Will there be a "Farewell" to Dutertism?

Will there be a 'Farewell' to Dutertism?

(Or "As the supporter suddenly questions their idol and his integrity")

Before going into the subject of this topic, this person should like first to refer to the notes he read prior to this post.

For both domestic and comparative studies, the Philippines is at first a compelling study in regards to political change. Ever since its struggle for independence from 1896 to its recognition of self-rule in 1946, the Philippines has experienced revolutionary actions, home-rule under foreign tutelage, and sweeping transformations initiated from above. It also experienced martial law and its atrocities, of debt-driven development, and others that instead of bringing forth changes more of retention for the old order of landlords, compradores, and bureaucrats.

And this time, people looked at a leader such as Rodrigo Duterte to guide them out from their continuing pasts. Given his streetwise attitude and an image 'improved' by once activist-turned-bureaucrats, Duterte showed a ray of hope regardless of his controversial actions such as drug related killings to those of his political incorrectness; by sneering the people with the promise of change and development, one would say that he transformed his antics into a showcase of populist appeal- a machoman figure that people may look as a "man of action" willing to make serious moves regardless of its controversiality nor at the expense of people's trust.

(Again) Is it Change really meant to Consolidate?

In recent months, the Duterte administration has becoming less revolutionary and becoming orderist in its perspective.

For as any other politician caring for one's own interests, that same politician whom afforded to gain large number of voters has to rub elbows particularly those deemed as enemies of change and development by the same people voted for him-that from known landlords to well-known bureaucrats, of friendly "oligarchs" and mass ranks of past refuse, they all had to join the Duterte joyride as they all raised their fists in lieu of their known handsigns, of adjusting their agendas in favour of their newly-found patron, and even justifying their patron's acts as necessary move regardless of its controversial matter.

Given that situation, perhaps few but concerned supporters, driven by the realities surrounding would dare to speak critically in regards to the administration, particularly those of the president's confusing stances and programs that end cater to some interest-seeker. Especially when after they removed progressive-oriented secretaries for their stances proven to be radically different from the majority's compromise-filled agendas, if not blatantly because they are left-wing patriots surrounded by a camarilla of neoliberals and militarists. Duterte's increasingly orderist program desperately trying to be like Marcos with all the appeals to nostalgia, when in fact turns out to be a series of hollow phrases while obviously kowtowing to vested interests, swearing to uphold the order which the people still stuck to this day.

And for as everyone know ghat for despite promising to eradicate both corruption and the illegal drug trade, some if not all actions taken by the administration have been a failure if not riddled by controversy- one of which is how that regime uses public funds to consolidate, particularly through the pork barrel system which continues to operate through other subterfuges to its supporters- enough to retain its tyrannical rule and monopolize power.

Same interests,
same victims,
same struggle

Thinking that the present administration stubbornly insisting that their actions brought major changes, to most people, same old problems continue to prevail and even aggravating it.

For as ownership of big landled estates as in the past have still invariably caused discontent and unrest amongst tenants and occupants. The case of Hacienda Luisita, Lapanday, and other estates owned by known figures continue to be heard upon despite promises by the administration to dealt with upon.

As for administration, that issue rather treated as a showcase of "justice" if not bluntly trying to sneer away from the call of struggle- especially in those that are hotbeds of discontent and unrest. Some months ago, President Duterte used agrarian reform to entice members of the New Peoples Army to surrender since he himself recognise that agrarian issue as one reason to take arms and revolt against the state, but, thinking that his administration did afford to recognise, then how come they chose to tolerate the abuses of the landed gentries especially those having connections with the state? Lapanday for instance has connections with the administration, and those who demand land to the landless as tantamount to subversion, and its advocates be deemed culprits who've sowed disorder.

That unjustness is also same as in labour. With the passage of TRAIN law which became cause of increasing costs of commodities and services, the demand for just wages been the hot topic amongst laborers and management. Issues like Contractualisation and unjust working conditions also fuel discontent as strikes like those from NutriAsia, Alorica, San Miguel's Magnolia, even Jolibee exposed the company's stubbornness in keeping an unjust status quo, while the latter trying to deny but instead insisting that said discontent amongst workers as instigated by outside elements, mainly the concerned whom heard about their plight, and the owner's failure in addressing such grievance if not trying to evade what more in blaming those who ruin their reputation simply because those who express their grievance also seek truth from facts.

For Duterte, he and his economic managers would insist that reforms been taken seriously and meant to alleviate their plight so as to generate development as in the olden times, he would try to curry favor by promising the discontented what is badly needed all in exchange for "returning to the fold of law"- surrender to their interests.

From this, sorry to say, that why the concerned would insist that the country, regardless of the appearance of development if progress, still "semifeudal-semicolonial" if the administration, like those of its predecessors, boasting that there are numerous changes in the society? Is it because of the buildings? The number of infrastructures? Of welfare packages? Perhaps they forgot that one description of that semifeudal nature of the society is its culture of patronage, in which the order treats welfare as to appear themselves having a "noble duty" to its subjects.
From this kind of treatment on how welfare is by the government (or rather say the order), it diminishes the idea that the welfare of the people as its primary concern. For an interest-seeker, they see the helpless and the needy, the jobless and the underemployed, workers and farmers alike, as subservient subjects benefited from the "services" done by their patron but subjected to their patron's whims.
And to think that these subjects are ensuring their health and wellbeing by these patrons, not all benefited from that actually-existing "trickle down" kind of access to social services nor "reforms" brought about by these elected well-offs, if not seeing the latter failed to protect their subjects from abuses and exploitation, and to secure their needs as all these stems from the system itself, as mainly consists of entrenched entities benefiting from its exploitation.

From these situations, perhaps no wonder why the have-nots chose to vent their grievance and struggle. At first, is the grievance justified? For the affected then yes- for all after enduring such unjust conditions then without thinking, one, two, or more may dare to complain about rights denied or violated. To cite Crisol:

"A worker blows his top because his employer ignored his demands for an increase. An employer heatedly insists on his rights to pay as he pleases. Even the state demands that its rights are respdcted. The truth is that, whenever there is a right that has been violated, there has been a dury underperformed or shirked."

Pardon in citing a goddamn apologetic of the order for a reference, but reality showed that kind which the system failed to address but instead tolerating what employers apply such as harassing them. NutriAsia made it happen, even Jolibee, Magnolia, Alorica, or  also did happen that made workers either lie low or taking the struggle to further level as sympathizers willing to support as they recognise their plight contrary to their employer's defense statements.

A party gone confused?

Or willing to wither?

With all the issues surrounding the regime, a concerned would say that one of the errors of Duterte et al. includes a contradiction, one of which is that of a leader and camarilla whose principles divorced through an exclusively feudal view and temperament. For as people listen to the leader's statements and those of his ilk, and looking at its programs and its promises, the concept of change, being consolidatory in character, isn't transformative at all- let alone necessary improvements and change of wordings meant to appease people and to accommodate some in the agenda.

Quite triggeredable to apologists, especially that with their leader chose to be subservient to the diktat of multinational moneylenders and of various entities- if not seeing his party, PDP-LABAN rather end contrary to its supposed direction such as those of "Democratic Socialism".

And in speaking of that party's supposed political line, PDP-LABAN once adhere in defending national sovereignty and patrimony including those of favouring the creation of cooperatives to counter big businesses, agrarian reform for the landless, and a non-interventionist foreign policy as its objectives. However, as time goes by, and with politicians eagerly to join for survival, PDP-LABAN changed into a more and more bourgeois orderist party like its rivals.

Its supposed grassroots oriented inclination been eschewed as political turncoats replaced the committed in various levels, especially those trying to maintain their foothold in their fiefs. The supposed social democratic inclinations been diminished in favour of neoliberal perspectives particularly those of free market and its unhampered trade, that land reform has becoming favourable to multinationals diminishing its emancipative character as entrenched entities favor corporate farming instead of farmers whom favoring agrarian reform, that putting an end to contractualisation and other labour matters been babbled as any other promises than taken seriously as it addressed, and the failure to assert sovereignty in disputed isles Spratlys, Scarborough, and even Sabah- simply because of possible repercussions from its neighbors China and Malaysia, particularly in terms of economic matters.

But, since PDP LABAN also adheres to Federalism and its goal of empowering regions, Duterte rather turned the idea into something far from empowering- as he and his ilk railroad the change to a pseudo-federal system with Duterte himself as an all-powerful executive lording it over "autonomous regions" ruled as fiefdoms by favored warlords.

With all these and others which the administration and its political party is concerned, where is the empowerment on the first place when in fact same old entities continue to remain at large in their estates? What more that Duterte's cronies are salivating over the prospects of cornering the lucrative contracts, especially from the much-hyped "Build Build Build" plans and other related projects.

And with events like ouster of Pantaleon Alvarez as speaker of the house before Duterte's "State of the Nation Address" last July, the recent "party congress" which end assailed by Pimentel et al. for showing divisiveness, or worse, to see Duterte himself rubbing elbows with the Arroyos and the Marcoses, and even the recent formation of "Hugpong ng Pagbabago" (HnP) as a possible ruling party, all these and more has exposed fragments within PDP-LABAN's party structure and created intrigues amongst members, some of which old-timers that end resigned or booted out due to disfavour or disgust with the administration especially when it comes to questioning its actions.

Maybe the concerned partymates should spend some more words on the historical background of PDP-LABAN which was supposedly socio-revolutionary in outlook that involves popular participation in addressing socioeconomic problems, most of which had some correct and good leads at its disposal, especially on the subject of social, family, youth and cultural issues rather than depending on entrenched entities which diminishes its supposed ideological character. But when entrenched entities, like today's Dutertism has managed, thanks to the excellent skills of its leader, to "bring these good sides into practice" (when in fact dilutes its essence and becomes more of a means to consolidate the order); this is why the enthusiastic people did not resist the following running amok by Duterte and his clique.

And if they afforded to assail the Liberals, what more of the Left, is PDP-LABAN already forgotten its past? Actually it's past involved controversial personages like Ninoy Aquino, Trining Hererra, and even Alex Boncayao who end joined the underground and died fighting in the countryside with his name becoming known for an urban partisan unit. Some of its cofounders were even part of "April 6 Liberation Movement" and "Light a Fire" that spearheaded direct action against the Marcos regime through bombing sorties. And now to see Duterte et al. whilst carrying the name end rubbing elbows with the corrupt like those of the Marcoses and the Arroyos, then have they forgot their history? And if they assailed both the Liberals and the Left whilst supporting the former two, have they also forgot that they themselves as also once called "subversives" to the extent that Augusto Sanchez was killed for being pro-labour?

Anyway, How right was Ernst Niekisch when he in 1932 predicted that at the end; a coffin was placed in which the post-war youth, which Niekisch had put his hopes on, would be lost because of its urge for resistance would be broken by the demagogue- look at Cardena, he was used to be against Arroyo for being booted out at the Philippine Military Academy, and now seeing him dining with the former president whom he detested, what more of supporting Duterte? In horror people had to grow aware of the fact that the once-concerned citizen is more and more caught in a Duterte worship, that only distinguishes itself from other cults and religions because that it isn't surrounded with the slaughter of sacrificial animals and the smoke of incense- but rather of extrajudicial acts and of gunpowder.

Will there be a 'Farewell' to Dutertism?
(Or  looking back and fight again)

For a concerned patriot, voting for Duterte may've meant chances of bringing tremeandous changes in a country riddled by corruption, inefficiency, crime, and social negligence. Even this person admittingly speaking hath appreciated his promise to bring true reforms yet worried as he himself like his predecessors sworn first and foremost to upheld an unjust social order.

And by that uphelding that order meant criticism by many. Once, former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo stated the she  rather be 'right' than being 'popular' because of her actions that deemed controversial by nature. The Expanded Value Added Tax that hiked costs of goods and services, the military operations Bantay Laya I and II, the dealings with China's ZTE for the "National Broadband Network", even the cheating spree last 2004 elections meant a tremeandous ire amongst sectors, yet that lady president remained still with apologists trying to justify such moves as necessary such as EVAT for balancing the budget or for debt servicing.

From this, no wonder why Duterte also followed that direction. If not his idol Marcos, he followth Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his camarilla worked on those regimes trying to continue past policies with new names and definitions and trying to recreate the "Pangulo" like what his idol did, trying to be benevolent and at the same time despotic in the eyes of his subjects; if not  trying to circumvent the law in pursuit of what he sees as just.

But, the actually-existing vulgarity made the regime what more of the president hi susceptible to criticism no matter how he or his apologists deny or justify an act. "Tokhang" made he criticisable especially after it targets the poor drug users and pushers than those of the rich smugglers; or TRAIN since despite promising to lessen taxes for the poor it created the contrary as most experienced through price hikes in oil and other commodities. So, where's the benevolence as been presented by the administration? Is it the porridge being given from "Duterte's Kitchen"? The "Biyaya ng Pagbabago"? The "Build Build Build" prorgam? Free tuition in State Colleges and Universities? Actually, supporters mistaken state responsibilities with "noblesse oblige"-style feudal patronage, if not insisting the project is actually planned by their idol rather than actually carrying those of their predecessors-especially those which fits one's legacy.

Perhaps as time goes by, and seeing how Duterte et al. rather trying to remove the vestiges of the past including those of its own political party, it shows that they are reversing what was actually a product of theirs- in pursuit of restoring an order that most people think as controversial, especially after Duterte's rubbing elbows with the Marcoses and Arroyos.

Worse, to see people increasingly becoming politically indifferent. As the nation is trapped between two crushing slabs: from above by historical pessimism and from below by social injustice, most chose to shrug it off that made the system exploit. 

Strange isn't it? But with all the events surrounding the present administration, ranging from making fuss with the opposition to those of having an alliance with the ones favoring a thermidor, that 'Change' Duterte and his ilk espoused is nonetheless nothing to do with Change at all- no matter how its apologists and supporters ought to insist.

And again, the people will never yield.

"When Rants affect Statecraft"

"When Rants affect Statecraft"

(Notes after Duterte's one-on-one interview with Salvador 'Sal' Panelo,

 and the rants that affected statecraft in general)

The recent face to face talk between President Rodrigo Duterte and the Presidential Legal Counsel Sal Panelo hath been an object of discussion for quite some time. Supposed to be a speech for the nation if not a typical meet the press type of discussion, the administration opted for a face to face talk in state-owned television, presenting it as an evaluation of affairs surrounding his rule and the need to address issues as such. 

However, that discussion turns out to be a rant session for Duterte himself as he tries to project power and control; other than falling short of expectations, his rants, despite mentioning  martial law in Mindanao, the Boracay re-opening, the entrance of a third telecommunications company, inflation and rice supply crisis, are rather full of vented angst towards the opposition, emphasising those of Senator Antonio Trillanes as former sees the justness of revoking his amnesty and subsequent rearrest. From there he even claiming of a conspiracy between the senator, the Liberal Party, the Communists and other forces one would which described "unbelievable" if not "figments of his imagination".
And in desperation, he has gone the extent of risking charges of treason by claiming a “foreign country” provided him recorded conversations proving such a conspiracy.

But for yours truly, that face to face discussion-cum-rant session created nothing but criticism fodder for the many despite supporters trying to insist their idol's point of view as well as his programs, no matter how controversial it appears to, as his style of governance, if not telling that his rural manners cannot be changed. True that he did tackle about other issues like Boracay re-opening to those of the Rice Supply Crisis, but his failure to address economic issues, relentless fascism and dictatorial ambitions as well as policies only fuel resistance and heighten their desire to kick him out of power. And to think that most if not all of his statements also reflect those of his country, it rather face a precarious future with numbers of highly favourable developments appears in large part offseted by the serious decline in public morale and a grave economic situation, especially when statecraft is marred by a myriad of scandal such as what Duterte and his camarilla encountered or even instigated.

With this, then it show how Duterte treats his country like a mere entity to be taken granted, that from his mood one would say that he was forced to take the presidency despite initial reluctance.  Think that Socio-economic matters rather taketh over by a camarilla of interest-seekers such as refuse from past regimes and favorites including those of Mocha Uson.

And in speaking of how that president treats statecraft, to paraphrase Muller's 'Die Elemente der Staatskunst', one is ought to say that the state and by extension the community, hath to be not treated as a mere factory, farm, insurance agency or a commercial company. It is not even like a device or a tool meant to out things in order as one would wish, but rather it is the inner union of all physical and moral needs, of all physical and spiritual wealth, of the inner and outer life of a folk community, all in a great, energetic, eternally active and living whole. 

It may sound illusory if not fictional that said phrase, but man's quest for an ideal community hath been since time immemorial, that in every interaction be it right or wrong lies the totality of human affairs if not a union of many successive generations. But reality failed to realise as such and turned the state into a tool of consolidation than a spearheader of change. And for sure everyone knows that Duterte did sneered people through the ears by telling his administration as socialistic, if not that his rule as just if not enlightened; but given the bloodshed and the interest prevailing, is his version of change be considered a vulgar form of Marcos's 'constitutional authoritarianism'? Vulgar in a sense that it is divorced from the law by making the law less lawful if not amoral? His statements if not his antics desired for that.

And in fairness for the late dictator that he himself recognise the state as consolidatory entity while trying to appear itself a spearheader of change in order to address issues like poverty. That despite his actually existing reactionary stance, he tries to appear himself 'benevolent', much his dictatorial regime as 'liberal' the way he presented it in his "Notes from the New Society" and "Today's Revolution: Democracy". Like Muller, he sees the state as a factor to unite physical, moral, and spiritual wealth to revive the lost consciousness and drivel to achieve progress and stability. From his book 'Notes in the New Society II', he, assuming to be 'progressive', speaks on why the rebellion of the poor may take various forms, if not a search for an ideology which makes that rebellion be the basis of the new society:

"Moral realism requires this ideological basis: the consciousness of the poor permates them with a profound sense of being oppressed, and not simply because the rich oppresses then brazenly but it is povert itself that oppresses them.

To be poor is to be without, and, therefore, to be an outsider in the vibrant and meaningful political, economic, and social life of modern human community. Above all, being poor is being invisible; violence makes them visible."

But despite the order's means to let's just say "achieve development", dissident agitation for social change has comparatively more success given the structure's half-hearted action for social amelioriation. After all, it was the same Marcos who opted to leave his predecessor's decontrol untouched thinking it is inseparable to free enterprise. So was the floating rate in Peso, the junking of the Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom due to Martial Law with its suspension of the 1935 constitution, and the membership in the "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade"'(GATT) that led to further subjugation of the country to multinational/transnational moneylenders. 

And so is Duterte whom opted to emulate his idol and pursuing a continuity of his predecessors: continuing VAT with additional enabling law like TRAIN, the policy of borrowing from neighbouring countries and multinational moneylending institutions, obeisance to existing economic agreements regardless of its unjustness, failure to end contractualisation and other labour issues meant to resolve as promised,  and others that made Duterte's change more like a continuity with new terms and paraphrased statements, if not a counterreaction trying to appear as revolution according to his apologists. If he truly adhere to his statement claiming himself as socialist then how come he acted not as his camarilla of neoliberals and militarists opted to continue the actions of their predecessors? For sure one would remember how Noynoy Aquino promised to stop the Conditional Cash Transfer program for it was riddled with corruption if not being synonymous with the past regime.

Anyway, the people's desire for genuine sociopolitical liberation and economic emancipation continues as the order fails to address if not distorts, dilutes the situation as mere politicking. Actually, given the recent scenarioes the administration actively taketh part, they're the ones whom actively politicking whilst leaving economic matters at the hands of entrenched interests; the way laws like the first and second part of TRAIN doesn't provide opportunity nor relief as inflation rate increases so's the cost of goods and services, what more of gimmicks from known government officials such as Agriculture's Piñol proving that the imported rice, no matter how infested it was, as well as the alleged embalmed fish can be eaten or those from the Presidential Communications Group whom trying hard to beautify a soiled image- and end deemed as satirical if not stupidity. 

Quite offensive but the reality has brought the concerned that offensive impression the way it tela that the political and economic development as uneven: of few modern industrial and commercial enclaves coexist with a vast stagnant countryside, of compradores and despotic landlords ruled over thousands of workers and peasants, again, when will there be a society which truly imbues the inner union of material and spiritual needs as Muller stated in his Staatskunst?

Duterte and his fanatics will still cling to their view that their brand of authoritarianism as democratic if not revolutionary. But the revolution can only be made with revolutionaries and not structuralists. Theirs, be cold and calculating, are rather like melancholic ghosts wandering around Malacañang trying to reclaim the past in a guise of creating a future. Someone by temperament and through experience mistrustful of others, whom they see only motivated in their turn when induced by base interests; skeptical about their views despite parroting it, then poor Duterte for as he becoming a negation of what people desired of- and so is his camarilla of past refuses.

"The 'Boy General' from an 'Infantile Republic'"

"The 'Boy General' from an 'Infantile Republic'"

Thoughts after watching "Goyo"

At first, this person is ought to say that the movie "Goyo: ang Batang Heneral" is worth watching.

For as yours truly waited and watched, seems that many people, driven by the "Heneral Luna" fever few years ago, chose to watch Tarog's work amidst the fact that there are other known movies being shown in that cinema, and from there again they sought the crisis of the first republic not just a country marred by invasion and its subsequent war.

And of course, of personages whose principles trying to remain intact like Mabini (as played by Epi Quizon), if not compromised out of practicality such as survival (like Paterno or even Aguinaldo himself). But also amongst the ranks are those fighting for an adventure despite trying to upheld if not feigning having principles, and this kind of view is what Gregorio del Pilar (played by Paolo Avelino) been showth of.

No offense but despite Del Pilar showed himself with his almost Byronic attitude that he wanted to defend his country's freedom and be a legend for others, his principles end compromised by his loyalty to his leader Aguinaldo- making himself a mercenary henchman against Filipinos opposing him such as in the case of the Bernal brothers whose patriotism brought by their late superior Luna stood than those of political loyalties as Aguinaldo's camarilla find convenient.

And from this, alongside controversies surrounding the young republic, then maybe quite true that the Americans have always regarded the Filipinos to be like children, perhaps because its leaders then and even now are like immature and selfish, prioritizing their Political or much better if Personal Agendas, as always wanted to ensure hold of power and convenience- and in it then no wonder why Otis and McArthur (played by thespians Rocha and Faustmann) find them amusing from personages wanting power and fame some would even willing go give up the fight like Paterno and Buencamino. 

Or how Del Pilar himself used his fame and even charm (if to include his exploits as a lady's man) to enjoy the privilege as part of Aguinaldo's camarilla than to devote more in the struggle as what Luna and those loyal to him did.

Still political isn't it? For those who want to move on in search for an uncertain future, that whatever they say, history, so much reality, will always be riddled with politics be it intriguing or not, and most of which affected its struggle against colonial rulers much more of its quest for freedom. Mabini fairly noticed that enough to state that Filipinos are like children, or is the word "children" be like "incapable" as what colonisers think of?

But Goyo he treated the entire struggle as an adventure that in the end he want to die like a legend- and his legend be borne out of various reasons: Was it really to ensure that Aguinaldo escape from the Americans? Or to prevent the Del Pilar brigade to meet with the Tinio Brigade of Ilocos as rumours surfaced? Sounds Joaquinesque with those rumors but why not? For sure people wanted to learn history that isn't textbookish!

All in all, that brave lad, if to look frankly, was nothing but got a perks of a position in exchange for loyalty. Probably he end got some conscience by self-realisation that made he gone 'patriotic' at Tirad Pass.

And because of this then perhaps right was the Esquire article published last August 30 as it saidth:

"It's an ironic message for a film that is, essentially, about someone whom many regard as a hero. But it's one that makes perfect sense in the context of our culture today. Here's to hoping that Goyo can impress this imporant message upon its audiences in a way that's as impactful as Luna was in 2015."

Anyway, despite all the challenges, this person, as others concerned who watched the movie would say that such as with scenes superfluously dramatic, shifting from the real to the surreal in an attempt to make a 'hero' much more human, then emarkably, the production has given the audience the experience of late 19th to early 20th century unlike those been romanticised such as those of Caparas's Tirad Pass if not trying to shatter the Zaidean textbook epic that made children think as gospel truth.

Taxes, Infested Rice, Embalmed Fish, and other (in)conveniences under Duterte's Orderism

Taxes, Infested Rice, Embalmed Fish, 

and other (in)conveniences
under Duterte's Orderism

It seems that the reforms brought about by the Duterte administration brought miser than upliftment as the regime be trying to insist the justness rather than address its flaws.

Quite reasonable at first that the financial reforms brought about by Duterte and his cohorts is meant to raise funds for big-ticket projects. However, knowing that every cost of commodity continues to increase, then it is worth to say that the government harasses people, be it those of a smallholder whose institution end lumped with the rest who have abused government tax incentives, what more of a consumer whose earnings fail to meet daily needs as costs of goods and services skyrocket from few hundreds to a thousand such as in the case of Chili peppers. At some point there are those who insist that this calls for stringent measures such as encouraging people to save or invest their earnings which yes, sound good yet for the lowest paid this meant feeling its injustice- especially after rising costs, low purchasing power, and the government's failure to mitigate its unlikely effects.

But despite staunch opposition, economic managers, as well as apologists alike bluntly chose not to admit having flaws but instead having it blamed on anything such as tariffs from the United States as major cause for the country's financial problems, or even politicians who dare to oppose the administration's agenda.

But to think that the tax reform law felt badly by many as it slapped a hefty excise tax on fuel, raising transport and electricity costs, and with inflation hitting a nine-year high, the peso falling to a record low, will people still accept that law the system insisted as means to raise funds?

Anyway, with the government passed the second phase of tax reforms, describing it as to "attract better and high quality opportunities", and at the same time feeling the actual negative effects which the government fails or half-heartedly mitigating its effects, economic managers will still insist its justness by telling it meant lead to more jobs, opportunities, steady inflation rate, and of course, stable businesses- despite the fact that there lies possible business shutdowns and consequent job losses thanks to that goddamn first phase and its provisions that the order chose not to address its flaws.

Since taxes are increased and thus the prices of commodities and fares, then about issues like infested rice and rumors of embalmed fish? Just like earlier issues on rice shortages, this another agricultural matter has For sure Agriculture Secretary Piñol hath tried to dispel rumors that made people gone mad after rice shortages, in fact, the agriculture secretary accepted it as a challenge by eating both infested rice and the alleged "embalmed" fish as he insisted that those foods are "safe to eat" if not telling consumers that these "were made-up stories from businessmen because they do not want the new import system".

Desperate isn't it? But despite his effort to appease, it didn't dispel the concern coming from an overtaxed yet still underpaid commoner. The imports would have saved the Filipino from the shortages if not from being infested, much better if instead of being imported would be coming from the Filipino farmers themselves who yearned for a greater share coming from a government willing to buy their produce seriously and not for the sake of propaganda; so are the fishes that would have been fished by the Filipinos instead of being imported from its neighbours if not from the policies that also includes concessions especially with the Chinese; but in a system whose economic policy cares less about the farmers and fisherfolk in favour of the compradore (and its landlord partner), then sorry to say but with the existing policies no wonder why agriculture has been a problem that's failed to be addressed. 

And to think that some would say it would be easier to abolish the National Food Authority (NFA) due to its failure to resolve the crisis, if not telling that better for foreigners to take a parcel of land and the Agrarian Reform to be stopped once and for all but instead shift the attention to making Philippine Agriculture tailored further into neoliberal-globalist interests, also unwondering why the system continues to please it's age-old robber barons. Come to think that they take pride in having a a program similar to "masagana 99" yet most arable lands end becoming subdivisions due to lack of government support- what more of liberalization of agriculture that allows NFA to increase allocation of imported rice. 

For sure everybody knows that these bad tasting imported rice compete with the locally-produced ones, thus, giving opportunities to landlords and traders to even depress the farmgate price of palay, what more of badly-needed, yet, expensive inputs (thanks to that goddamn tax reform law), all leaving the rice farmers in deep poverty and debt- same as the fisherfolks who end seeing their fishing grounds controlled by interests whose factory ships able to catch more but for an intended market.

***

All in all, most if not all Filipino consumers are being run over by that TRAIN, followed by infested rice and rumors about embalmed fish, what more the inflation and that still still low wage amidst high costs of goods and services.

For apologists, these matters are meant to be "temporary" and "resolvable" if not putting the blame on the left for making the issue be politicised as such; in a time when Duterte and his men trying to build their orderism using democratic if not legal processes, they would try their "best" in making their agenda pleasing to the people even when in fact it isn't due to its neoliberal/monetarist slant as his predecessors - and from it meant more taxes for the laborer, profits for the profiteer, increased prices for the middlemen, and misery for the masses. 

These and more are actually destabilizing than any political maneuvering as the present administration love to deal on, real or imagined.

"May as well brace yourself"

"May as well brace yourself"

(Notes from an impatient populace demanding reforms

 to an impatient regime tolerating impatience)

Everything has becoming farce as Duterte and his clique actually chose to continue old policies, abit with new names and terms, all tailor fit to meet the demands of the people. 

There could be many reasons for this continuity be it intentional or not, but the fact that Duterte's Philippines is still in its continuing past, which means as dominated by entrenched entities, diminishes the promise of change- let alone an intensified campaigns against drugs, the rest be like a rehash which people end dismayed after seeing its unlikely effects.

Basing much on news reports and commentaries, this person, like others concerned, is thinking that many people, in their desire to see injustice righted and to commence changes swiftly, rather rush headalong into an unreliable remedy or solution such as what Duterte and his clique hath offered. 

For as in the past, people sought extralegal means as a form of direct imposition of justice, and sometimes a necessary move by the state in order to create or tolerate an atmosphere of fear, impatience, discontent before they "make their move" and redescribing it as "necessary to save the republic and to restore order, stability" which includes "issuing necessary reforms."

Using an unlikely figure's view

Mentioning about impatience, fear, ad the likes, many years ago, former General Jose Crisol made a note that tackles about the cold war hysteria of anticommunism. And like those within the system, he would say that impatience, fear are those examples of the traits of "communism" as it creates an expression of dissent and even hatred.

Quite agreeable at first, especially to those who criticise protest actions pointing against the regime instead of "letting the regime take its course" and by "simply becoming patient" as "reforms and programs" are "already been undertaken". 

However, that same impatience, fear, discontent, has becoming what the system hath waited and wanted- especially when people are looking for a someone to lead them out of the chaos, and thus came personages like yesterday's Marcos, and today's Duterte.

To paraphrase Crisol from his book "the red lie", it is impatience in people that the system endeavour to exploit to further their own ends. Issues like rampant criminality, political scandals, rising costs of goods and services, anything pointing on the last administration hath made people impatient and thus stir up anger enough to rally under theirs, pointing against personages left and right as perpectuators as well as to support programs which no matter what controversial it would be so long as it creates "good conclusions" such as the promises of TRAIN law and "Build Build Build".

But reality says otherwise, despite the system hath tolerated their own brand of impatience in order to rally people under theirs against the "reds" and "yellows", they failed to stem that same impatience that in this time pointing against them for half-taken seriously if not failed to address issues particularly those from the masses. Contractualisation for example- Duterte did promised to end it and even made a presidential order for the sake of appeasing the ones rallying outside Malacañang, but how come it did not maximise the regularisation of these workers- but instead seeing mass actions and boycotts? Remember impatience is the way of an animal gone berserk, and people wanted to see coming from a man who does swift justice through the barrel of the gun also the same towards those who insist the justness of contractualisation and other unfair labour practises.

From this then this writer would think that even those who are against communism actually done what their so-called 'enemies' did. They created if not tolerated an atmosphere of discontent as neoliberal- oriented economic planners, fascistic- bred military men, despotic landlords, and corrupt bureaucrats created or recycled policies whose bottomline is simple: uphelding interests- and in this era where Duterte, as any other bureaucrat paraphrases existing policies with populist terms, failed to reach the hearts of people, except of course, those whom fanatically supporting him regardless of his mistakes. Programs like BUILD BUILD BUILD, reforms like the TRAIN law, even the statement wherein he insisted multinationals to have property, and the promise to end contractualisation, these and more despite all its justifications, hath not kept the mass ranks of people at bay but intensifies its struggle- or rather say, impatience.

Aside from that discontent, that system, just like its "enemy", seeks to dominate as it attains power over those they rule. Actually, Crisol end becoming one of Marcos's own propagandists as he blabbered anticommunism and his defence of constitutional authoritarianism through the "new society". But haven't he noticed that he was supporting a man having a lust for power and the passion to dominate others? That "new society" which meant to "defend the republic and democracy" is as old as the despotism of ancient absolutism and as ruthless as other totalitarian regimes- that until present it continues to prevail abit with new terms trying enough to "move on" from its unlikely orgins. In fact, Duterte seriously trying to replicate that kind of despotism his idol Marcos did- by replicating that path to power on the crest of state-sponsored violence, popular despair and discontent, and willing to maintain power by the use of force and propaganda both "state" and "state-sponsored" apologists.

From this then perhaps it is unsurprising if he will stop at nothing not even the betrayal of their people just to satiate their lust for power.

Pardon if to use Crisol's not for a reference, but in citing him through a left-wing perspective, perhaps this person would say that despite he created that anticommunist note in pursuit of "defending democracy", the late undersecretary for civil defence hath also made something for the system such as on how to hijack some populist (or even leftist) ideals in order to upheld the order and its interests. In fairness to him that he did recognise the flaws of capitalism by describing its oppressive form as "perverted", but then he insisted that capitalists (particularly big businesses), compradores, and hacienderos excert a strong influence in government as they themselves are "better informed citizens" with "sober opinion and seasoned experience", "dynamic capital", "enterprising spirit", and "incentive of private ownership" that serves as "guiding forces behind all organic and economic programs in nations."

"May as well brace yourself"

With all the inconveniences, then a concerned would tell everyone to "brace yourself" against this nonsense the system hath brought to. 

By using a late military man's notes in an another perspective, one would think how Duterte invested in a state of national impatience yet failed to address the issues that brought people to that same impatience. He would have followed Magsaysay or Garcia instead of Marcos when it comes to citing some character references, but, given the latter's "approach to development" would he follow the former whose showcase of development be limited to some artesian wells? 

Anyway, as in the past, the government, despite its promise to rein the ruling class, can't and unlikely to rein these "better informed citizens" such as a compradore or a  landlord oligarch. The TRAIN law plain and simply passed to the less paid or those of contractualisation and other labour-related cases that continues to remain important reasons for massive picketlines and street protests.

And speaking of TRAIN, from an article from the Manila Times made last May 2018 regarding that controversial tax reform law from concerned lawmakers, it stated that:

“Some 15.2 million families who earn minimum wages or below belong to the informal sector who are already exempted from paying income taxes will not benefit from income tax cuts. But these poor families are actually shouldering the higher cost of goods and services as a result of the Train law,

...The aim to lower taxes for the poor and improve the quality of life of our people was negated by the government’s drive to increase revenues. Instead of easing the burden of over-taxation, the Train Law worsens the misery of our people. 

Thus, the passage of this urgent bill [to repeal it]is earnestly sought,”

But for a fanatic who cares about supporting the administration 'right or wrong', then their desire to insist the folks such as to "return to the fold of law and to participate in nation building" remains its outmost call especially in a time of instability; they would even claim that reforms such as that TRAIN law as beneficial in a way business groups seek:

"...to lower corporate income tax rates and rationalize incentives to broaden the tax base and increase the government’s revenues to support its key programs, as well as to address issues regarding the country’s competitiveness in the world market, low revenue efficiency, and the current uneven playing field between local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and foreign multinational companies."

Sadly, these fanatics didn't know that their idol's and its privileged supporters made that instability as it justifies an unlikely act (or are they contented in rising costs of goods out of that tax reform law?), what more that they made their statements sound foolish especially for a ruler who desired change when in fact he profited from an unjust order of "best informed, sober opinion, and experienced" plutocrats.

With all these inconveniences, then perhaps everyone knows why the state tolerate the system's unjustness thinking that they have better views than those of the commoner yearning to realise hopes- from this no wonder why people are discontented, and if promised to realise reforms- impatient to push through.

Why questioning (or even opposing) RA 11055?

Why questioning (or even opposing) RA 11055?

(Or why this person like others concerned
is questioning, even opposing the government's
 "National Identification System")

At first, this person, like others concerned, is questioning in regards to serious privacy and security concerns amidst the signing into law of Republic Act 11055 or the "Philippine Identification System Act" by the Duterte administration.

Initially, that plan seems to be optimistic, especially to those who are "sick and tired" of multiple identification cards from different government agencies, the need for stronger and efficient law enforcement and public safety, addressing financial inclusion challenges, efficient delivery and access to government agencies, as well as stronger law enforcement and public safety.

However, despite its intents, concerns are being raised especially against the inclusion of a ‘record history’ that details when and where the ID has been used, both in public and private transactions. Information to be collected also includes demographic data such as full name, gender, date and place of birth, blood type, address, and citizenship. Marital status, mobile numbers, and email addresses are optional. Other "improved features" such as Biometrics are also included, which involves front-facing photograph, full set of fingerprints, and iris scan. Other identifiable features may be collected if necessary.
With that procedure both in collecting one's profile as well as data history, this as enough to act as a "virtual tracker" for its holders, as well as a "treasure trove" for data-hungry individuals and entities such as data and mortgage brokers, credit agencies, direct mailers, civil litigants, employers, hackers, and even the government seeking for intelligence data. And its misuse, abuse, and leakage coming from these actions will have grave impacts on one's personal privacy and security.

While the need to streamline service and improve security as well as safety might be reasonable cause for its imposition, this system, as any other move taketh by the government, should not be at the expense of one's rights, particularly those of privacy, freedom of movement, and non-discrimination. These rights are of course, enshrined in the constitution as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the Philippines itself is it's signatory. As said before in regards to "Digital Transformation" and its impact in the society, while the law and its system intends to ensure one's convenience and easy access for every transactions, it can also become a convenient pretense for broader state surveillance and police powers over citizens- an attempt to silence possible dissent.

Actually, this kind of scenario becomes relevant knowing the prevailing environment of state-condoned impunity and violence against its people, and persecution of perceived enemies of the ruling order. Using digital means and with the active support by those adhereing to it, having personal data in the hands of an oppressive system will be another weapon that they can use enough to interfere with one's right to privacy, and even freedom of one's movement, expression, press, speech, and assembly.

Sounds opposing as it emphasises the problems surrounding this identification system. In fact last 2016, a "treasure trove" of data with biometrics and personal information has been released in an incident involving the Commission on Elections. That incident compromised the data of 55 million voters, thus exposed the inherent weaknesses of government systems to manage and secure personal data. 

And to think that there is an agency supposed to protect one's privacy and to help in managing government systems, will it also prevent those such as with the COMELEC data to use it for possible identity theft and fraud? Much more endangering is a possible distortion by the government itself- Especially when potential dissent may find one's self imprisoned or killed not because of an opposing belief but also having authorities likely to distort one's data till enough to justify an unlikely action- just like what happened in Kamuning months ago when a cultural activity end surrounded by the police with the latter pretending "they are enforcing curfew and other similar laws". This may get worse with  may also find the same fate so long as the authority does the same action "all in the name of order and stability." 

Anyway, aside from state matters, as the law repeatedly states that the identification system shall only be used as a proof of identity, it is not far fetched that in the future such data will be used for purposes other than stated in the law - especially as data, through digital means, is becoming a very lucrative venture that earns billions for the private sector. Entities like Ayala and Aboitiz hath submitted bids aiming to design, develop infrastructure needed for the system, despite the recent incident involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica- which incidentally underlined how little that the government can do to penalize and strictly enforce protecting data privacy of its citizens and how willing political actors are having their hands itchy yearning to utilise or distort one's personal data to further their goals.

From these, perhaps there will be more reasons why people dare to question after the government is willing to spend 30 billion pesos to create a complicated system despite the latter talking about its importance and benefits. Admittingly speaking, that billions of pesos would be far better served by modernizing, cleaning, and standardizing systems and databases that are already in use; or bluntly speaking, that same amount should hath been spent on the delivery of basic social services, setting forth important and necessary programs, or to lessen existing debts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010301190133/http://www.i-next.net:80/

When will that transformation truly for the people?

When will that transformation truly for the people?

(Ramblings on Digital Transformation
and how the system uses it for their benefit)

At present, "Digital Transformation" in the Philippines remains in its emergent stage. 

For despite having existing platforms necessary to push through that said attempt, as well as various entities getting engaged in that program, that program has to undergo a series of challenges ranging from setting regulations and creating regulatory bodies, to those of adopting behaviours of digital natives, of delivering outstanding digital customer service, of investing in technology, and in future proofing business models. 

For knowing that the continuous development of modern technology hath transformed economies and massively disrupted the status quo in some if not developed countries, it is obvious that existing entities of various sorts have no choice but to adapt in order to mitigate its negative effects if not to ensure its stability and survival- especially in a time when everyone is living in a world where anything seems to become intangible as it affects man and society through present and future breakthroughs, shifts, and changes- and most existing companies find it challenging to meet this kind of demand what Über, Facebook, or AirBnB enjoys, and in general, trying to "update" the present order and making it appear as "reforming" and "adapting to the changing times."

Sounds optimistic isn't it? As things digital hath meant chances of providing development, one would say that in a time when Über, the world’s largest taxi company owns no vehicles, that Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner creates no content, that Alibaba, the most valuable retailer has no inventory, and Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider owns no real estate, the attempt to bridge man and machinery has been the topics discussed by both technology and business experts, as well as an idea being toyed by the state especially in matters which technology can help in resolving their problems.
Furthermore, there are theorists whom currently discuss routinely about the "Third Industrial Revolution" with "Information and Communications Technology" as its cutting edge, and there are also those claiming that the world is at the threshold of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution" which is marked by emerging technology breakthroughs in a number of fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, The Internet of Things, 3D printing, and autonomous vehicles.

And in most developed countries, these massive developments are in full swing given the explicit support from their governments as well as capacity to innovate as part of improving its existing foundations, making the emerging digital economy appear different to what existed before. In Germany for instance, in its attempt to "usher in a fourth industrial age" as said earlier, provided a project which promotes the computerization of manufacturing, as it tends to create a "smart factory" which includes cyber-physical systems, the Internet of things, cloud computing, and cognitive computing alongside automation.
But in the case of the developing countries, it turned to be different- for the use of digital technology is largely meant for the retention of the status quo despite providing beneficial changes the way trains and automobiles meant improved means of transportation; and that the use of Cellular Phones did reach the poor masses in a desire to create better access to communication. However, from these developing countries, there are times that attempts for transformation, aside from initially hard to grasp with all its difficult terminologies, also came into conflict especially in industrial enclaves as it threatens jobs, as those who favour, in greatly emphasise efficiency, disregard those who actually work such as those of a human labourer.

All in all, both Developed and Developing countries, knowing that all these feats are made in a time Capitalism struggles for its survival, then are these technological changes truly a novelty for the benefit of the working class and communities? Or do they only continue the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few? For sure people have noticed how robotics replaced manpower in factory work and the possible use of artificial intelligence as a replacement for human interaction in the service industry, if not being treated as empty rhetoric if not half-baked realisations as it benefits the ruling few. These and more possible feats has made technology under capitalism created change that is superficial than beneficial. Superficial in a sense that it appears to be for the benefit of everyone when in fact it is meant to make profit from it.

Worse, that same transformation can possibly hinder one's rights, especially after using security and stability as its pretext. 

It may sound strange but bluntly speaking,  "Digital Transformation" at the hands of the present order is like any other move meant for a consolidation of interests. Despite things modern and appealing to the people, these are made even at the expense of the folk especially when it comes to the use of innovation. And its apologists would churn statements such as driven by the need for efficiency in running state affairs, improving economic development, and better access to social welfare particularly to those in need, this kind of transformation is itself a necessary move in a time when anything deals with business or governance with its organizational activities, processes, competencies and models requires immense use of technology.

And to think that with words such as "security", "stability", "safety", "efficiency", and others relatable to their the use of technology being promoted throughout by this present order, this may also meant an improved repressive state apparatus, especially when it comes to monitoring people and worse, the willingness by the order to aggressively use electronic and digital technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens. In the Philippines for example, the recent calls for a "National Identification System", despite its approval by the present administration, is still being questioned by some concerned sectors, as well as the opposition for its possible risks ranging those of invasion of privacy if not one of the signs of a coming police state in which President Duterte and his clique advocated. 

Fear-provoking isn't it? For despite its benefits presented to its citizens, the system sees these technologies necessary to maintain the stability of the state, even at the expense of people's rights.  

But to those who looked optimistically that kind of transformation, that attempt to transform the country digitally invokes hope as it continues to be depicted in a form of anything that is a wireless interconnectivity if not a myriad of things modern and state of the art- that makes Filipinos think as necessary to improve efficiency, security, accessibility, and productivity like those of its developed neighbours. And also to think that  most of Filipinos, as any other Asiatic, has afforded to enjoy the use of social media, the use of mobile applications, of Uber, Grab, AirBnB, and others whose expertise in things "wireless" has reached consumers yearning for comfort- and therefore, willingly to see further a more efficient access to services through digital means.

Yet still, this doesn't translate to full scale development that uplifts especially those of the masses. True that the masses did benefit from modern technology, but the present order hinders them from their upliftment no matter how they worked hard, save, and doing things productive. At some countries (including the Philippines), artificial intelligence poses a threat to workers in the Business Process Outsourcing sector or Automation via Robotics towards workers in a factory. Quite nice to hear those numerous achievements brought about by digital technology, but again-who is to benefit? The recent protests at Nutriasia and in PLDT perhaps made these well-off owners toying the idea what this post tackled about, that even at the expense of man as a worker the idea is on how to raise profits. Of course, they need manpower for a time being-and can be disposed right away regardless of the law.
But remember- most if not all these factors compelled Marx and Engels to make notes regarding those problems, for as capital tends to concentrate in the hands of richest, as well as predicted that larger firms would be able to achieve economies of scale and thus produce at lower average costs than smaller firms. Competition between the larger firms and the smaller firms would result in the elimination of the latter. And while the size of the firms increases with the accumulation of capital, the degree of competition in the market diminishes. And also as a result of the mismatch between human need and industrial conditions, modern life is rife with depression, helplessness, and despair- for as man itself became cogwheels whose drivel is to be remunerated after long hours work.

In the end, despite the so-called "efforts" done by the present order, of "Build Build Build" and the likes (including those tinkering of technology by the system itself), this didn't lessen the problem which the bulk of these folks are in the countryside, mostly oppressed peasants who have long been waiting for help, hungry of scientific education and genuine rural development; while in the urban enclaves wherein exploited workers are rather burdened with very low wages, forced to work in unjust conditions, and forced to content in having lack of social services like decent housing or shelter, health care, water supply, and electricity. The recent strikes made entrenched entities tinker the idea of automation as to dispose workers, thinking with machines replacing manpower meant efficiency-if not getting themselves free from paying wages and other benefits.

True that in this age of having communities improved by digital means lies the development of communities and the country in general: but given this still slow-paced expansion to the masses, what more of the need to prioritise setting new foundations, hope that this "Digital Transformation", in supporting the revival of agriculture and industry should be benefited by these folks, for they are the ones supposed to be benefiting from the fruits of this advanced science and technology.

***

Pardon if the note is criticising what others think as means to alleviate from the problems of malproduction and misdistribution, for the fact that the technology-based transformation did address or resolve some of the crises, it cannot deny that existing economic policies particularly those of unregulated capitalism, and the use of "freedom" as its basis for uninterrupted exploitation and intense competition (that turns out to be a dog-eat-dog scenario), has created an anarchy in production and even in distribution; and from these innovations it rather provided temporary relief while making its contrary even worse in a form of long-term crises- thus affecting development of both humanity and its society.

And other than economic issues, one would also think that if that transformation makes one secure, then how come issues like the leakage of personal information from the Commission on Elections occur? Is the "National Identification System" actually meant to resolve the multiplicity of government-issued identification per agency or intendedly used to gather personal data such as those of a potential dissenter? 

From these no wonder why this person, as well as others concerned would think that the idea, no matter how good it is (with intents such as inclusive and sustainable growth, improved governance, and responsive service delivery), yet at the hands of the order, rather negates its ideal intent and instead emphasises its actual goal: to retain the order at all costs. On the first place, did they consult the folks regarding this matter?  After all, that "Digital Transformation" is not a technological fix, a blueprint plan, a one-off event, nor a one-size-fits-all strategy. But rather, it is a social learning process, sustained over time, and involves diverse stakeholders especially those of the masses who meant to be uplifted and benefited.