There is nothing new for the "New Philippines", just rehashed phrases with same intent

There is nothing new for the "New Philippines", 

just rehashed phrases with same intent

As expected, this "State of the Nation Address" 2024 has been little more than a celebration and exhibition for the ruling class since previous administrations, flaunting their newly acquired money and benefits from the bureaucracy. 

For while deceiving the general public with recycled promises and the same old intentions, the bureaucrats, landlords, and compradores alike celebrate throughout the ceremony as their master vows to show them off with bribes at the behest of US and even Chinese imperialism. 

But regardless of the rehashed messages, the intent stays the same- that of benefiting the ruling class at the expense of the working masses. With the same neoliberal policies and the repression from its attack dogs, the grievances of the Filipino people continue to resonate that any palliative measure nor rhetoric may fail to appease those who endure everyday hardship- that of low wages, landlessness, homelessness, and various forms of social injustices that makes this "New Philippines" as same as that of the old. 

Consider the following Social Weather Stations data to justify people's discontent: * Fifty-eight percent (58%), or around 16 million, of Filipino families identify themselves as poor, as of June 2024 – the highest in 16 years. * Forty percent (40%) of Filipino remain optimistic on the economy, as of December 2023 – the lowest since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. * Forty-five (45%) of Filipinos feel no changes in their quality of life over the past year, as of March 2024. 

Pardon to use the survey, but the people's discontent is more than the data given by SWS. The people find it concerning because the administration has made so many promises that asid they will have opportunities in this "new Philippines". Because, as those recent surveys have shown, those realities are very different from the story of progress that Marcos is supposed to triumphantly tell in this afternoon's SONA. And would such promises of "development" that benefited the same oppressive class mislead people in the face of the same neoliberal policies, the same abuses from despots and their attack dogs? 

Honestly speaking, the "New Philippines" is nothing new but a rehashed promise. For sure people been fooled enough by Marcos's promise of 20 peso per kilo of rice, but did it happen? No! This is the reality on the ground. The ones dissatiafied, the ones protesting, or even taking up arms, are the actual sentiments of the majority of Filipinos expressing widespread dissatisfaction of government’s capabilities and priorities, as that of having enough of prevailing social injustices and in seeing a nation's vassalage to local and foreign entrenched interests. As an American stooge, Marcos permits full-scale military intervention by the United States, which uses the Philippines as a springboard for war preparations and provocations using "defense" against China as its alibis. For at present, preparations for the brewing war betwen the United States and China are in full swing which will use the Philippines as its battleground. 

Will the Filipino people content in this situation? Should the nation be fooled from time to time by entrenched interests spewing rehashed phrases with same bullshit? Such truths are way far from the statements being expressed at the Batasang Pambansa! And with those truths would say that the people are willing to face-to-face with the attack dogs the regime has unleashed in this event.  

Three poems for July

Three poems for July

"We cannot be bound away by the rotting ancients"

We cannot be bound away by the rotting ancients 

Nor submit to the norms of this degenerating world 

The lessons from the past brought us a challenge 

Ideas that can shake this suffering earth 

The present is but a continuing past 

Whilst the future a set of delusions quite doubtful to last 

As folks remained dumb and broke 

Dismissing truth by calling the concerned "woke" 

Perhaps they're contented in their spaces 

Of their distorted views and exaggerated narratives 

Enough to cope from the inconvenient truths 

Trying to smile evenly as they suffer 

The past according to theirs may've been glorious 

Despite the inconveniences carrieth most 

Courtesy of a rotting order that's pretentious 

Leeching over the hardworking host 

"All after a coffee break in Escolta"

The taste of coffee lingers in my mouth 

Making my mind entice to drink more 

As that dark bitterness mellowed by milk such sweetness 

Sometimes I wonder is life today has worth? 

Traversing the streets, waiting for a ride 

Thinking about tomorrow's workload or "normal life" 

If not praying to evade the bullshits coming 

"Have mercy on me I'm a sinner" murmuring 

And at home, staring at a blank dark sky 

Prevailing over the urban landscape with its bright lights 

Enough one say "missed the simple life" 

Disregarding the inconveniences what "simple life" has"

"Thoughts before leaving province"

Before I leave you, I have to enjoy the waters 

Enjoying the cold savouring the nights 

As to hear the neighbour's music playing 

Trying to create a carefree setting 

All after seeing the tropical sight mesmerizing 

Of coconut trees and green shrubs 

Of carabaos plowing and cows grazing 

The setting quite idyllic for a painting 

I enjoy the company of loved ones as I savour those moments 

Of good food and few shots of liquor 

Just enough to lessen the cold shiver 

Before again wading in the night's water 

I felt the love resonate in that evening setup 

As the wind embraced me quite lightens me up 

From the burdens that brought me stress 

Your songs and smiles filled up soul, life with gladness 

Sadly I have to leave and promise to return again 

If necessary praying to God not just to back home safe but ask to return when 

For this place appears an explorer's paradise 

Be it the festivity, the place, to the sun kissed yours 

All beauteous for me to mesmerize 

Enough to set aside the thoughts of the city 

And yet I, before I enjoy the waters 

I have to finish some to lessen worry

"Neither one nor the other power will make you prosperous and free."

 "Neither one nor the other power will make you prosperous and free."

The recent events surrounding the Philippines placed a spotlight on the question of the country's place in a changing global politic. That be it the scuffle over the West Philippine Sea, the controversial Offshore Gaming Operations owned by the Chinese, to that of "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement" with the United States, this note finds the emerging China-United States rivalry makes Philippines greatly affected its independence and sovereignty.

While it is clear that the relationship between the US and China will come to define the geopolitical terrain for decades to come, what more seeing the Filipinos greatly affected by the recent saber rattling and statement countering, many among the folk are unsure about what their own positions and responsibilities should be. Most would cling towards its former coloniser claiming its actions as “benevolent”, while others pretending to be pragmatic or “against imperialism” and therefore siding its ambitious eastern neighbour. However, there are those who adhere to Foreign policy independence, as this even written into the constitution of the Philippines. True that the US-Philippine relations carries strong historical and cultural linkages and shared democratic values and interests, while Sino-Filipino relations also rooted into historical linkages especially those of trade and commerce yet marred by recent incidents involving territorial disputes. Both US and China would say trying its best to curry favour to the Filipino by means of aid and assistance, in an attempt to make the country’s interests subordinated to that of a major superpower. But should the country, especially in pursuit of national interest, assume an independent posture, it has to veer away from traditionalism to realism- and that includes adherence non-alignment and the serious development of self-reliance. 

 For now would say that they chose the "lesser evil" United States in order to counter the "greater evil" China, setting aside the tragic events in the name of global security in the affected region. With all its sugarcoated promises of military and economic aid the Philippines may appear "bolstered" by a paper tiger. But in the long term, should the country remain an appendage of the United States? Expect its own wrongs of course, aside from its existing ones this current society as trying to forget.  Meanwhile, those favouring China is obviously interest driven as those favouring American ones. Pretending that China’s offer of assistance as “developmental”, the risks of debt traps is downplayed claiming that it is "wrongfully intepreted" and dismissed as a "mythl by western-based economists. With its agreements and promises of generous aid would say that the sinophiles is willing to disregard every incident, setting aside its sovereign rights in the name of "peace and amity". 

 However, this "peace" in today's time has its limitations. The recent incident between Chinese sailors and Filipino seamen, as well as the ongoing dispute over the West Philippine Sea, have obliged Filipinos to accept US military aid under previous and recent agreements. But, how certain is the "world's policeman" to provide assistance? Or is the "aid" intended to be in exchange for the nation's willingness to be itself? Both China and the United States, as well as other developed countries, have kept the nation dependant on their pittance with its people dumb, tired, and broke despite the chances provided by those who are sincerely concerned. 

And contrary to mainstream perceptions, China today is not the "communist" bogeyman of the past, let alone a growing imperialist menace. Due to China's greater integration with Western capital and the global capitalist system, that country assumes itself a powerful and developing nation, regardless of the actions taken by the west and its allies. Its past agreements with the west had brought technology transfers, ventures that meant China's interpetation of a "Rich Nation and a Strong Army" gaining power in the Asia-Pacific region. However, it is still a long way for the sleeping dragon overtaking the world's policeman as the world's dominant power and has far less potential to project force. True that China happens to be ruled by a "communist" party, so is Vietnam, who like the Philippines, is also against that neighbouring country.

 But in the face of this saber rattling and countering of statements, should Filipinos still cling to its cold war view of geopolitics? The rift between US and China has less if not nothing to do with "democracy" versus "communism" of the cold war and more of feud for supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region. Goods "made in China" are currently and mostly made by multinationals benefiting from Deng Xiaoping's "opening up" with its cheap labour, and these entities happened to be American/or European based. Of course, people will cry "boycott made in China" goods because of the recent events involving Sino-Filipino disputes, but how about a call for promoting Filipino innovation and creativity, and meeting people's needs and demands through industrialisation and support for local enterprises? Boycott seems meaningless without promoting and supporting the local- especially if the basis is that of nationalism. 

 Need to stick to the theme of this note- that the country cannot just depend on one superpower nor the other regardless of its sugarcoated promises and various forms of bullshit. “Neither Washington nor Beijing!” may sound "ideal" and yet continues to gain traction by those concerned about the country's state of nationalism with the demands of a free, national, and social policy that includes foreign relations, economy, education, and culture. The country may cling on one power for now, but expect a growing concerned folk that's willing to lean neither one nor the other power but to be themselves with all efforts to become a better and stronger nation.   

This should be more than "Made in the Philippines"

This should be more than "Made in the Philippines" 

a thought on "Fostering Innovation and Creativity through Industrialisation"

To see local enterprises and startups having its best efforts to sustain and thrive would say that from these institutions have made bests to give wholesomeness and vigour in efforts to promote national development through production of the better, if not the best goods and services.  

As the country trying its best to shift from agricultural/resource extraction to a service oriented sector, local enterprises and startups promotes the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem conducive to the flourishing of countless innovative talents. To achieve this, however, should involve investments, support structures/systems, networks, and a better education system that geared towards innovation and imagineering.   

However, these efforts shouldn't be seen as a mere showcase or as a curiosity to tourists, that "made in the Philippines" is more than just shoes, slippers, abaca ropes, coconut oil and its by-products, old-fashioned native textiles and wooden furniture; nor generic drugs, canned goods, and even construction-grade steel and assembled vehicles from trumped-down parts. Locally made production and innovation should be promoted further through industrialisation as a necessary step in utilising local resources, manpower, and mindsets in applying foreign learning in a local setting.  

At first thought would say that industrialisation means the old school factories and steel mills, but it's more than that. Today's industrialisation is being shaped by new and upcoming technologies and is opening up huge growth prospects for both national and world economy. But, in a country that's still developing like the Philippines, what kind of industrialisation that truly benefits the people and the nation that's more than just providing better goods and services? Critics of this "historical"* venture will still insist that industrialisation and genuine domestic development (as means to promote innovation and creativity) is irrelevant, passe, moot and academic. That the national economy should tie to international capital and demands and therefore rely on trade, commerce, with emphasis on resource extraction, exports, and reliance on foreign direct investments. Obeisance to "agreements" be observed even at the expense of safety nets and necessary domestic improvements. And "intense competition" between local and foreign businesses equates 'creativity'. They would even look at the examples of developed countries that benefited from neoliberal "reforms" and yet what happened? Everything's "altered" by ‘Neoliberalism- be it outsourcing of industries by multinationals to that of Public Services to the Private Sector- that everything has commercialised and privatised including basic public services — social protections, education, pensions and criminal justice among them — with often disastrous impacts towards the working masses, the downtrodden, and even smallholders.   

But will the country just accept the whims of the multinationals with its sugarcoated promises? May sound pleasing the idea that neoliberalism, of by simply tying up to the dictates of multinational capital may benefit the country, but, despite promoting entrepreneurship and creativity, the desire for progress and development cannot simply tied to the dictates from the outsiders and its local "partners" whose interests prioritised over that of the nation. True that the country needs investments be it local or foreign, but until when the country has to sumbit on the whims of the banksters pretending to be "investing" when in fact imposing limits on domestic development in favour of their policies? Such limitations has made the country still stuck in its continuing past amid enjoying semblances of the present if not the future- as one may observe, what kind of a country that still having feudal societies prevail over that of a modern one regardless of things and thoughts modern? The countryside has roads, irrigation, and even internet, and yet the relation remains feudal as most farmers or peasants don't own land and are forced to work for a landlord- what more the landlord benefits from the multinationals and banksters in making the country continue to remain a producer of surplus crops. 

Pardon to make this thought long, but, in developing societies, innovation must go together with industrialisation to create new opportunities for development and foster efficiency. Why deny the need for industrialisation to create a sound atmosphere for innovation, creativity, and development? Should developing countries remain reliant on the whims of the "free market" claiming that "the success of our neighbors was the hegemony of the market?" Entrepreneurs cannot just remain limited to their barrios as they wished to thrive, but in the face of influx of cheap goods from abroad as in the past, will they survive the tide? Critics may blame "oligarchs" for the failures of "protectionism", but how come Korea, or Taiwan does policies against the global tide- manifested in industrial policy, protectionism, mercantilism, and intrusive regulation- and was central in the drive to industrialize? Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia also followed suit as well, so are these at the dictates of the "oligarchs"? Those who supported neoliberalism claimed it was the market that brought these countries "successes" when in reality it was the state- and if there was some liberalisation happened, it was selective liberalisation pursued in the context of strategic protectionism driven by the state, the objective of which was to deepen the industrial structure.   

The examples of China and India can also provide the Philippines an idea to catch up with and even "leapfrog" the advanced countries if the government and some concerned sectors pursue policies in industrialisation, as well as innovation and creativity and implement technonationalist "leapfrogging" programs. 
As according to an 2015 article made by Matthews and Posadas, in 2009, China adopted and implemented technonationalist leapfrogging policies and programs making the country the world's largest producer of solar panels. A year later, China also overtook advanced counties to become a global maker of wind turbines. Similarly, India also adopted technonationalist policies and strategies to become a major world competitor in utility scale (multi-KW) wind turbines. Both China and India have "foundations" that create suitable conditions in promoting innovation and creativity, what more the will to pursue a nationalist-oriented technoinnovation program that can "leapfrog" and provoke the developed countries in having technologies. 
Of course, they've opened to the world for trade and investment, but like what earlier stated, it was selective and tied to national interest. 

As far as a concerned person knows is that the "oligarchs" who babbled a distorted form of "protectionism" have disinterest in industrialisation- what more they themselves are in connivance with multinationals and banksters to keep the country limited to its commercial and agricultural nature. What are their backgrounds to begin with? Are they really "protecting" the national economy or just their own entrenched interests? Not all of them are serious nor willing to promote sound development that's contrary to their interests, while the state that's supposed to encourage industries (and in extension create a real atmosphere for innovation) remains mum as its "economists" discourage in favour of uneven trade liberalisation. It is not surprising that innovation and creativity in the country remains stunted as the very order that supposed to promote treats it as a showcase to impress the outsider than a policy to encourage the local.