons – it’s normal. Do not even try to get close to him if he is cursing the computer and having a bad game, or you might get hit by a keyboard. Lastly, the hedonists are different and more distinct from their latter counterparts. They are usually silent and they prefer to sit at the dark and silent parts of the café. At first glance, you might have them mistaken as normal computer users. However, they surf for something more profound... Yes, put blatantly, they surf the internet for porn. And if you get to blame someone for spreading strong computer viruses, these are the people behind it – silent and sexually frustrated.