So far, December has been a month of mixed messages in terms of economic indicators here in the Philippines. While the seemingly contradictory data might be taken as a sign of a weakening economy, we believe that a closer look shows there are positive portents for the beginning of the new year.

On the negative side, there is a somewhat wider trade deficit for the month of October (with official data due out today, Tuesday), a peso that has weakened slightly after earlier gaining strength, signs of slower credit growth, and less business and consumer optimism for this quarter and next.

On the positive side, gross international reserves (GIR) for November marked a three-month high. Central bank data released on Friday showed that gross reserves rose to $75.486 billion in November, representing a 1.03-percent increase from October and the biggest since August, when the GIR stood at $77.933 billion.

Although the reserves figure for November was only slightly higher than the preceding month, what the central bank mentioned as partially tempering the rise were payments made by the national government for its foreign exchange obligations, which should also be viewed positively for the economy from a longer-term perspective.

The economy also showed other favorable factors, such as the savings rates among Filipino households being higher, and of course, inflation seems to have turned a corner, easing slightly to 6 percent in November from a nine-year high of 6.7 percent the previous two months.

All of this is happening against a backdrop of a global economy that seems increasingly unstable. Given the fact the Philippines is so reliant on external resources — such as remittances and BPO revenues — concerns that external turmoil will affect us here are not completely unjustified.

Things are not quite what they seem, however. As a recent report by HSBC explained, the higher trade deficit can be attributed to capital imports needed for infrastructure development; this will have a significant multiplier effect.

Slowing credit growth, in the context of concerns about debt bubbles, reflects the conservative approach of the country’s stable banking system. Add to these factors the near-certainty of higher remittances in this holiday month, not to mention the recent declines in oil prices, prospects for at least the first part of 2019 are looking bright.

The lesson in all of this is that the most accurate picture of the economy is the biggest one, and taking precipitous action on the face value of a few indicators is unwise.

In other words, don’t panic. The world may not be in the best shape, but we are well-equipped to weather any coming storms.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

For the first time in 29 years, the 21 countries in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum this week could not agree on a declaration to mark the 2018 meeting of leaders in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

In this era of high-tech and high-speed communications, this year’s meeting will probably be described as a “low-batt” summit because of its perceptible lack of energy and harmony.

Both Presidents Donald Trump of the United States and Vladimir Putin of Russia sent their second-stringers to the summit. Only President Xi Jinping of China was on hand to represent his country.

President Rodrigo Duterte was even initially reported as cutting short his visit to Port Moresby, although he changed his mind and stayed for the meeting of leaders.

The Associated Press described the 2018 summit as an “acrimonious meeting of world leaders” when the leaders failed to agree Sunday on a final communique. That was seen as highlighting the widening divisions between global powers China and the US.

The 21 APEC nations struggled to bridge their differences on the role of the World Trade Organization, which governs international trade. They settled on a statement to be issued, instead, by the meeting’s chair, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

“The entire world is worried” about tensions between China and the US,” O’Neill told reporters after he confirmed that there would be no communique from leaders.

The problem once again was the differing visions of the future by China and the US. For several summits now, the two nations have offered divergent routes toward the future in their preferred policy on global trade.

Draft versions of the proposed communique at Port Moresby, as reported by AP, showed that the US wanted strong language against unfair trade practices that it accused China of perpetrating. China, on the other hand, wanted a reaffirmation of opposition to protectionism and unilateralism in which, it said, the US was engaging.

The two-day summit in PNG, therefore, wound up underlining the rising rivalry between China and the US for influence in the Pacific. US Vice President Mike Pence and Chinese President Xi Jinping even traded sharp barbs in their speeches.

Pence accused China of luring developing nations into a debt trap through the loans it offered for infrastructure.

Xi said the world was facing a choice between cooperation and confrontation as protectionism and unilateralism grew. He said a trade war would produce “no winners.”

Where this tit-for-tat leaves the Asia-Pacific and APEC is unclear.

This could revive interest in the words of former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who memorably described APEC as “four adjectives in search of meaning.”

As in the beginning, APEC could be engaged again in an acute search for coherence. Ironically, Evans was one of the architects or midwives of APEC when it was born in 1989.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

Amid the somber thoughts of Lent, poor families may find temporal solace in the announcement by the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) on Monday that the free college education program will start this June, and will be extended to more qualified students.

More than 200 schools are expected to stop collecting tuition and other fees this coming school year.

That is after CHEd Commissioner/officer-in-charge Prospero de Vera 3rd introduced the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act” (Republic Act 10931), or the free college education law, as well as the IRR for the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST under Republic Act 10687).

Sen. Paolo “Bam” Aquino had endorsed this program, saying that RA 10931 would ensure that Filipino students would enjoy free education in state universities and colleges, CHED-accredited local universities and colleges and TESDA-accredited technical-vocational institutions.

This would also give support to underprivileged students in private colleges and universities through a Tertiary Education Subsidy and a Student Loan Program.

For its first year of implementation, the free college education law will allocate a P40 billion subsidy as follows: P16 billion as tertiary education subsidy (TES), P7 billion for a technical-vocational education and training (TVET) program, P1 billion for the student loan program, and P16 billion for free higher education.

Under the TES portion of the program, subsidy will be granted to a greater number of poor schoolchildren seeking a college degree — with the number raised to 300,000 from the originally set 20,000 beneficiaries.

Additionally, payments to use a computer, library and laboratory, as well as miscellaneous costs such as athletic, development, registration, cultural, computer, school ID, admission, entrance, guidance and medical/dental services will also be borne by the government.

The provision also allows students to apply for “books, supplies, transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses” allowance while “poor but academically-able” students and students with “disabilities” will be provided with separate stipends.

The program will also have provisions for minorities. The law signed by President Duterte in 2017 would benefit 112 state universities and colleges (SUCs) 78 local colleges and universities (LCUs), and technical education skills and authority-registered institutions.

We agree with OIC de Vera when he said the free college education law “is the most important mandate the commission must ensure.”

During this time of reflection, it is heartening to find a piece of good news such as this. The law’s principal author in the House of Representatives, Albay Rep. Joey Sarte Salceda, said this law will usher in the “next wave social revolution in building a more egalitarian society.”

All these are intended to bring hope for hundreds of thousands of our young generation of Filipinos who dream of educating themselves out of poverty but might otherwise remain destitute without help from a government program such as this.

Worse, they may be thrust deeper into a life of misery and become prey to the evils of addictive drugs and alcohol, which the Duterte administration has made its number one enemy.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

The establishment and adoption of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome on July 17, 1998 could be regarded in every respect as a difficult one, like a Caesarean birth.

At birth, the Rome Statute of the ICC was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States and Yemen.

Following 60 ratifications by state parties, the Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002 and the International Criminal Court was formally established.

The Philippines was one of the 120 countries that signed the Rome Statute in 1998. It became the 117th state party to the Rome Statute in August 2011, when the Philippine Senate ratified the multilateral treaty.

The Philippines is by no means the first state party to signify its intent to withdraw from the ICC and reject the Rome Statute.

In October 2016, after repeated claims that the Court was biased against African states, Burundi, South Africa and Gambia announced their withdrawals from the Rome Statute.

Foreign policy experts believe that Kenya, Namibia and Uganda may soon follow in withdrawing from the court. All this signifies a mass African exodus.

The Court has been hard put to explain to the world why it has prosecuted only black African leaders, and why not a single leader from another continent has been prosecuted. The accusation of bias was dead on.

With the Philippines’ withdrawal citing also the ground of bias, along with a lack of due process and fraud, the ICC faces a new front of opposition from Asia. Ironically, over the years, the Philippines has been a staunch promoter of the Court in Southeast Asia. It has sought to persuade Thailand, Indonesia and other Asean states to join the Court.

Now, the situation is reversed, as the Philippines has joined the exodus from the ICC. At this point, there may be no stopping an avalanche of withdrawals from the Court. The position of the ICC today is, to say the least, problematic, and its future is uncertain.

As of October 2017, 123 states were parties to the Statute of the Court, including all the countries of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half of Africa. A further 31 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.

The law of treaties obliges the state parties to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty.

Four signatory states — Israel, Sudan, the US and Russia — have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become state parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.

Forty-one United Nations member states have neither signed nor acceded to the Rome Statute. Some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.

In this time of acute second-guessing and review of the ICC, we think it is worthwhile to recall the stance of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher being staunchly opposed to the creation of the ICC, which was then being spearheaded by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Mrs. Thatcher predicted that Annan’s vision was more likely to turn into a nightmare, because of the following reasons:

• First, because the court is more likely to bring action against the soldiers or statesmen of generally law-abiding countries, rather than those of the rogue states.
• Second, because the proposed judicial institution would require a global police force, or in embryo a global government, in order to ensure that its decisions are carried out.
• Third, because, to whatever extent it is effective, it will render the West’s capacity to intervene less effective.
• Fourth, because it is the latest and most powerful expression of the trend toward the internationalization of justice, that will itself lead to injustice.

She concluded her critique saying: “This is no way to make law – any law. It is a recipe for confusion, and it provides endless scope for interpretation and so opportunities for bias. This is what we can expect from the International Criminal Court unless we stop it.”

Looking at the situation of the ICC today, Mrs. Thatcher’s words have come to pass.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

It’s really time the Philippines pays serious attention to how India solves Third World problems in a practical and inexpensive but ingenious Third World way. And follow suit.

MA. Isabel Ongpin

An example is the way they conduct their elections, which is actually the largest electoral event in the world with their huge population of more than a billion people and an electorate of 814 million-plus voters from the last election in 2014. It is the world’s largest election. It takes place in phases (nine) and in all of six weeks. From the mountain villages in the Himalayas to the deserts of Rajasthan to the islands on the Indian Ocean and on to their teeming states and cities, it is an epic event. About five million electoral workers are involved in more than 935,000 polling places. It is managed with the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) invented by an Indian using a 6-volt alkaline battery (made in India). As a parliamentary democracy, India has 1,600 parties. They are shown as symbols on the EVMs; the voter presses the button (blue) on the symbol of the party he chooses and it is quickly recorded and verified with a slip of paper that spills out showing the name of the voter, his vote, serial number of the ballot, etc. This is called the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail which is evidence that the vote has been counted. The button cannot be pressed again, so no multiple voting can occur. No electricity is required with the use of the 6-volt battery.

I am sure a Filipino techie can duplicate this EVM, or perhaps we should get a license to replicate it here and be done with Smartmatic and its dubious machines.

In truth, Indian engineering is at par with the best of the developed countries. India has notable engineering schools like the Indian Institute of Technology established all over the country taking in students that master its tough courses to get a degree and go on to design all kinds of machines, computer applications, inventions and other innovative solutions to problems without throwing money into them, emphasizing instead ingenuity, practicality and low cost. With Indian engineering prowess at hand and nearby, shouldn’t we tap it for our infrastructure projects?

Another thing I noticed from my visit to India late last year was the excellence of their expressways. Well-built, and easy to navigate, these roads take in everything from cars and buses and to tricycles, tractors, motorcycles, bicycles. They are for everybody. The driving may be a bit scary but apparently it is the norm and the expressways can take it. They are not overwhelmed and they don’t have traffic jams.

India has also pioneered and solved the pharmaceutical needs of its population by coming up with generic drugs.

Through research, use of patents in the public domain and their ability to manage the industry in a huge but less capital-intensive way compared to other countries, they are a leading drug manufacturer in the Third World with drugs for every need, disease and emergency. It is not at the mercy of Big Pharma as we seem to be. And they have survived Big Pharma’s attempts to shut them down. In the process, they have provided affordable medicines to their general population and other Third World countries at affordable prices. It would be a good move on our part to source our pharmaceutical needs from India. It will save us a lot of money compared to buying drugs from multilateral drug manufacturers from the West.

Government support for small and medium industries was also observed on our trip to India. Small textile manufacturers could rent buildings to use for spinning thread and weaving textiles at subsidized prices in zones set aside for the purpose. Indian electricity rates are a fraction of ours.

Another admirable accomplishment of India is that they have been self-sufficient in food for a number of decades now. Not that their agricultural problems have been solved as farmers sometimes are in deep debt leading to high suicide rates. But on the whole, the days of famine and outright hunger from lack of harvests is over.

Publishing is also a thriving industry there with international connections. Many books from all over the world are published in India at lower cost but high in quality. English is widely spoken and books in English from all over the world are readily available at lower prices.

What I am trying to say is that India should be looked at for its solutions to Third World problems with the judicious use of scarce capital. The Indian economy is booming and expected to hit 7 percent growth this year. There are many lessons for us to learn from this country.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

The World Bank has commended the Philippines’ support system for its overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) as a model for other Southeast Asian countries, and as a vehicle for regional economic integration.

Advertisements

This is significant and far-reaching.

It proves that our government is doing the right thing in pressing forward with the bold and far-sighted program that began under the government of President Ferdinand Marcos during the 1970s.

It proves that our achievement of having some 10 million Filipinos in productive employment abroad did not come by accident. Filipino overseas workers contribute over $26 billion annually in remittances to the economy, and account for 9.8 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP).

It proves that we have worked effectively in building the institutional mechanism and processes to attend to the welfare and protection of our OFWs.

The World Bank extolled the Philippines’ support system for migrant labor in its recent “Migrating to Opportunity” report. The Washington-based multilateral lender said the Philippines has a migration system with clearly defined institutional responsibilities.

WB said in the report: “In the Philippines, several migrant-focused agencies are housed mostly within the Department of Labor and Employment. Their roles and responsibilities are well-defined, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency responsible mainly for managing migration and the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration responsible mainly for protecting migrants.”

The bank noted further that in the Philippines, recruitment agencies must attend an orientation seminar prior to receiving a license and a continuing education seminar for license renewal.

The government also provides a listing of job opportunities available abroad through the job advertising site JobStreet.com and offers an orientation program to workers contemplating migration.

The lender also lauded the Pre-Employment Orientation Seminar (PEOS) for potential migrants, which includes modules on working overseas, job search, illegal recruitment, allowable fees and the essential provisions of the employment contract, and country-specific information.The PEOS is mandatory but can be completed online at no cost.

It is in this broad context that the WB commends the Philippine example as a good model for other Southeast Asian countries and as a vehicle for regional integration.

Southeast Asia, the WB said, saw intra-regional migration increase significantly between 1995 and 2015. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand turned into regional hubs with 6.5 million migrants — 96 percent of the migrant workers in the region.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has taken steps to facilitate mobility but its regulations only cover certain skilled professions — doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, architects, accountants, and tourism professionals — or just five percent of jobs in the region.

Overall, the WB noted that migration procedures across Asean remain restrictive. Barriers such as costly and lengthy recruitment processes, restrictive quotas on the number of foreign workers allowed and rigid employment policies were said to be constraining workers’ employment options and their welfare.

The Philippines is not content to sit on its well- earned achievements in the management of labor migration. The government of President Rodrigo Duterte aims ambitiously to repatriate nearly all Filipinos who work abroad today. It aims to create some 12 million jobs during its term.

It has also set in motion the creation of a bank to service the needs of overseas workers and their families.

In sum, we have a dynamic and effective program for labor migration, and a government that builds on a commendable legacy.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

The number of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cases in the country may not be the highest in the world at this point, but the alarming spread of infections has prompted a recent study by the UNAIDS to conclude that the Philippines has the fastest growing HIV epidemic in Asia Pacific.

The 2017 UNAIDS report showed that the number of new infections in the Philippines rose by 140 percent to 10,500 in 2016 from 4,300 in 2010.

The report released on Aug. 1, 2017 prompted Akbayan Sen. Risa Hontiveros to ask the government to declare a national emergency to mobilize resources and tap the latest available modes of intervention.

The epidemic has shifted from female sexual workers as HIV carriers, through which the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is transmitted, to men having sex with men and transgender women having sex with men.

Two out of three new HIV infections are 15 to 24 years old, particularly men who have sex with men.

The HIV epidemic is a national emergency, according to the head of the AIDS Research Group of the Health department’s Research Institute for Tropical Medicine.

“Dr. Rossana Ditangco warned that the government’s current approach to the epidemic means that ‘we can’t control the rapid rise of HIV infection’,” according to a separate report by the Human Rights Watch.

“The sharp rise in new HIV infections in the Philippines since 2010 stands in sharp contrast to decreasing or stagnant rates of new infections in other parts of the Asia-Pacific region,” the HRW report noted.

Before the situation gets any worse, the government must heed the call to declare a national emergency on HIV-AIDS to institute intervention and turn the tide on the epidemic.

Amid official expressions of concern, the government continues to delay the rollout of proven low-tech and low-cost interventions that can address the spread of HIV among men who have sex with men, the HRW has warned.

“Instead, it should immediately implement the recommendations from a recent Human Rights Watch report and remove current official obstacles to condom access and usage as well as ensure that schools include safer sex and HIV prevention education in the curriculum,” according to HRW.

The government should also reactivate harm reduction programs targeting injecting drug use, particularly in Cebu City, it said. Likewise, the government needs to step up its efforts to eliminate stigma and discrimination, which are key factors in discouraging or preventing key affected populations from being tested or treated.

The worsening severity of the Philippines’ HIV epidemic is unquestionable. The government needs to demonstrate that it is finally willing to adequately address it.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

Like it or not, the Philippines needs to have more friends in the global community, real friends who will offer real support in times of trouble, like a threat of war from China. And building bridges to other countries, instead of burning well-established foreign relationships, resonates well with the “Build, Build, Build” program of Dutertenomics.

Duterte has made it clear that he is not a war-time President and has no intentions of going to war with China, which makes building bridges and cementing ties with other countries the right path to pursue.

Strengthening ties with other world leaders, as the President has done with Indonesia’s Joko Widodo, and making friends with the legitimate global economic powers is a wiser thing to do than to burn bridges with America, the United Nations and the European Union.

China must stop its bullying tactics and show the world its actions speak louder than words by not threatening its smaller neighbors in the region with armed confrontation, considering that the supposed objective of its recently launched One Belt, One Road initiative is peace and prosperity for the global community. Yet it is threatening the Philippines—its avowed friend—with a military response if Manila starts digging for oil within the country’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea.

The situation highlights the need for President Duterte to be building bridges and creating avenues to the global community by maximizing his six-year term to strengthen foreign relations. By taking this path, the President is also paving the way for the country to grow in its role in the global market. Another plus factor in this approach is the support of other nations that could rally the global community against any threat of war.

This year is a window of opportunity for the Philippines to do just that as host and chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) of the 2017 annual meetings as the regional bloc grows in economic scale and influence. Singapore will take over the rotating chairmanship of Asean next year, and Australia is hosting a special Asean-Australia summit in Sydney in March 2018.

Maybe it’s time other Asean member states—Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam—started rethinking their position regarding overlapping claims in the South China Sea, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in mind. It seems a wise and proper thing to do to have the dispute settled in court.

In July 2014, China opposed a Philippine attempt at offshore exploration in the Reed Bank, which forms part of the continental shelf of Palawan, as invalid and illegal, claiming the area was part of Chinese jurisdiction. The Philippines ignored the opposition as the area, also called Recto Bank, was 85 miles offshore and fell within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The Department of Energy also extended the service contract of Forum Energy and Philex Petroleum Corp. to continue drilling in the Reed Bank until August 2016.

The government eventually stopped the drilling activity in February 2015. In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines, giving the country sovereign rights to its 200-mile exclusive economic zone and invalidating China’s claim to most of the South China Sea.

When threats of war are raised by one nation against another, other nations usually make public statements of support for one or the other, or that they are against any armed conflict as happened when the US threatened to bring war to the Korean Peninsula. China and Japan made their respective declarations of support. Asean, with the Philippines at the helm, even issued an official statement calling for peace.

Keeping old friends and making new ones would serve the Philippines well, making the path to building bridges to other nations not only the right way but also an important, significant and urgent thing to pursue.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

In his observations of life cycles under the heavens, King Solomon of ancient Israel noted 14 dichotomies from birth and death to war and peace. His point was to show the world that God has a plan for everyone and that each cycle is an opportunity to realize that without Him it is impossible to discover lasting solutions to the problems of life and living on earth.

Here is how Solomon, regarded by bible scholars as the wisest man who ever lived, described the cycles of life (Tyndale Life Application Study Bible, New International Version):

“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heaven:

“a time to be born and a time to die,
“a time to plant and a time to uproot,
“a time to kill and a time to heal,
“a time to tear down and a time to build,
“a time to weep and a time to laugh,
“a time to mourn and a time to dance,
“a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
“a time embrace and a time to refrain,”
“a time to search and a time to give up,
“a time to keep and a time to throw away,
“a time to tear and a time to mend,
“a time to be silence and a time to speak,
“a time to love and a time to hate,
“a time for war and a time for peace.”

Judging by the latest US military actions, Washington seems to have set the tone for belligerent days ahead, reflecting the confrontational stance of President Donald J. Trump, the elected leader of the most powerful nation in the world in terms of its economy and military might.

China’s foreign affairs ministry has noted the tit for tat between Pyongyang and Washington, labelling it a gathering of storm clouds over the stand-off between North Korea and the US, warning of how volatile the situation is, a situation that may soon precipitate an armed conflict between a belligerent Trump and an equally truculent North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

With the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group sailing towards the Korean Peninsula, China is scrambling to resolve the situation diplomatically, especially after Kim displayed his armaments in Pyongyang to mark the 105th anniversary of his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, the founding President of North Korea on Saturday. Apparently, Beijing, the backer of Pyongyang, does not want war raging in its own backyard. Especially since Trump’s mettle in dealing with provocations from recalcitrant states has been tested in the last two weeks after Washington unleashed 59 Tomahawk missiles in Syria and dropped a 21,000-lb non-nuclear bomb over Afghanistan.

South Korea will definitely be involved. A staunch ally of the US, the South hosts some 28,500 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines deployed in 15 military bases. Japan’s National Security Council is now brainstorming how to evacuate some 57,000 Japanese citizens in the South, and deal with a new wave of boat people from North Korea washing up along its western coast should war break out.

Around 63,000 Filipinos live and work in South Korea. The Philippine government must start formulating strategies on how to evacuate its citizens from Seoul and other cities, so that when the time comes it will not be a time to mourn but a time for celebration for a country that takes care of its people, whoever and wherever they are in the world. Time is of the essence.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

Today is International Women’s Day, a collective day of global celebration of the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women, but also a call to do much more to achieve parity.

Since the United Nations adopted March 8 as the annual day for women in 1975, it has chosen a theme for each year’s celebration. This year it is “Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030” — weird bureaucratic shorthand for a call to transform the world of work where structural barriers continue to hinder women, and to accelerate moves to achieve the goal of gender equality by 2030.

Where do women stand today in the world of work? Apart from well-worn feminist concerns such as the wage gap, labor force participation, paid parental leave and violence against women, matters of social justice involving such issues as migrant rights, unpaid work and child protection are now considered as going hand in hand with women’s rights.

Getting a lot of attention in academe and development circles is the issue of unpaid work. Women bear a disproportionate burden–more than double the work of men–of unpaid work around the world–cooking, cleaning, taking care of children and the elderly and farm work. Women’s unpaid work fills in for lack of expenditures in public services and infrastructure. And yet, the value of unpaid work is not recognized in countries’ national accounts. It is thougt that unpaid care and domestic work make up of from 10 to 39 percent of GDP.More than this, the lack of social recognition of this valuable contribution of women leads to discrimination and low statusof women.

Where do Filipino women stand in relation to gender equality in the world of work?

Filipino women enjoy greater equality than those in other parts of Southeast Asia, ranking seventh in the world in the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index, as measured in terms of gender equality, political empowerment, health and survival, economic participation and opportunity. It is ranked 17th worldwide and third in Asia in terms of political empowerment, a category that measures the gap between women and men at the highest level of political decision-making

Education and literacy levels of Filipino women have been higher for women than for men. Literacy rates have been consistently higher for girls than boys since 1989. The Commission on Higher Education reported 57.44 percent of female graduates (269,748) against 42.56 percent male graduates (199,906) in the academic year 2009-2010.

But this Filipino women’s edge in education and literacy over men is not reflected in the area of employment. Women still lag behind men in work force participation—despite a rise in the percentage of professionally licensed women in 2010 to 63.7 percent over men’s 36.3 percent. Men’s employment in 2012 is still significantly higher at 78.4 percent over women’s 50.4 percent.

What explains this astonishing gap between the genders in employment rates? Gender discrimination. According to the International Labor Organization (2013), labor market participation of women is lower than men because of “inadequate employment and decent work opportunities, domestic labor and care constraints and social norms.”

Echoing the unpaid work complaint elsewhere in the world, Filipino women are unable to pursue the same opportunities in the job market as the men because of cultural and social barriers. They are expected to do the bulk of domestic work, including child rearing and domestic chores, keeping them from the job market. Lack of child care facilities in the workplace hinders their opportunity to pursue higher-paying jobs.

Other factors have made it impossible for many Filipino women to combine family and work. These include high maternal and neonatal mortality rates and cultural and economic pressures that compel educated women to stay home and care for the family. Hence, women are condemned to spend more time in “unpaid work” like domestic tasks, stopping them from contracting paid employment. .

In 2011, 31 percent of working-age Filipino women were not in the labor force because of family duties, ILO said. Only three percent of men experienced the same.

In 2012, the Philippine Congress passed the RH Law that would have empowered women, allowing them control of their reproductive cycles so they could pursue an education, get better jobs and handle both family and work. The RH law’s implementation was delayed for two years because of court actions. In 2015, the Supreme Court, on a petition of anti-RH advocates, issued a TRO stopping the Department of Health from distributing a contraceptive implant that would prevent pregnancy for up to three years, on the mistaken notion that it would cause abortions. It also stopped the Food and Drug Administration from processing all pending applications for reproductive products and supplies. Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia said this would mean more maternal deaths, teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies. There is now a campaign to get the High Court to lift the TRO that is crippling the full implementation of a law that only aims to empower women and set them free.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

He spoke with much apparent deliberation when Pope Francis last Sunday, on his return trip from Poland, said to reporters, “I don’t think it is right to equate Islam with violence.”

He was absolutely right to say that Catholics could be just as deadly as Muslims. He had earlier refused to name Islam as the ideological culprit in the killing of an old priest, beloved of the people in a small town in northern France. The ISIS inspired Muslims raided a parish church while Mass was going on and slit the throat of the old parish priest. The gang took hostages.

“In almost every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. We have them too in [Christianity],” he said.

“If I have to talk about Islamic violence I have to also talk about Christian violence. Every day in the newspapers I see violence in Italy, someone kills his girlfriend, another kills his mother-in-law, and these are baptized Catholics.”

The Holy Father said religion was not the driving force behind the violence.

“You can kill with the tongue as well as the knife,” he said, in an apparent reference to a rise in populist parties fuelling racism and xenophobia.

Respect for bodily integrity

Point 2297 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this: “Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

It is unfortunate that because of the merciless attacks on innocent people by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), some politicians and government officials in Europe and the United States have begun to think that violence against Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims is an essential doctrine of the Islamic religion.

That mentality is wrong.

That mentality is like that of non-Christians who have come to think that corruption must be essential to the Christian Faith. For governments controlled by baptized Christians all over the whole world are riddled with corrupt officials.

Pope Francis counseled Europeans to look closer to home. He said “terrorism… grows where the God of money is put first” and “where there are no other options.”

“How many of our European young have we left empty of ideals, with no work, so they turn to drugs, to alcohol, and sign up with fundamentalist groups?” he asked.

Meanwhile, all mankind should not forget that conquering hordes of Christians at war with other Christian kingdoms who pillaged the “enemy” cities and committed atrocities against fellow Christians.

Peace and love for fellow man is the basic teaching of all religions, including Islam.

Point 2304 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.”

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

President Rody Dutuerte’s SONA could not possibly give details about every important program of his administration. But a SONA does mark for the people which activities a president thinks should be given top priority.

Disaster response together with disaster risk reduction should be treated as a high priority by any president. The people, specially the poorest among us, suffer a lot because of natural and recurring disasters brought about by heavy rains and typhoons. May God will the predicted earthquakes to never come. Our entire country suffers because these disasters cause heavy economic losses.

President Duterte apparently ranks disaster response as a high priority because he mentioned it along with some of the important concerns. He said, “We will continue to expand cooperation on human assistance, disaster response, maritime security and counter terrorism. We shall deepen security dialogues with other nations to build greater understanding and cooperation.” And in many parts of his speech, when talking about the environment and working with DENR Secretary Gina Lopez, he was obviously thinking of how to spare the people from suffering from weather and environmental degradation.

We agree with the civil society organization (CSO) Disaster Risk Reduction Network Philippines or NetPhils that the following are the most urgent and immediate priority acts the President and his DRR people should do–before anything else–for effective disaster risk reduction and management:

1. Certify as urgent the passage of an amendatory bill to Republic Act 10121 that will establish an independent National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority.

2. Certify as urgent the passage of a comprehensive legislation that will protect and promote the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs), especially in disaster and conflict-affected areas.

3. Direct the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) to immediately take action on Yolanda reconstruction and recovery issues and fast track implementation of reconstruction programs in Yolanda–affected areas particularly on resilient human settlements.

4. Direct the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to issue a clear policy guideline on the proactive use of the National DRRM Fund particularly for high risk and low-income LGUs.

5. Direct the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to intensify inclusive capacity building programs and ensure that Local DRRM Offices are functional and that permanent DRRM Officers are in place.

6. Direct the NDRRMC to create a program supporting the establishment of safe, resilient, and multi-purpose evacuation centers, prioritizing high-risk and vulnerable areas.

7. Direct the NDRRMC to issue a clear policy guideline to ensure inclusive participation and representation of CSOs at the local level.

8. Direct the NDRRMC to develop a Magna Carta for DRRM Workers and volunteers.

9. Direct the NDRRMC to ensure accountability of public officials as stipulated in Republic Act 10121.

NetPhils issued a press statement urging the President to really give this concern top priority. The statement contains these proposed actions.

We pray the President gets to read it or is at least made aware by his aides of this priority list.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

Social networks were both a curse and a blessing in the deadly shopping mall shooting in Munich, as police sometimes found themselves chasing fictitious leads and false alarms.

The 18-year-old gunman, a German-Iranian named David Ali Sonboly, also used the internet to plan and carry out his crime, in which he killed nine people and wounded 16 others.

Nevertheless, the social networks provided a valuable source of information and solidarity for the city’s frightened population during the long lockdown while the incident was going on.

As soon as the terrifying events started to unfold late on Friday afternoon, Munich’s police were quick to take to Twitter to try to keep the public informed about the confusing and fast-evolving situation.

“We’re working as fast as we can to apprehend the attackers,” they tweeted in German, English and French. “The suspects are still on the run. Please avoid public places. #munich #gunfire”. “Unconfirmed reports of more violence and possible #gunfire in the city center. Situation is unclear. Please avoid public areas.”

False alarms
But as social network users began to tweet and re-tweet their own experiences and versions of events, it rapidly became difficult for the police to retain an overview and in some cases differentiate between fact and fiction.

At one point, for example, there was a flurry of reports of another shooting in the city center, on the pedestrianized square called the Stachus not far from the main station.

But those reports turned out to be false.

Another headache for police were eyewitness accounts, photos and videos that were rapidly being uploaded onto the web.

Police were concerned that the attackers—at that point, they erroneously believed there might have been more than one—could track where officers were being deployed and in what numbers, thereby making them easier to evade.

In the end, the police desperately tweeted: “Please don’t take fotos or video of police action in order to avoid any helpful information for the suspects.”

Police chief Hubertus Andrae told ZDF public television late Saturday that the speed and volume of information, which needed to be verified was “challenging.”

The official Twitter account proved useful in keeping the public informed about the latest confirmed facts, such as the number of victims or the time and place of the next press conference.

But police themselves inadvertently helped fan some of the speculation by tweeting, for example, that the theory of a possible terrorist act was being looked at.

At one point, police felt compelled to publish a plea, “Please restrain any speculations—that would help us a lot!”

Lured via the internet
“Nowadays, in the age of social networks, it is no longer the police who have control over the quantity and timing of the release of information, but everyone,” said Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.

“There are sometimes advantages in that, as can be seen in the number of investigations that have been brought to a successful conclusion thanks to photos and videos taken by private individuals,” he told a news conference.

In the United States, for example, the investigation into the Boston Marathon attacks in 2013 was able to progress quickly as a result of such information.

“But it’s clear that rumors can spread rapidly and that isn’t always conducive to an accurate evaluation of the situation,” the minister said.

He praised the “fair” and “comprehensive” way in which police had communicated the recent attacks in Europe.

According to the interior ministry, the Munich gunman may have hacked a Facebook account to lure some of the victims to the McDonald’s fast-food outlet where the shooting began by offering them special discounts.

“I will give you whatever you want, for not a lot of money,” the online invite read, according to German media reports.

AFP

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

The Philippines faces prospects of slower growth this year because of external factors.

One such factor is the effect of Brexit on the world economy. With Brexit causing the European Union’s already sluggish economy to shrink further, Philippine exports to EU countries in 2016 may end up being less than half of last year’s.

A European freeze, notwithstanding the European countries not being as hot as the US or China or Japan, would also cool down their trade with other countries, including us.

At this point, it is already certain that Philippine exports growth this year will end up less than 2015’s.

The government has cut down its original export growth target of from 6.6 – 8.8 percent to 3 percent. This is a drop of more than 50 percent.

The export growth reductions were seen to be the result of Brexit.

Perhaps the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision in our favor in the complaint we filed against China over its takeover of our islets and reefs in the West Philippine Sea will also make China deal angrily with us in trade, commercial matters and tourism. So loss of exports to China will probably add to the export growth decline in 2016—and the coming few years.

The website of the Philippine Exporters Confederation includes on its lists of news items on July 14 the Philippine Star story headlined “Philippines likely to miss exports growth target this year.” The Times has a July 13 story, “Exports decline prompts focus on domestic market,” which contains the data in the Star story and a lot more.

That Star story by Richmond Mercurio has the lead: “The Philippines is unlikely to meet its exports growth target this year on account of the ‘Brexit’ event and the country’s continuing political tension with China, an export industry official said.”

The export industry official is Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc. President Sergio Ortiz-Luis, Jr., who is quoted as saying:

“Lately we have been saying we can’t meet it so we’re looking at the lower end of the target as a six percent growth is very ambitious.”

“So we expect a three percent growth for exports this year. We’re already at half of the year and we’re still negative so for us to be able to beat the target, we have to grow 20 to 25 percent and there’s no way we can get that,” he added.

Ortiz-Luis, who is also the private-sector vice chairman of the Export Development Council, surmises that his lower growth figures are likely also to be the NEDA’s updated numbers if it decides to revise the earlier target.

As if it has come to the rescue in the old cowboys vs Indians movies, ADB announced that it was increasing its aid to the Philippines.

The story on Wednesday, July 13, by The Times’ Mayvelin U. Caraballo said, “The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has expanded the areas where it is ready to support the Duterte administration and affirmed its commitment to boost assistance to the Philippines going forward.”

ADB President Takehiko Nakao had met with President Rodrigo Duterte to discuss how the bank could support the new government in its efforts to achieve sustainable growth, reduce poverty, and increase transparency in government affairs.

Mr. Nakao commended Duterte for his early efforts to consult the private sector, civil society, and other partners to ensure a level playing field for all businesses, and uplift the lives of poor Filipinos that make up one-fourth of our country’s population.

ADB’s increased aid will surely help us ward off economic blows delivered by China.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

The important thing about the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), as far as day-to-day life for Filipinos is concerned, is that our fishermen may continue to do what they and their ancestors have been doing since time immemorial—fish in the waters of the West Philippine Sea. Both because of that, and the affirmation of Philippine sovereignty over those waters, which are inside the UN definitions of what belongs in our EEZ (exclusive economic zone), we rejoice that the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration decided in our favor on Tuesday.

The international court nullified China’s nine-dash-line claim as a legal basis for maritime rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It said no feature—reef, rock and whatever—within the Spratly Islands chain is an island entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Because of this, the EEZ extending from our country’s shore gives us de facto jurisdiction over most of the waters in the Spratly Islands not covered by the territorial seas of other countries.

It is against China’s (1) nine-dash line that covers practically the entire South China, including some of our territorial waters and the features inside them, and (2) reclamation and building of structures on our islets and reefs that the Philippine case at the UN was lodged. China has, however, rejected as null and void the UN ruling even. As early as when the Philippines was filing the case, China had declared that it did not accept the UN Court’s jurisdiction and would not abide by its decision. China did not participate in the UN tribunal’s hearings, despite its being a signatory to the UNCLOS, the United Nations covenant that is supposed to govern member-states’ adherence to the laws of the sea. Taiwan, too, which claims to be the real and legitimate China as the Republic of China, has declared that it does not accept the tribunal’s ruling and will not abide by its decision.

Even Itu Aba, which Taiwan holds and calls Taiping Island, was ruled to be only a rock entitled, therefore, to only a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.

This means that no matter how monumental our victory in the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration, this does not amount to anything as far as the woes of Filipino fishermen are concerned. Our fishermen will still be harassed by Chinese in large and armed Chinese fishing vessels escorted by the Chinese Navy; these will continue to drive our Filipino fishermen away from fishing waters that are our sovereign territory. And Chinese expeditions will still come and destroy our corals in the process of stealing our rare and marine treasures.

This is what will happen because the officials, Coast Guard, Navy and people of Communist Party-ruled People’s Republic of China intransigently insist that our sovereign territorial waters belong to them.

Instead of us driving away Chinese fishing parties from our sovereign territory, they and the navy of the People’s Republic of China will drive away and fire water cannons and maybe machine guns on our fishermen, so that Chinese fisherman can have their way.

They have done this before. The complaints of our fishermen who are losing their livelihood and source of food for their families will go unrelieved—because we are a poor and small country that cannot match the wealth and armed might of nuclear power China.

The best that we can do, in the view of some who would not mind having China control the Philippines and make us its slavish running dog and milking cow at the same time, is just grin and bear our rape and humiliation. We must not dare fight China. We must give up our rights to our West Philippine Sea, and to other things we hold sacred, like honor and dignity, if we want to continue enjoying the goodwill of the second-richest and most powerful country in the world.

To many other Filipinos, who love our country as envisioned by Rizal, Bonifacio and the other great patriots, that is a fate worse than death.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

FORECAST
EU sanctions against Russia are all but guaranteed to remain in place through 2016, but Moscow will work in the second half of the year to get them eased in 2017.

Moscow will step lightly, however, to avoid provoking its European rivals ahead of the next sanctions vote.

Europe is not the only region affected by Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. The decision will also have significant effects on Russia, especially where sanctions are concerned. As the Continent focuses on mitigating and managing the fallout from the Brexit vote, it probably will have fewer resources to devote to problems beyond the European Union, namely those in Ukraine, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh — all areas where Russia plays a major role. The EU is also likely, at least in the immediate term, to have less interest in advancing its political and economic integration projects in the former Soviet periphery, such as the Eastern Partnership program.

Sanctions: Russia’s bugbear
Of particular import to Russia are the sanctions against it, which Moscow would like Europe to lift. The European Union first imposed the sanctions in March 2014, around the time that voters in Crimea resolved in a referendum to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The referendum was held in response to the February 2014 EuroMaidan uprising, which ousted then-President Viktor Yanukovich, an ally of Russia, in favor of a new pro-West government. When the European Union passed initial sanctions, they were limited to 21 people in Russia and Ukraine associated with the Crimea referendum. Beginning in May 2014, the European Union passed new sanctions related to the Russian-backed uprising in eastern Ukraine. These sanctions started as restrictive measures for associated individuals, but by September 2014 — when the fighting had intensified and after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down — they expanded to include companies and broader sectors of Russia’s economy. Since passing the measures unanimously, EU member states have reviewed them every six months, agreeing to extend sanctions in June 2015, in December 2015 and again in July 2016.

In upholding the sanctions, the European Union has maintained solidarity with the pro-West government in Ukraine and kept pressure on Russia for more than two years. But recent signs suggest that the bloc’s unity on the issue is becoming strained. Even before the Brexit vote, certain Russia-friendly countries in the European Union — including Italy, Greece and Hungary — pushed for greater discussion and debate on prolonging Russia sanctions. The countries’ leaders argued against an automatic extension of sanctions, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi even co-hosted a recent economic forum with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg. Of course, the pro-Russia sentiment has not sufficed to break the EU unanimity in an actual vote. Nonetheless, it reveals growing uncertainty over the future of the sanctions — regardless of whether Moscow complies with the Continent’s demands to implement the Minsk accords.

A budding opportunity
Nothing will test EU unity more than negotiating Britain’s exit from the bloc. Since the European Union has already decided to extend sanctions through the end of the year, discord on the Continent will not affect Russia immediately. It does, however, raise the possibility that the European Union’s long-standing consensus on sanctions could break by the time the next vote occurs, probably in January 2017. The United Kingdom was one of the biggest proponents of maintaining strong economic pressure on Russia. Now that its status in the bloc is uncertain, other countries may be more willing to diverge from its position — and Russia is ready to take advantage of any rifts. To that end, Moscow will likely encourage the exit campaigns of anti-EU figures such as France’s Marine Le Pen and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders while also ramping up its charm offensive on countries more critical of sanctions.

Even so, Moscow will be cautious in exploiting the divisions, well aware that any major action it takes — whether backing a military offensive in Ukraine or trying too aggressively to shape EU decision-making — could backfire and strengthen EU resolve against it. Furthermore, Russia is not immune to the economic repercussions of the Brexit, which crashed global markets. Despite the sanctions, Russia and the EU continue to conduct trade and financial activity with each other, albeit at reduced levels. As it is, Russia’s economy is already suffering the effects of low oil prices; a major political and financial crisis spreading throughout all of Europe is not in Moscow’s interests. Therefore, even as Moscow tries to capitalize on Europe’s rifts in time for the next sanctions vote, it will be careful not to overexert its influence. Lead Analyst: Eugene Chausovsky

©2016 STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

Today the British will vote in their “Brexit” referendum whether to stay in or exit from the European Union.

The United Kingdom applied for the first time to join what was then called the European Economic Community, in 1961. The Brit movers for membership were afraid their country would get politically isolated from Western Europe. At that time the USA’s and its allies’ Cold War with the Soviet Union was still ablaze.

UK’s bid for EEC membership had strong US support but the French Government (with Gen. De Gaulle as President) vetoed it in 1963 and also the second British application in 1967. Only on Jan. 1, 1973 did the UK (along with Denmark and Ireland) get to join the EEC.

At first opposed to EEC membership, the UK Labour Party wanted to renegotiate the membership but settled for a referendum to determine if the people of Britain really wanted to remain in the EEC. In the referendum held in 1975, 67 percent of the Brits voted to remain.

These days, polls show only a slight majority of the British public to be in favor of remaining.

This is because the Brits are doing very well compared to the countries of the EU, whose only solidly rich country is Germany. Europe seems to be in one kind of economic crisis after another.

The problem of refugees flooding into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa has become too much for the EU countries to bear. It has caused anti-immigrant militancy among the poor in nearly every European country. Terrorist ISIS bombings in Paris and Brussels and false-alarm news of new attacks are agitating Europeans, who have lost their former sense of security.

These tensions in the continent have made the anti-Europe side in Britain restive. For decades now they have been calling for their country’s exit from the EU.

Today’s Brexit referendum, if won by the Yes side, would still have to be ratified by the British parliament. The majority and ruling Conservatives would not dare go against the winning public vote.

But for all the mess that Europe is in, it is still in the British people’s best interest to stay in the EU and keep it whole. For if the UK exits it, some other countries, also fed up with having to bear the continent’s troubles and having to share their wealth with the poorer European countries that are always in need of aid, would promptly follow the British lead. Europe would then break up.

The UK would also lose a lot of the economic advantages it has in the continent as an EU member. For one, a lot of the British products that are sold in Europe tariff-free would cost more to EU customers. And it is, despite any cultural protests from Frenchmen, looked up to as the country that is EU’s political leader, and shares EU’s economic leadership with Germany.

It is not true, as Brexit proponents argue, that Britain would become stronger by leaving the EU. It would instead become weaker. And it would begin to face problems in dealing with countries in Europe—as an outsider.

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines