"Big chunks for guns and thin slices for books"

"Big chunks for guns and thin slices for books"

Or: "Thoughts after the current regime's 2024 budget
and its Confidential and Intelligence Funds"

By Kat Ulrike

“Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.”

- Reichmarschall Hermann Göring, 1936.

Regardless of their statements, the Marcos-Duterte regime has managed to have confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) totaling PHP 5.277 billion and PHP 4.864 billion. 

For just like its predecessor that uses "National Security" for an alibi, these Confidential and Intelligence Funds are rather used to consolidate their interests- that of filling their own pockets and that of its supporters, and to further attacks against the people. 

However, this issue is more than just about CIFs. For as the current administration continues that of its predecessors in emphasising internal security over that of others, the budget for 2024 continues the trend of boosting military and infrastructure spending while cutting funds for social services and public needs. The budget for 2024 includes PHP 733.2 billion for "special purpose funds" under the Office of the President, PHP 977.6 billion for public works, highways, and transportation, and PHP 9.7 billion for NTF-ELCAC, while cutting PHP 6.16 billion from state universities and colleges, PHP 10.17 billion from the Department of Health, and other welfare services including fuel subsidies.

Quite obvious that the regime would certainly choose guns while claiming to be having funds for the butter; and if this writer recalls, their intentions makes yours truly think they have studied Miguel Coronel's "Pro-Democracy People's War" with all its "development packages" just to support counterinsurgency operations- yet by seeing budget thin slices for others such as agriculture, education, health, and social services, is their desire to win the peace attainable in the long term?


Trying to use "National Security" as an excuse

But despite the scrutiny and criticism, justifying the need for CIFs rather create outrage. Yes, everything is tied to national security ranging from education to that of dealing with the industrial sectors, but the current order's view on national security is more to do with protecting their interest even at the expense of the folk: whether by filling the pockets of its supporters, to that of surveillance and "special operations", the current administration, as said earlier is as same as that of it's predecessors in its perchance to upheld the status quo of interest seekers and exploiters alike- and it is not surprising that such squandering of funds proves how these are used for corruption.

Just imagine how Vice President Sara Duterte spent the Office of the Vice President's PHP 125 million CIF in just 11 days? Of course, the office would brag about certain projects be it feeding programs to that of free rides, but if one may ask- why should these projects be "confidential" in the first place? Besides, these programs being taken pride about by the office using such funds are nothing compared to the obvious interest in surveilling against those who are concerned, in seeking truth, and voicing dissent. 

Currently, lawmakers talked about rechanneling CIFs to supposed agencies such as in the wake of tensions in West Philippine Sea. The Philippine Coast Guard for instance is in need of such funds for their activities, as well as that of the National Security Council and the National intelligence Coordinating Agency, but if one may recall, such agencies dealing with security did really talked about bolstering national defence to uphold national sovereignty especially in the face of tensions coming from its neighbours; but at the same time these security agencies are also known for using their funds to conduct illegal surveillance and harassment against unionists, mass leaders, and opposition personalities. If one may ask, which is their priority given that they got their needed funds? Is it to upheld national sovereignty against a big chauvinist power? Or by protecting a rotten social order on the basis on national security? They would talk about modernising the armed forces, with all the "much needed" military materiel mostly of handouts, but will these meant to protect the nation or the order that controls in it? Remember, these mostly are used against communities in counterinsurgency operations. 

Big chunks for guns and 'safe houses',
Thin slices for books and schools

And since the admin pouring funds to national security and in piecemeal developments, health, social services, and education experienced cuts. 

With a nearly PhP10 billion budget reduction in 2024, the Department of Health also takes a significant hit. Only 481 billion, or 8% of the total national budget, will be allocated to health overall. And institutions like the Philippine General Hospital, the Philippine Heart Center, the National Kidney & Transplant Institute, the Lung Center of the Philippines, and the Philippine Children's Medical Center would see funding cuts.

The "emergency assistance programs" of the Department of Social Work and Development, which provide aid to Filipinos in need, will also see an almost 28 billion peso reduction in funding.

And although true that the Department of Education has able to got a substantial budget, this rather allocated only to the office of the Education Secretary headed by nonetheless VP Duterte herself. But how about its attached agencies like the the National Book Development Board, National Council for Children’s Television, National Museum of the Philippines, Philippine High School for the Arts, Early Childhood Care and Development Council, and the National Academy of Sports? Even State Colleges and Universities got only a share of PHP 6.16 billion. 

Other government departments like the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Labor and Employment, and even the Department of Migrant Workers got cuts in the national budget. With these cuts, or should say thin slices given to these departments, will these "win the peace" as what the current administration wanted?


"insidious reasons"?

“The success of a project, activity or program really depends on very good intelligence and surveillance because you want to target specific issues and challenges.”

- Sara Duterte

For sure supporters of the order would say that by reducing, or removing CIFs means against peace and development. Just like their idol Duterte whose tirades against the opposition, that seeing their idols being questioned by the opposition over the use of public funds for "intelligence" and "confidential" purposes as persons having "insidious reasons" that "jeopardize national development."

If so, then no wonder these supporters tolerate corrupt personages that filled their own pockets with funds meant to be for the people, if not intentionally having blind eye over state-sponsored terror against dissent and justified as "national security". The Vice President had no choice to submit to public pressure by letting legislators rechanneled her CIFs to that of the coast guard and other government security agencies enough to dispel further scrutiny; but will the concerned just accept the regime's bow-down to public pressure?

In fact, contrary to these supporters claims, that "insidious reasons" is much more deserved in their idols rather than those who strongly disagree with their actions involving public funds- and such insidious reasons of theirs doesn't "win the peace" at all. 

A free Artsakh even if heavens may fall!

 A free Artsakh even if heavens may fall!

by Kat Ulrike

At first this note certainly doubt that peace will prevail over Hayastan (Armenia). For despite assurances from both Armenian and Azeri governments as well as Turkish, Russian, and western observers, the realities such as Artsakh under Baku's full control, and tens of thousands of Artsakh Armenians have fled to Hayastan in fear of Azeribajan's full military might, these does not mean will create an atmosphere of peace.

And even though it only lasted for 24 hours, that "anti-terror operation" happened weeks ago gave Azerbaijan exactly what it wanted: the local defense forces capitulated and agreed to integration negotiations. The Lachin Corridor, the only route connecting Artsakh with Armenia, was finally opened by Baku five days after Azerbaijan barred it for 10 months. Armenians from Artsakh were able to evacuate due to this, and it doesn't appear that they will return. Baku benefits from such a result because it will be "simpler to rule Nagorno-Karabakh" with fewer Armenians present.

However, what worries most is how Prime Minister Pashinyan treated the situation. Of course, the main evil-doers are that of Azeribaijan and Turkey, but how come Pashinyan cannot escape from being pointed out by Armenians as a feeble kind of 'leader'? In 2001, he wrote in his Haykakan Jamanak newspaper and said “Through diplomacy, it is not possible not to return these [Artsakh] territories to Azerbaijan…Having abandoned our own lands, we are trying to be the owners of someone else’s land.” But as he became the head of the government after the western-sponsored 'revolution', Pashinyan made numerous contradictory statements regarding Artsakh, first stating emphatically that “Artsakh is Armenia, that’s it,” and then, “Artsakh is part of Azerbaijan.” What a foolish gesture as one may say that by saying "Artsakh is part of Azeribaijan" means peace with its neighbours while blaming everyone else for his misdeeds, including the former leaders, the domestic opposition and Russia.

But did the west whom Pashinyan thinks would help Armenia did helped? Other than press releases and token 'help' are nothing else. As Baku launched a military attack over Artsakh on the pretext of "anti-terror operation", Pashinyan really backtracked from his message as he declared that Armenia will stay out of the fight, giving Azerbaijan the go-ahead to conduct all kind of heinous crimes against the people of Artsakh. Pashinyan, having washed off his hands of Artsakh had urged its leaders to sort out their differences with its neighbour, as he simply ignored them as fellow Armenians while cherished the false belief that the people of Artsakh accept themselves as a minority and will live in peace when Artsakh is returned to Azerbaijan as Nagorno-Kabarakh. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth- for as hundreds of Artsakh Armenians were killed and wounded, and thousands are missing as a result of Azerbaijan’s attack, Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, will continue his invasion of Artsakh while facing a militarily incompetent and weak Armenia in front of him. Aliyev, who thinks Hayastan as western Azeribaijan will continue to press the feeble Pashinyan for concessions while annexing more Armenian territory. 

To be honest, this writer ain't even an Armenian, but this situation over Artsakh and even Hayastan itself would say that the flames of Armenian struggle kept on growing. Decades ago people heard about groups like the Armenian Fedayeen, to that of ASALA and JUSTICE COMMANDOS sworn to promote justice against those whose blood in hands still justified its actions. Of course mainstream media branded them as bandits, terrorists, criminals, but to be honest would say that these folks who took arms were themselves patriotic enough unlike the regime whose aloofness quite deafening even the very Armenians themselves- that also enough to rise up having enough of Pashinyan capitulated to the whims of Aliyev. Even Russia’s statesmen, including President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, repeatedly stated that Pashinyan is the one who relinquished Artsakh. 

But speaking of Russia, to see an aloof west while Russia busy with its war against Ukraine makes one think or say that their action over a fellow Christian like Artsakh is token as opposed to the press releases being churned to and fro from the other side. The Russian peacekeepers, who were mandated by the 2020 agreement to safeguard the population of Artsakh and keep the Lachin Corridor open until 2025, may've failed miserably to carry out their responsibilities. But comparable to an aloof west (and even the international community in general) Pashinyan thinks will help Hayastan, Russia tried to yet not enough as a “guarantor” of peace and security of Artsakh and Hayastan while Azeribaijan harass them through and through - thus showing the limits of agreements required by the Collective Security Treaty signed by Armenia, Russia and several other former Soviet Republics, if not the same Russia that profits from selling weapons in one country while promises to protect the other. 

What would stop Aliyev from pushing through his idea of western Azeribaijan over Hayastan? Armenians hope that the world ain't aloof in the situation they faced, they have enough of seeing the feeble prime minister who is refusing to resign amidst growing protests. Of course there are legal means such as the ICJ or the United Nations to support Artsakh's right for self-determination and its will to unite with Hayastan. But is it enough? CSTO isn't enough, even the resolutions from the European Union ain't even enough, not even the statement from Kim Kardashian.  And it is not surprising that Armenians will rise up even without the government to support with- for no one wants a "peace" that's been forced by someone who would remind through and through of a tragic 'past', but instead what matters most for them is to fight defend their homeland back even if requires violating ceasefire orders and suffer heavy casualties. A free Artsakh united with mother Hayastan is a goal for Armenians and those who support its cause, even if mountains shook and heavens may fall.

"For the sake of 'National Security'"- how authorities still stubborn in the need for Confidential and Intelligence Funds

"For the sake of 'National Security'"-

how authorities still stubborn in the need
for Confidential and Intelligence Funds

It seems that amidst controversies, authorities are still stubborn in justifying the need for Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIFs). For as news reports talked about both the president and vice president as well as 22 other state agencies having CIFs for next year this shows barefaced corruption using national security as its pretext. 

With Marcos jr. got 4.85 billion while Sara Duterte got 650 million of CIFs, this isn’t new as despite popular criticism these authorities justified the need of such funds such as similar to the last Duterte administration with 1.7 billion in 2016 and further to 6.88 billion in 2017- and it is also the same admin when these CIFs used to fund operations “Tokhang” and “Double Barrel” that killed poor folks in the name of “war on drugs”. 

And like the past administration justifying the need of CIFs in the pretext of law and order, the current Marcos administration's need for CIFs in both Presidential, Vice Presidential offices and in government departments shows its perchance for actions "that have direct impact on national security." In an instance, Vice President Sara Duterte, concurrently as Education Secretary claims that the need for CIFs means tying Education in the needs of National Security- which obviously includes surveillance and monitoring against critics in the education sector as well as student activists. And it’s quite obvious that her lambasts against left-wing critics as well as her co-chairmanship of the NTFELCAC justifies such actions “requiring the need of billion-peso CIFs”.  

But people should recall that last 2022 when Marcos jr. transferred 221.4 million from his presidential contingent fund to the Office of the Vice President, and from this amount the Office of the Vice President allotted 125 million for confidential funds and spent in only 19 days. If one may ask, why the need of such funds when a department, much so an office of the second highest official has nothing to do with surveillance? Or is the office, or a government department being treated as a milking cow for one’s vested interest and to consolidate even further using such funds? 

For sure allies in the legislature suddenly got "concerned" on this situation, that they're acting "national interest above all" in reviewing these funds. With words such as 'oversight', 'proper utilisation of funds', and the likes these lawmakers suddenly feigning concern if not denying there is “political accommodation” in the executive’s grant of confidential funds in the National Expenditure Program. But is it enough to appease those who truly concerned? People cannot forget the scandals involving certain public officials and its misuse of public funds several years ago (for sure one would remember Pork Barrel Scams of the Aquino administration)- and now with "confidential" and "intelligence" purposes as alibis, enjoying a much greater shield from public scrutiny. However, the growing preference for CIF appropriations, especially in organizations that have nothing to do with security issues, has really and seriously prompted questions about the responsible use of public funds, transparency, and the standard of governance.

Sorry for the speculation, but this 2023 some would suggest that there is another factor at play in addition to "national security": Barangay chiefs and their subordinates are looking for financial support from local strongmen to maintain their footholds, which then leads to their allies in the national government. This is followed by a few years of midterm elections, during which local and national politicians are looking for support from ruling elected officials, including the President and the Vice President.  And it is not surprising that a stash of funds with a variety of "urgently-sounding" names are to be used for consolidating interests of those in power rather than to support and uplift the needs of a growing nation.  

The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation

The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation

In today’s era of cultural consciousness, inclusivity and representation have become buzzwords dominating conversations around media and storytelling. However, what is often presented as progressive inclusivity in mainstream media frequently feels shallow, commercialized, and ultimately a disservice to the very communities it claims to uplift. The trend of reimagining established fictional characters—such as casting an African actress as Ariel in The Little Mermaid or a Hispanic actress as Snow White—highlights a troubling pattern where marketability is prioritized over genuine creativity or cultural authenticity. 

Inclusivity vs. Commercial Strategy 

True inclusivity stems from celebrating diverse identities and narratives, but when representation is reduced to altering existing characters to fit a diversity agenda, it raises questions about intent. Are these choices made to reflect society’s evolving values, or are they calculated moves to capitalize on a growing demand for inclusivity? 

The reality often leans toward the latter. Recasting characters like Ariel or Snow White might generate buzz and controversy, but it seldom results in a meaningful connection with the audiences these changes are meant to represent. Instead of taking the risk to create original stories that authentically showcase underrepresented cultures, studios lean on familiar properties to ensure commercial success. The result is a brand of inclusivity that feels more like tokenism than true representation. 

A Shortcut to Representation 

Reimagining existing characters is not inherently problematic, but when it becomes the default approach to representation, it risks diminishing the value of diversity. By retrofitting characters into narratives where they lack cultural resonance, creators inadvertently suggest that underrepresented groups need to inhabit pre-existing roles to gain recognition, rather than being celebrated for their unique stories. 

For example, casting an African actress as Ariel or a Hispanic actress as Snow White does little to elevate African or European cultural narratives. Instead of exploring myths like Mami Wata—a richly symbolic water spirit in African folklore—creators opt to rework a European fairy tale, placing diversity in a context where it feels out of place, or instead of reimagining Snow White as Hispanic, why not adapt captivating Hispanic folklore such as La Llorona or El Sombrerón? This not only distorts the original story but also fails to provide authentic representation for the community being showcased. 

The Problem of Misplaced Authenticity 

Take the 2010 remake of The Karate Kid as another example of this misplaced creativity. Despite being set in China and focusing on Kung Fu, the movie retained its original title, The Karate Kid, a nod to the brand recognition of the 1984 classic. While the film succeeded commercially, its title raised questions about cultural accuracy. Was the decision to call it The Karate Kid a genuine tribute to the original, or was it simply a marketing move to attract nostalgic audiences? 

This kind of decision-making undermines authenticity and perpetuates confusion about cultural nuances. It demonstrates how creators prioritize marketability over the integrity of the narratives they present. If studios cannot commit to fully adapting stories to reflect their new contexts, how can they expect audiences to take these representations seriously? 

A Question of Creative Depth 

Representation becomes even more problematic when it begins to distort the essence of the stories themselves. Critics of reimagined adaptations might point to potential inconsistencies, such as questioning whether Frozen would still make sense if set in Greenland or the Himalayas instead of Scandinavia. Supporters may argue that these are just fictional stories, and producers have the “creative license” to reinterpret them as they wish. 

But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While fiction allows for flexibility, it does not absolve creators from respecting the cultural and historical significance of the stories they adapt. By neglecting authenticity, creators risk alienating audiences who recognize these distortions as shallow attempts to pander to modern sensibilities rather than genuine efforts to celebrate diversity. 

Inclusivity Should Be Nurtured, Not Forced 

Forcing inclusivity into existing frameworks often comes across as artificial, and audiences can sense when representation is more about optics than substance. Inclusivity should be a natural byproduct of storytelling that values human diversity in all its forms. When creators prioritize authenticity, representation becomes an organic and enriching aspect of the narrative, rather than a box to tick for marketing purposes. 

True representation also requires a willingness to take risks. It involves creating new stories, new characters, and new worlds that reflect the richness of human experience. By relying on established intellectual properties to achieve diversity, creators miss the opportunity to introduce audiences to the untapped wealth of global cultures and perspectives. 

The Responsible Approach to Cultural Appropriation 

Cultural appropriation is another layer to this discussion. While often criticized, not all forms of appropriation are inherently negative. When done responsibly, cultural borrowing can foster cross-cultural understanding and appreciation. The key lies in intention and execution. 

Appropriation becomes problematic when it reduces cultural elements to mere aesthetics, stripping them of their deeper meanings. For example, many traditional practices or symbols have been commodified for tourist markets, creating distorted representations that cater to outsiders’ expectations rather than honoring the culture itself. 

Responsible appropriation requires a deep understanding and respect for the culture being borrowed from. It involves collaboration with cultural representatives and a commitment to preserving the authenticity and significance of what is being shared. Without this responsibility, cultural borrowing risks perpetuating stereotypes or trivializing the traditions it seeks to highlight. 

A Better Path Forward 

To truly embrace diversity, creators must move beyond the safety of established brands. The world is full of untold stories, myths, and characters waiting to be brought to life. Rather than relying on retrofitted narratives, creators should focus on crafting original works that celebrate the unique beauty of different cultures. 

Consider how much richer the storytelling landscape would be if filmmakers explored African water deities like Mami Wata, Southeast Asian folklore like the Aswang, or Indigenous American legends like the Thunderbird. These narratives would not only provide authentic representation but also offer audiences something fresh and innovative. 

Representation should not be about visibility alone; it should empower underrepresented communities by giving them the platform to tell their own stories. By embracing originality and authenticity, creators can create narratives that resonate with diverse audiences while honoring the cultures they depict. 

Conclusion: Creativity Over Marketability 

The misplaced creativity of modern representation often prioritizes marketability over meaningful storytelling. While well-intentioned, the trend of reimagining existing characters as a means of achieving diversity often feels hollow and performative. 

True inclusivity demands more than casting decisions; it requires a commitment to authenticity, originality, and respect for the cultures being represented. By moving away from recycled narratives and investing in fresh, culturally rich stories, creators can foster a deeper appreciation for the diversity of the human experience. 

Representation is not about forcing diversity into pre-existing molds. It is about creating space for new voices, new ideas, and new stories that celebrate the richness of our shared humanity. In doing so, we can move beyond tokenism and build a storytelling tradition that is as inclusive as it is creative. 

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes

This note wouldn’t be surprised that as the current administration continues to cling to this fundless fund of theirs that this may also serve as a biggest source of corruption in the country’s history. By having it not open to public scrutiny, both the final text of the law as well as the operations and investment decisions of the officers involved in this “sovereign wealth fund” will always raise concerns especially over conflicting provisions and potential legal and constitutional issues.

How come? Other than it is signed by the current administration prone to corruption and crony capitalism, the Maharlika Investment Fund, being “fundless” and “shouldered by loans”, has to depend on funds from state-owned banks and corporations despite the fact these agencies having limited funds for its intended clients to begin with. 

In an instance, the Philippine Chamber of Agriculture and Food Inc. worried as while Development Bank of the Philippines and the Land Bank of the Philippines have limited access to its intended clients, will contribute to the fund itself- and that interprets as directing funds away from agriculture and other important needs. 

Even the Church, the academe, and Civil Society expressed disapproval on the controversial fund and suggested that whatever funds are to be allotted to it would better serve Filipinos by strengthening existing poverty alleviation programs of the government. 

There are other groups that also expressed concern  in that sovereign wealth fund Marcos and his circle bragged about, as businessmen and economists still find the newly-passed law as having a “lack of clear focus” if not questioning its intentions, particularly its target to finance development projects, saying it may “render redundant” existing government programs; if not seeing “vague” about expected financial and economic returns.

To cut this thought short, seeing that controversial law being signed by the president shows that the administration doesn’t mind about the sovereign while claiming that the fund is meant for “them”. The funds meant to invest in that entity will always be coming from the working public, and really concerning that these might go to waste if mismanaged. Is the Santiago principles enough to prove that the sovereign wealth fund be managed properly? Not even, especially when people, the very sovereign who’s worried about their taxes and savings as sources of funds, wanted sound good governance and development strategies as well as having people’s participation and support- and these are seemingly absent in this current situation. 

Apologists of the fund, however, may still cling to their thought that the fund meant chances of making the country not to depend on international loans, if not a panacea for the ever-yearning for “nationl development” - despite the fact that the fund itself also includes those from borrowings both local and abroad. Even the President’s certification of the bill as urgent despite the absence of a public emergency or calamity as countered by that of the recent pandemic and global events being necessitated for “urgent action” even with lack of surplus funds from the national budget nor having responsible managers to begin with.        

Again, as said in earlier writeups concerning this “fund”, that amid rising prices, low wages, acute joblessness, rural dislocation and economic dispossession, seeing the Marcos regime prioritizing their own interests as well as that of his cronies and their foreign partners as a mockery of the promises being said to the people the way it downplays the truth the country experiencing inflation as “not that high” if not failing to fulfill making 20 pesos for a kilo of rice.

“Is the nation’s state really sound and improving?”

“Is the nation’s state really sound and improving?”

“The state of the nation is sound and improving…” said the president in his second state of the nation address.

Facing his camarilla and that of his allies in the legislature, the president, just like his predecessor, is trying to appease the people with another round of empty rhetoric and half-baked programs, alongside “achievements” trying to stave off controversies- as he provided a thorough evaluation of the performance of his administration in 15 key areas, including the economy and food security, infrastructure, the controversial Maharlika Investment Fund, energy, uniformed personnel, education, health, foreign policy, investments, digitalization and internet, migrant workers, housing, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), a refocused drug war, insurgency, and priority bills. 

And regardless of the controversies surrounding his proposals supporters of the administration will still cling to the president’s optimism. That by claiming the country as improving amidst crisis, it becomes a copium that tries to counter the truth- in a way the Maharlika Fund is treated as a panacea despite being fundless and unsure of its goals. True that restrictions imposed during the COVID19 pandemic been relaxed and hence trying to stimulate transactions, but how about a sound minimum wage for laborers, and support for smallholder farmers and local enterprises especially startups? The KADIWA stores being said with pride, does it benefited the farmers who are in desperate need for accessibility to buyers? Or that of profiteering smugglers benefiting from imported sugar, fruits, vegetables, even meat?

True it may be that the regime tries to “moderate” its image in the face of criticism borne from of the past administration, but despite these promises and “achievements” nothing has said about pressing issues particularly on human rights as those from the opposition are being harassed, red-tagged, arrested, imprisoned, killed, or simply disappeared, even silent on his predecessor’s case in the International Criminal Court if not the crimes under his father’s dictatorship. Marcos’s speech also fell short in addressing important issues like national sovereignty, widespread corruption, and the nation's growing debt of PhP 12.7 trillion, among others. 

These and more would say that despite their words this doesn’t stop people from questioning, seeking truth from facts and to expose the inconvenient truths the order has trying to cover upon. He is the same president who has perchance for expensive overseas junkets and downplays people’s hardships, who claims inflation as “not that high” while everyone felt its effects. Worse, to claim that justice thrives when crooks and thugs roaming freely as that of the past administration’s- making such truths altogether would say that the “new Philippines” presented by the second Marcos administration is as same as that of the old- benefiting the corrupt bureaucrat, the oppressive despot, and the profiteering economic conmen who altogether use the people for their interests as it harps on grand promises but falls short of actual benefits for their constituents. 

But regardless of these empty messages and half baked promises, there’s still hope for people who wanted a new Philippines to happen- that by taking the future from the goddamn system!

Now that it is signed, what’s next?

Now that it is signed, what’s next? 

 Amid lack of surplus funds and popular discontent, President Bongbong Marcos signed the act creating the Maharlika Investment Fund into law, the creation of the country’s first sovereign wealth fund. 

 Surrounded by his allies in congress, Marcos jr. highlighted the creation of the Maharlika Investment Fund as a bold step towards development despite the fact that business groups, academia, economists, opposition lawmakers, and civil society disagreed with the proposition, citing several provisions as problematic, including the use of state pension funds as seed money, and susceptibility to corruption.

 Of course, the administration would “heed” and therefore “omit” if necessary certain provisions in the draft just to appease them; but, despite assuring the public about the fund “will be run by finance professionals” to that of “addressing issues on accountability and transparency”, this doesn’t stop the concerned from being critical, especially when another Marcos meant another chances of cronyism and corruption. But come to think of this, now that the bill is signed into law, what’s next for a sovereign wealth fund that’s having lack of funds in itself? Sovereign wealth funds generally arise out of a country’s surplus revenues — whether from surpluses due to natural resources, trade surpluses, or any other similar sources. 

And it is not surprising if the administration would able to “gain funds” initially from government-owned banks, and subsequently from the dividends of the Central Bank, gaming revenue streams from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, and other sources, such as royalties and/or special assessments based on natural resources, proceeds from privatization of government assets, and even borrowings. And in speaking of government-owned banks and other Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, isn’t it that Land Bank of the Philippines should prioritise first the funding of the agrarian reform program and rural development rather than funding that controversial wealth fund? The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, under its charter would say that it is their duty to help raise funds for the government and may also include that controversial MIF. Even the Central Bank with its surplus dividends would say helpful to subsidise that investment fund- but still, it needs to be surplus. 

 Yet, why the government’s assurances doesn’t it stop people from worrying aside from possible misuse of public funds, graft and corruption, and mismanagement like what happened in Malaysia and in Nauru? Is their message enough to appease people whose serious and immediate concerns outweigh the administration’s promises and alibis? The lack of clear objectives especially in this still-developing country such as supporting efforts in industrialisation, “green jobs” creation, even agricultural modernisation and supporting improvements in education, science and technology, or even culture and the arts, makes one worrying on the need for a sovereign wealth fund that prioritises the interests of the few using proceeds that meant to be for the many while claiming this would be “for the welfare of the Filipino people.” After all, should investing using people’s funds (whether it is taxes, pension, dividends from state owned financial institutions, etc.) be limited to that of stocks, real estate, among others? 

 Perhaps alongside the need for prioritising immediate attention and comprehensive solutions to education, healthcare, housing, employment opportunities, and poverty alleviation, the need for a sovereign wealth fund may sound feasible, but since this issue is without even asking from the crisis-marred sovereign (that is, the Filipino people) from the start, it becomes a mockery- especially when having a “fund” that’s without any fund other than borrowings and babblings, and led by bureaucrats who wanted to consolidate their entrenched interests by evenly using people’s funds. 

 So now that it is signed, what’s next? Folk! Be vigilant in their soonest actions!