“Whatever he says we must obey and do” - is it so?

“Whatever he says we must obey and do” - is it so? 

Or “The ‘Two Whatevers’ of Duterte-Marcos duo” 

and how people dare to criticise it

Some days ago, this writer was reading a post about the “Two Whatevers” of former Chinese leader Hua Guofeng.   

This statement, which said "We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave" became a policy after Mao Zedong’s death and before the rise of Deng Xiaoping as paramount ruler of China.   

However, this author applied the adage in a another context, focusing on Filipinos who backed Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte months after they were elected president and vice president, respectively.   

That by employing the "Two Whatevers" in a local context, supporters of the so-called "Uniteam" believe that under the current Marcos regime, this means a chance to restore order, that of strongman rule, and by employing his predecessor's policies and instructions, albeit modified to suit his cause. However, seeing policies and instructions being modified (or mellowed down, distorted, or whatever according to some observers) proved to be different from what they had expected, especially when supporters from both the Marcos and Duterte factions began to emerge their differences, resulting in arguments despite claiming to be "united" in their goal of order and stability. Sorry to use the late Chinese leader’s words technically for knowing in the local context, people at first think that the current Marcos regime would also share some aspects of a Dutertist, especially when supporters wanted a strongman to remain “strong” in the eyes of many, driven by the need to restore order after decades of “yellow misrule” and therefore “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave” even it end riddled by intrigue and scandal amongst allies.   

Quite ridiculous isn’t it? Especially when supporters would think the regime would just retain decisions and instructions brought by its predecessor, if so, then how come Duterte’s supporters end sidelined by that from the Marcoses? How come their favorite agendas end rephrased as those from the past administrations if not discontinued? And now as the International Criminal Court moves ahead with the investigation related to Duterte’s extrajudicial killings, will the current administration defend his predecessor the way Duterte defend Marcos’s tarnished legacy in face of widespread criticism? These and others may also show the limits of these “whatevers” being observed by the current administration. Also wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t accept Duterte’s agendas as that of rephrased Aquino’s and Aquino’s from Arroyo’s, these include most decisions and instructions that end having its content rephrased yet the essence remains same. Of course supporters would beg to differ on this but reality bites- for these still benefit the same interest seekers while claiming to be that of “benefiting the people”. And therefore means ridiculous.  

For sure supporters would try to downplay this criticism as they cling to their perception that Marcos will “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave”- even it is tarnished due to scandal, intrigue, and its notoriety. But for the concerned who sought truth from facts, will this charade ever continue? As such, those who want the uniteam coalition to be the one to pierce the veil either have two choices; to double down or to drop out of this spectacle completely in the face of growing criticism. They’ve wished for a thermidor after the “yellow misrule”, what more of a restoration under the “new society”, the question is: which is which? Or will it be “as it is” in accordance with their own “two whatevers”?  

On critical thinking and artificial intelligence

On critical thinking and artificial intelligence  

Jose Mario D. De Vega   

The public, specifically the academe, has recently been confronted by both shock and awe at its latest challenge: artificial intelligence (AI). The issue started when a faculty from the University of the Philippines (UP) posted on social media the rambling essay of a student, expressing suspicion that AI might have been used to write it.   

The post prompted some UP faculty members to call for a review of the state university’s policies on academic integrity to include the use—or misuse—of AI in meeting class requirements. The faculty of UP Diliman’s AI Program “condemned the misrepresentation of AI outputs as valid scholarly works,” while also pushing for the use of the technology “to improve and encourage student learning.” Noted the faculty’s statement: “Manuscripts, graphic designs, videos, computer programs, and other academic requirements must be solely created by the student or group of students, as required by the instructor of the course. However, the use of AI tools to enhance and facilitate the students’ learning should be encouraged.”   

In my view, the enemy is neither the machine nor this latest technology, but rather individuals who refuse to think for themselves. Despite the possible danger of this app, the far more dangerous scenario is a society or body politic composed of unthinking members.   

Instead of shunning ChatGPT, professor Ramon Guillermo did something that to my mind is absolutely brilliant: he engaged the app in a conversation. The same was true of professor Randy David; not only did he download the app, but also tested its “intelligence.” His verdict? “Although it bore clear attempts at embellishment, the poem I prompted (about gray mornings and the stillness of the forest) came out flat and formulaic. The story I requested (on the pros and cons of AI) was too general, almost as if it was an attempt to expand the headings of a Wikipedia entry. But the outline (on the concept of globalization) was quite useful—at least as a starting point for a sensible discussion on the topic. Here, perhaps, is a way of repurposing a tool like this—use it to tease out your own thoughts on a given subject, a means to get out of the barren object fixation that a blank page can often induce.” (“AI and the challenge to education,” Public Lives, 1/22/23).   

I concur with the recommendation of the UP Diliman AI Program to conduct open forum discussions on the use of AI and its implication on academic matters, and for their peers to educate students on the proper use of AI tools, and embed these in their courses. UP must also revisit its definition of academic integrity to include AI, while also improving class requirements to include more critical and in-depth thinking. Of the four recommendations, the most important is the last one which is composed of three elements, namely: the improvement of academic requirements to include more in-depth critical thinking, scholarly discourse, and sound judgment.   

In his book, “The Critique of Judgment” (1790), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant laid down the three rules of thinking, namely: to think for ourselves, to think on the place of another, and to think objectively. The first rule is sapere aude or dare to know, which means that we must have the courage and the boldness to use the power of our own reason. The second rule refers to empathy or human solidarity. When we think for ourselves, we must also think of others. The last rule simply means that we must think and use our reason in a consistent manner, not only in an individual aspect but in a cosmopolitan or universal sense.   It is my belief that if we internalize these three rules, it will lead to the spark of critical thinking that will eventually generate scholarly discourse and reflection that will lead us to just, reasonable, and sound judgment.   Professor John Rawls in his book, “A Theory of Justice” (1971) continued Kant’s tradition: aside from thinking for ourselves, on the place of another, and consistently, he advanced the idea or the challenge of thinking that excludes accidental or historical labels. This is thinking that is no longer just critical but of a higher order, and one we need not only as individuals but as citizens of a fast-changing world.   

It is thus my ardent contention that no matter how great, fast, and powerful these latest apps and technologies are, as long as we use our head, maximize our reason, and think for ourselves, there is no way that machines will overwhelm or defeat us. In fact, I will reiterate: it is not us against the machine. How can a mere creature overpower its creator? Machines are not the enemy. Our opponent is the person who does not think. Our enemy is laziness, cowardice, indifference, pride, prejudice, and misplaced arrogance.   

***

Jose Mario D. De Vega is assistant professor at the Philosophy and Humanities Department of the National University’s College of Education, Arts, and Sciences.

This commentary was originally featured in Inquirer.net last January 25, 2023. 

“A warm ginger brew is enough”

“A warm ginger brew is enough”

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To stave hunger and thirst 

All after a new years walk 

And seeing folk’s joyful outburst 

Of seeing them in the streets 

Seeking good luck charms and treats 

Despite protocols one missed 

Luckily authorities ain’t pissed 

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To ease some of my worries 

After lighting up the incense 

And praying for my misery 

I pray to the sacred spirits and figures 

As to remove numerous obstacles 

Reminiscent of those seen in history pictures 

Such as those hoping for a miracle 

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To satisfy one’s mind and heart 

For I find it good to taste 

No matter how spicy it is from the start 

The merging of spice and sweetness 

Enough to ease one’s lingering illness 

If not a treat to stave away sadness 

Such as after a burst of madness

“36 years of struggle for land and justice: remembering Mendiola Massacre and the need for genuine agrarian reform”

“36 years of struggle for land and justice: 

remembering Mendiola Massacre and the need for genuine agrarian reform”

By Kat Ulrike 

Despite downplays and slander, peasants continue to assert the right to peace, land, bread, and justice in this 36th commemoration of Mendiola Massacre. Known as “Black Thursday” by journalists, this incident made last January 22, 1987 showed the order’s response to the growing clamour of peasants for agrarian justice- that of bullets and truncheons all in the name of “peace and order”, and still continues to be felt by its victims. 

For, like the Aquino administration and its “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program”, the current Bongbong Marcos regime "promised" land reform and farmer support in the same manner as CARP, but reality demonstrates that the interests of peasants and landowning politicians can never be reconciled, with exemptions granted to landlords thst have left thousands of peasants empty-handed and resigned to lives of poverty. 

Worse, to see farmers as they complained end harassed by state agents in the name of “counterinsurgency” and “antisubversion.” The passage of the Anti Terrorism Act and the creation of the NTFELCAC under the past Duterte administration led a string of harassments against the peasantry has showed that the peasant question remains regardless of how agrarian reform is being treated- that of silencing dissent as it only laid the groundwork for landlord-legislators and subsequent governments to maintain their grip over the rural population. Much like the aftermath of the Mendiola Massacre, for which no one was ever held accountable, local convictions of rogue law enforcement officers who in support of entrenched interests remain extremely rare.  

And it is not surprising that these may occur, just like under previous administrations. As the peasant question including Land reform has long been a contentious issue in the Philippines. Those who oppose agrarian reform even blame the program for slowing down productivity while applauding neoliberal economic policies for “providing access to food” in a form of imports- while forcing farmers to give up their land to developers for conversion to residential/or commercial purposes. Last year, Senator Cynthia Villar justified land conversion by saying that "farmers who sell their land to developers can buy agricultural land elsewhere and cultivate there instead," displaying her conceited attitude in light of issues relating to food security and sovereignty. The Rice Tarrification Law, which she defended on the grounds that it "liberalised rice importations and collected tariffs to fund development of the rice industry," would "benefit farmers in the long run," has caused farmers' earnings to decline in the face of less expensive rice imports.  

Such actions by the administration would imply that, regardless of their half-baked actions, the lack of justice and accountability for atrocities against the people (whether in Mendiola, Hacienda Luisita, or elsewhere), as well as persistent landlessness and agrarian unrest in the countryside, will continue to bring generations of farmers and the masses concerned to Liwasang Bonifacio to Mendiola year after year. And regardless of paper “laws” and half-baked/or empty promises, the long-standing concentration of land ownership among large landlords and agribusinesses traps smallholders, landless farmers and agricultural workers in a cycle of poverty, preventing them from controlling production or benefiting from their labour and produce. 

At present, prices of locally-produced foodstuffs such as onions rose high as middlemen and even markets trying to exploit the situation whether by artificial scarcity to that of depriving farmers accessibility for their produce. Authorities promised farmers and consumers to address the matter, but this becomes more than just smuggling, middlemen, or land developers exploiting the situation, but rather how the government treats food security, food sovereignty and the peasant question both agricultural reforms and land use seem to run inconsistent with the best interest of the farmers.  

In this commemoration, the struggle for land rights and better working conditions has once again been met with State and non-State repression, leaving farmers and the masses with no choice but to take their plight to the streets. Because the people who toil the land are also the ones who are most likely to suffer from hunger and food insecurity, they are at risk of being labelled as subversives for demanding land and justice, as their expressions of grievance are not always met with solutions, but rather with brutality. 

This note reiterates its support to genuine agrarian reform, rural development, and in protecting the rights of the people to life, food, and free speech. Authorities may parrot it two and fro these word stated, but given the realities that run contrary to their promises, the people’s struggle for peace, land, bread, and justice will ever continue even at the expense of their lives.

For glad tidings, good luck, and new hopes this Year of the Rabbit

For glad tidings, good luck, and new hopes 

this Year of the Rabbit

At first, this note bid greetings in the celebration of the Chinese New Year, with the year of the Rabbit.

Despite efforts to recover from the pandemic, people from all walks of life are clinging to their hopes of good luck in this season. As trinkets, good luck charms, and rice cakes are sold and brought by folks, this note would say that this year of the rabbit provides another chance to build up again and move forward with their lives all after years marred by the crisis. As shops, restaurants, all gradually having full operations and meeting growing people’s demands, shows this current year has gradually returning to “normal” albeit with emphasis on maintaining health protocols. 

Sorry to bring up those memories, but ever since COVID19 struck, everyone has prioritized people and life. Following some trials and errors, governments recognize the need for a science-based and targeted approach, and have adapted better COVID19 responses in comparison to previous attempts and in light of the evolving situation to protect both the life and health of the people to the greatest extent possible, attempting to balance health and economy in order to survive those pandemic-marred times. And now, with businesses and communities such as those in Binondo, Manila or in Banawe in Quezon City thriving, it is safe to say that everyone is looking forward to 2023, the year of the Rabbit, which represents kindness, intelligence, and vitality, all of which a nation requires.

In this Chinese New Year, this note hope that people will come together to face numerous challenges, to achieve numerous accomplishments in various fields, to pursue knowledge and truth to new heights, and to assert further the need for a lasting peace, true social justice, sound inclusive development, and human progress.

“Expect debates or disapproval regardless of its passage”

“Expect debates or disapproval regardless of its passage”

(Or “all after talks about the proposed Maharlika Wealth Fund this January 2023”)

By Kat Ulrike

As one may observe, that regardless of the strong controversy surrounding the creation of the Maharlika Wealth Fund, with all the debates and amendments, that the proposed sovereign wealth fund is likely to pass into law. For the act to establish the sovereign fund has already been adopted by the House of Representatives, the Senate has not yet had a chance to consider it. However, the Senate has designated the bill as one of its top legislative goals for this year, and it is also ruled by loyalists of the administration.

Furthermore, this proposed sovereign wealth fund in which the president also insist its passage as urgent, is supported by the President’s economic managers, led by the Secretaries of Finance, Budget, the National Economic Development Authority, and the governor of the central bank, together issued a manifestly strong statement in support of the bill to create the Maharlika Wealth Fund. 

However, with all the “support” from the government’s economic managers to that of the pro-administration legislators this administration-led railroading again shows this proposed law, claiming to be driven by the idea of the need to assist in funding the requirements of national development investments,  is but a politically motivated one, amidst having neither surplus funds, nor windfall gains such as from privatization of public assets, while natural resources end coveted by entrenched interests without any return to the nation. Worse, to see rising debt and a lot of priorities (education, social services) to address with. 

On the other hand, the idea of a sovereign wealth fund is long overdue as some legislators trying to pass laws similar to the proposed fund, albeit with certain differences (such as Senator Bam Aquino with his proposed Philippine Investment Fund Corporation (PIFC) that’s funded by surplus funds), but those were “good times” as the country had its surplus funds to begin with, but in this troubled times one would ask is this the time to venture into a high risk and untested scheme? And will that fund really benefit the country knowing that interest seekers like those bureaucrats/technocrats behind that proposed act wanting to siphon off its profits? 

Expect debates regardless of its passage, but admittingly speaking, there is nothing wrong with having a portion of the country's funds invested in stocks in major companies or in real estate, but the current situation makes one think otherwise- especially when a concerned person would critically think if those behind that proposed wealth fund, if enacted, truly adhere to principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability as it implements. In other words, being subjected to public scrutiny as public officials (elected or appointed) in the first place. Besides, implementing international best practices in investing and managing assets “in accordance with Generally Accepted Principles and Practices (“Santiago Principles")” for SWFs doesn’t translate to being well-managed especially when a bureaucrat/technocrat involved has interests to carry with.

But regardless of their words this doesn’t stop people from critically observing if not outrightly disagreeing the proposed act and the people behind it. Not because of the use of investible funds from two pension funds that is, unconstitutional; nor forcing the Central Bank and other Government Financial Institutions to put excess cash in the proposed entity. But rather the tendency of today’s interest seeking bureaucrats and “technocrats” to emphasise their own interest above that of the people and the nation. That even neoliberals like Drilon also express concern particularly the need for improving the economic setting, of addressing issues on education, healthcare, and the likes; all after the economy has slowed down because of the pandemic with prices and fares increasing- if not the blatant neoliberal thought that governments shouldn’t engage in economic matters and letting markets decide in it.

As for the really concerned, again would strongly oppose that Marcosian venture but on the grounds that there's a lack of a clear and solid provision to prioritize investments in rural development, agricultural modernization, industrialization, sufficient worker/employee representation in the fund's governing body, a mechanism to directly distribute profits to the people, and a provision to prioritize investments in "green" jobs (especially in the renewable energy sector) could potentially limit any real national devlopment.

Again, regardless of its urgency or its passage, expect discourses, debates, and protests towards that “Maharlika Investment Fund”. There are a lot of priorities to begin with, but as a concerned who noticed these would say that with no excess cash for a wealth fund what more the people involved with questionable backgrounds means a hard time to sell.

For according to professor Danilo Lorenzo Delos Santos of De La Salle University he said in an article from the Philippine Star last December 3, 2022:

 "It just doesn't fit the current puzzle we have that need to be prioritized such as that of post-pandemic recovery which, I think, will dominate and will be the proverbial measuring stick and probable legacy of the current Marcos administration," 

 "In a time of crisis, expansive policies should take a backseat to policies that seek to stabilize and seek recovery than lofty plans that may look good on paper but don't fit the overall need and economic narrative," he added.

“Again, Everyday is a Panata.”

“Again, Everyday is a Panata.”

“As the Catholic Faithful expresses their devotion to the Black Nazarene, let us also remember its deep rootedness in our Filipino culture of overcoming the great trials and tribulations in our midst. Indeed, it is through our faith that we can conquer the storms that loom ahead of us and bring forth a life filled with grace and steadfastness,” 

These are the words president Marcos jr. explained in his message on the feast of the Black Nazarene. Since people from all backgrounds come together to celebrate this holy occasion in the name of their shared faith, this note would like to express that in these trying times when people are attempting to recover from the pandemic or battling their inner demons as frail humans, they need assistance both physically and spiritually. And one way for them is to turn to God, to see Jesus in his appearance as the Black Nazarene, as they pray and seek forgiveness and assistance, or in this case as they march on in their bare feet and endure hardship in pulling the ropes to reaching the Black Nazarene’s hands, seeking for a pardon if not as most wanted-yearning for luck. 

And as an observer would say that during these "recovering" times, these people simply accept that the pandemic continues while donning face masks and being immunised with vaccines to maintain life. However, as followers of Christ, they must cling even more tenaciously to the faith knowing that nothing is impossible for them to recover their losses and to move forward with their lives, enjoying the festivities as those who enjoy sipping a glass of beer on the sidewalk. 

And to think that even though the custom of "Traslacion" and "Pahalik," or touching and kissing the image of the Black Nazarene, were still absent during this year's celebration due to the Covid-19 pandemic, would demonstrate "how strong their devotion is" as they continue to pray or yearn to reach the ropes and have sacred cloth wiped at the Black Nazarene as before the pandemic. But does their dedication, much less their faith as Christians, apply to their regular lives as ordinary citizens? Or just on Fridays during the celebration and their devotions, excluding when they go to church on Sunday? And upon reaching, feeling the spiritual fervour, is it for their soul that needs to be cleansed? Or for their material fantasies in the name of luck? Perhaps one forgets that as a devotee, that “in every kind of love, loyalty, and union, it must be daily” as what Cardinal Tagle said last 2019. 

And this separates devotees from fanatics. For as what Cardinal Tagle said again from his 2019 sermon: 

“First, true devotees give unconditional love to Christ; while fanatics only stick to those they benefit from. Secondly, a true devotee manifest loyalty to Christ; while fanatics stop their sacrifices once they stop getting what they want…Lastly, devotees are united with the one they love, be it in suffering, happiness, and sickness….” 

Thus one would say that such commitment to the Black Nazarene should be more than just celebrating the occasion alone  nor attending Friday devotions aside from attending Sunday masses. For everyday is a “panata” that includes being good to oneself and to fellowmen, of upholding truth and justice at all times, for without love and concern for others, a person’s devotion to God and to Jesus Christ is an empty phrase. 

 And this was expressed in a 2021 homily, as Bishop Reynaldo Evangelista of Imus told people to always aim at the image of God in their neighbor as he said: 

“No matter how strong our devotion to God is if we don’t have genuine concern for others, our devotion is not real. We must remember this,” 

“A true devotion to the Black Nazarene and even to other saints should be seen in the way we live, in caring, and helping especially those in need,” he added. 

Quite relevant isn’t it? Especially last 2021 was still marred by the pandemic and there was no “traslacion” yet. But what the Bishop said for the devotee is to cultivate a sense of concern  as Christ showed to his people. And that’s more than just having a ritual for it is a difficult commitment in showing genuine concern for others especially in these times of crisis. But what is important, according to the bishop, is to live life in the spirit of love and charity. 

 “Charity is where God is. We see God in all our expressions of love,” Evangelista added. “Love of God and love of neighbor are inseparable. It should always be together”.

But the question is, is a devotee really imbued with those words? Cardinal Tagle’s sermon last 2019 instilled the need for unconditional love to Christ by being more than just celebrating the occasion nor attending Friday devotions in Quiapo Church. That everyday is a “panata” that includes showing genuine concern for others and seeking truth as what Bishop Evangelista said last 2021 during the time of pandemic. After all, regardless of their yearning for Christ’s pardon is not right to express through appearing as “devotee” and yet not truthful especially in spreading “fake news”, and causing people to be disinformed and fight each other. 

“It is not right that you are wiping the señor’s feet, but you cannot help others.” as what Quiapo Church Parish Priest Fr. Rufino “Jun” Sescon who also said that devotees should live righteously amidst these tumultuous times.

To cut this thought short, as this writer continues to observe would say that behind the ritual, the hardships and the yearning for God means a call to serve one’s fellow, that behind that “panata” is a call to self reflect, rectify wrongs and to upheld the goodness of humanity as it seeks truth and justice all for redemption and for the kingdom that’s to come. 

Again, everyday is a Panata, and it is a protracted committment to God and Humanity.

“Still talking about that goddamn fund even during and after holidays”

“Still talking about that goddamn fund 

even during and after holidays”

It seems that during and after the holidays news reports about the proposed “Maharlika Investment Fund” shows that the issue, despire supposed to be at the backburner doesn’t mean people will simply forget about it. 

For as the president calls for the proposed law as “urgent” regardless of their statements, again establishing a sovereign wealth fund is hardly the way to promote economic growth and development while having neither surplus funds nor windfall gains from some sale of assets, but instead having a large fiscal deficit and an increasing public debt.

However, despite this concerns there are those who insist that “the government should prove that the proposed fund will directly benefit Filipinos” such as by venturing into infrastructure projects and by urging to attract private partners to coinvest in developing highly productive infrastructure assets. As according to congressman Johnny Pimentel of Surigao Del Sur, he urged that the fund should rather allocate to infrastructure rather than “merely hold passive assets such as fixed  income instruments, equities, and bonds”.

Quite nice to hear those words from a legislator, but come to think of this: how about first address the basic problem? There’s an enormous debt to pay to begin with, followed by repairing some infrastructure particularly those affected by the recent floods, as well as the pressing need for addressing health care and education issues the national budget has to allocate on. Besides, that proposed wealth fund is likely to be debt financed as it has to borrow money from government financial institutions and claim it as a “seed money” to support such projects and operations- a retreat from its initial and controversial plan of “urging” these financial institutions to allocate its surplus funds for the proposed SWF. 

But what is interesting tho is why the Central Bank, despite its initial disagreement decided to support the bill despite its gross international reserves were excluded from the list of possible sources of funding? Is the Central Bank forgot that this would compromise its independence and autonomy in maintaining  monetary and foreign exchange stability? Such actions would affect the stability of the banking system as well as business activities. And to think that the proposed bill promises that this would be managed by “professionals” creates doubt especially when those who appoint them are nonetheless politicians looking after their interests. 

Again as said before these people, politician or “technocrat” alike will always be at the scrutiny of the public, for the proposed fund is a matter of public trust as any form of public service provided to the people. Sadly, politicians and technocrats alike have less or no track record of trustworthiness. Imagine the bill excempts the fund from local and national taxes, while declaration of dividends to national government and review of contracts by government counsel. Public access to the fund record is subject to its board, leading to an observation that the fund becomes susceptible to corruption. 

And from these people would also claim that these funds be used for “developmental” purposes like what congressman Pimentel said, the question is: will it be truly benefit the people? Or just seeing interest seekers reaping the “fruits of investment” coming from such “developmental projects” alongside stocks and  other investment stuff using public funds? 

Perhaps people should again recall the Coconut Levy Fund, Marcos wealth issue, the Napoles Scam that includes abuse of the Priority Assistance Development Fund, as well as others both small-and-big time alike that exposes the corrupt nature of beaucratic capitalism. Of course there will be those who will ask why there are sovereign wealth funds like those in Singapore, Norway, or even Vietnam- but those who handle it are trustworthy as they’re themselves at the mercy of the public. 

Otherwise look at Nauru and its mismanagement of their wealth fund decades ago, for sure the Philippines doesn’t want that same situation to happen. There’s nothing wrong in the idea of having a Sovereign Wealth Fund but reality creates a situation that’s contrary to what they desire for- be it the lack of funds, the people involved, and the lack of trust towards those who insist.