Drugs War 8, Duterte government as drug fighter, or facilitator?

While some 8,000 to 14,000 suspected drug users and small-time drug pushers have been murdered  over the on-going drugs war of the Duterte government, there was not a single "big fish" drug lord and drug pusher who has been arrested. Well, two municipal Mayors and their friends, family members have been massacred over the past few months, suspected of being drug pushers in their areas. But they are not considered as "big fish" enough.

The P6.4 billion worth of shabu that went through the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and was later raided at a warehouse in Valenzuela, not a single big personalities implicated in the Senate investigations was arrested or prosecuted. Then this news report from the Inquirer on August 09, 2017, Shabu shipments to Valenzuela warehouse began in June 2016, says caretaker.

From Bernard Ong, fb wall:

IN TIME FOR NEW MANAGEMENT

September 26

Shipments were made in June 2016, January 2017, March 2017, and May 2017 (intercepted). Not a moment wasted. The first one in time for Davao Group - the political cabal, not its namesake criminal syndicate - taking power in Imperial Manila.

Mr. Duterte won as President in May 2016. The next month, large-scale shipment of shabu started under President Duterte. Cool.

From 1.8 M estimated drug users, Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) official study and survey until February 2016, it became 4 M drug users according to the President himself, and now up to 7 M users according to DFA Sec. Cayetano.

If the President and the DFA Secretary are correct in their numbers, then it means one thing -- the supply of drugs is expanding, the price of drugs is declining due to bigger supply, so the number of users is rising. Good business model.

More posts from Bernard Ong:

DUMB INTEL

September 29

Who are the 'credible sources' behind these?

A) Taiwan Triads main source of Shabu to Philippines

UN Office for Drugs & Crime analysis traces most shabu in the Philippines, Asia & the world to China. Single biggest drug haul - P6.4B shabu smuggling came from China.

B) Marawi terrorism due by drug arrest warrant

AFP says it was triggered by sighting & attempt to arrest Abu Sayyaf chief Hapilon.

C) Fake Trillanes offshore accounts.

Duterte admitted he lied & made up numbers, then said 'real' numbers came from Mocha & Tulfo.

D) Teen killings are the work of saboteurs out to discredit Drug War

PNP cops are suspected of murder in both Kian and Carl cases. They invoke Duterte's standard 'Nanlaban' excuse for the killings.

---------------

See also:

Drugs War 5, Kill-ambush-poison-bomb-you from PDu30, May 08, 2017 

Drugs War 6, How PDu30 supporters justify his kill-ambush-poison-bomb policy, May 09, 2017 

Drugs war 7, Duterte first year, one year of impunity, June 30, 2017

PDu30 Martial Law in Mindanao

This week, President Duterte who was in Russia when there was a big fight between the Armed Forces of the PH (AFP) and the Maute group of local terrorists, declared Martial Law for the entire Mindanao. I think PDu30 acted with paranoia here as he is too focused on anti-drugs de tokhang war vs ordinary civilians, or China-Russia-love ya affair. When faced with real war, his first instinct is to declare Martial Law.

The PH National Police (PNP) too has become too focused on drugs de tokhang that their intelligence gathering on the real organized, armed criminals has suffered. Below, I am reposting opinions from some friends, posted in their fb walls on dates indicated.

(1)  Jose Antonio Custodio, May 23:

The group that is attacking Marawi City is the Maute group with some reinforcements....it is not the ISIS.... They are taking advantage of the fact that the military and police are distracted by the lack of a coherent policy on internal security. It is as simple as that.

(2) Jojo Garcia, May 23:

Martial law means the suspension of civilian government and the installation of military rule. The functioning of regular civilian courts and sanggunians are explicitly the only exception among civilian offices that should continue under the military government. Martial law also means that Mindanao is now under a military governor or governors, usually the heads of the AFP commands in the island. They will govern the civilian population through AFP general orders to be carried out by soldiers, not by the civilian LGUs whose operation and authority are now effectively suspended if martial law is truly to take effect. Anything less than this will merely amount to a hodgepodge system that would result in a nominal declaration mainly intended for propaganda purposes of showing presidential muscle.

If this is real and not nominal martial law, this is the largest geographical area put under martial law since the superficial lifting of Marcos's martial law in 1981. I hope this is only a nominal presidential show of force and not a real implementation of martial law, since I am not sure if the AFP is capable of running a military government in such a large area without the concommittant human rights violations committed en masse.

In short, sana pang-PR at yabang lang yan, because the last time the AFP implemented martial law as declared by a tyrant, there was no turning back.

(3) Dan Adan, May 25:

Understanding Section 18 of Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution Bit by Bit

The President:

1. Is the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines.

2. As Commander-in-Chief, may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence whenever it becomes necessary.

3. As Commander-in-Chief, may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress invasion whenever it becomes necessary.

4. As Commander-in-Chief, may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress rebellion whenever it becomes necessary.

5. May suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period not exceeding sixty days in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

6. May place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law for a period not exceeding sixty days in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

7. Shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law.

8. Shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress within forty-eight hours from the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

9. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke the President's proclamation of martial law.

10. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

11. The President cannot set aside the congressional revocation of the declaration of martial law.

12. The President cannot set aside the congressional revocation of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

13. The President may ask Congress to extend the proclamation of martial law if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

14. The President may ask Congress to extend the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

15. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in a regular or special session, may extend the proclamation of martial law for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

16. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in a regular or special session, may extend the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

17. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

18. Any citizen may file a case before the Supreme Court questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the extension thereof.

19. Any citizen may file a case before the Supreme Court questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof.

20. The Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the extension thereof.

21. The Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof.

22. The Supreme Court must promulgate its decision on the factual basis sufficiency within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not:

23. Ssuspend the operation of the Constitution.

24. Supplant the functioning of the civil courts.

25. Supplant the functioning of legislative assemblies.

26. Authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function.

27. Automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

28. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

29. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

(4) Bernard Ong, May 25:

GEO-FENCING MARTIAL LAW

After Mindanao Martial Law, the trial balloon for nation-wide Martial Law is now flying high.

Inclusions:

1. Mindanao of course - home of the Durterte este Maute Group

2. Visayas because it is just walking distance from Mindanao

3. Luzon because it is just walking distance from Visayas

4. Anybody named Luzviminda is covered

Exclusions:

1. Taiwan which is just walking distance from Luzon

2. Kalayaan Islands (a.k.a Spratly) because it will anger China

3. Panatag because that has been bartered to China for (scrap) trains

4. Davao because it has already been under authoritarian rule for 30 years

5. Anybody who can walk on water is exempted

For assurance that Martial Law will not be abused by unaccountable men in power, read up on Marcos history. Better yet, go dig some bones at Maa Quarry.

Drugs War 5, Kill-ambush-poison-bomb-you from PDu30

May tupak talaga ito. See his language:

“And here’s the shocker: I will kill you. I will really kill you. And that’s why the rapporteur of the UN is here, investigating extrajudicial killing,” Duterte said, referring to drug dealers as he was addressing an orthopedic conference in Davao City, as cited by The Philippine Star.

“I told them that once you get involved in drugs I will kill you. I will ambush you, poison you, bomb you, whatever. Steal your wife from you,” the Philippines leader added. – May 6, 2017, https://www.rt.com/news/387205-duterte-un-killings-complaint/

Those words cannot come from a stable mind. Unpresidential gutter language.

PDu30 is scared of the UN HR body. If there is nothing to fear, just invite them to come with zero conditionalities, nothing. Having conditionalities means there are fears, there are things to hide.

Many sectors also bring up the LP/yellow/dilawan in the visit by Ms. Callamard. Why divert the issue? PDu30 and his many agencies can quickly organize a forum with that lady anywhere, anytime, challenge her to a public debate because she opted to come here, pulverize her arguments if they can, they did not do it. 

Reposting some comments from my friend Bernard Ong, posted in his fb wall May 5 and 6, 2017.

------------

(1) TAKOT SA UN RAPPORTEUR

Malacanang objected to the 'unannounced' visit of UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Agnes Callamard.

"We are aware that Dr. Callamard is currently in the Philippines and we are disappointed that, in not contacting our government in advance of this visit, she has sent a clear signal that she is not interested in getting an objective perspective on the issues that are the focus of her responsibility" - Spokesman Ernesto Abella.

Hold your carabao, Ernie. She is not here for you. No need to announce her visit dahil wala kayo sa agenda niya. Your are being paranoid. Which part of "extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" triggered your praning reaction. Fentanyl muna to ease your worries.

Turns out Dr Callamard is here to attend & address a drug policy forum sponsored by CHR & Free Legal Assistance Group at UP Diliman. Government is actually represented in the forum by its lead drug agency - Dangerous Drugs Board. Sayang. Kung hindi lang sana takot si Duterte sa UP Diliman, he could have gone there to share his "Kill. Kill. Kill" approach.

So there. Dr Callamard is not here for you. Wait lang muna, your turn will come. You can relax. She is also braver than you.

Unlike you, she is not afraid of going to UP Diliman.

(2) TEKA TEKA MALI YATA

1. Takot na takot, at galit na galit, sa isang UN Human Rights official na inimbitang magsalita sa UP.

2. Nagsisilbing bugaw ng China - #1 supplier ng shabu, at nangaagaw ng lupa at dagat ng Pilipinas - para sumuko na lang ang Pilipino.

Kayo na lang. Susundin ko ang mga halimbawa nila Lapu-Lapu, Bonifacio at Gregorio Del Pilar. Ayaw ko sumama sa mga duwag at traydor.

(3) WHAT THE UN RAPPORTEUR SAID

Warning: long post. UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Abitrary Executions Agnes Callamard gave the opening speech at the drug policy forum at UP Diliman. Link to full transcript in Comments section.

Presidential counsel Salvador Panelo used her speech as basis to claim that she is incompetent to probe killings in War on Drugs in the Philippines – that Callamard already made conclusions based on news reports, some videos, opinions of critics, and hearsay.

SUMMARY OF HER SPEECH

1. There’s a document called ‘Our Joint Commitment to Effectively Addressing and Countering the World Drug Problem’ drafted by heads of states assembled at UN General Assembly.

2. Joint Commitment calls for more comprehensive approach that considers diverse factors behind drug problem – including social development, public health, justice & human rights. It calls for more effective approaches than punishment model some governments have adopted.

3. Joint Commitment urges governments to respect human rights, protect freedoms, uphold rule of law in their drug policies.

4. Joint Commitment recognizes dependence is a health disorder, whose social causes & consequences can be prevented & treated thru scientific evidence-based treatment, care & rehab. The governments affirmed the importance of data, scientific research, sharing of information including best practices on drug prevention & control.

5. Governments did not commit to War-on-Drugs approach. Instead they called for balanced approach including health, rights & justice.

6. They did not suggest death penalty as an appropriate or effective response to drug trafficking or use. Instead they spoke about proportionate sentencing & alternative punishments.

7. In April 2016, the UN General Assembly recognized that ‘War on Drugs’ does not work. It is well documented around the world that bad drug policies fail to address drug dependency, drug criminality & drug trade.

8. Further, War on Drugs only makes things worst. They add problems such as extrajudicial killings, breakdown of law, vigilante crimes, torture, disproportionate sentences for drug possession, etc. It can foster a regime of impunity promoting rule of violence, eroding public trust in institutions, breeding fear.

9. In all research undertaken around the world, none of the countries that adopted War on Drugs made the drug problem disappear. In fact, the opposite happened.

10. Conference in UP Diliman is to learn from local & foreign experts who have studied drug policies, their impact & effectiveness....

--------------

See also:
The PH drugs war, part 2, July 27, 2016

President Duterte and hyperbole, December 19, 2016 

Drugs War 3, Dr. Noel de Dios on Duterte's war, December 20, 2016 

Drugs War 4, The NYT documentary, March 28, 2017

China Watch 23, Bernard Ong on Du30 defeatism with the China communist govt

I am reposting two good posts from a friend, Bernard Ong, posted yesterday and today. The news titles I just added here. Communists are communists, they are bullies, they hardly respect the rule of law, only the rule of men, the rule of dictatorship.
--------------

DU30 MUST DO HIS JOB

March 22, 2017

Justice Antonio Carpio listed 5 things Duterte can do "fulfill his constitutional duty" even if "the Philippines is no match to China militarily".

1) File a strong formal protest against the Chinese building activity

2) Send the Philippine Navy to patrol Scarborough Shoal. Should the Chinese attack, invoke the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which covers any armed attack on Philippine navy vessels operating in the South China Sea.

3) Ask the United States to declare that Scarborough Shoal is part of Philippine territory for purposes of the Phil-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

4) Accept the standing U.S. offer to hold joint naval patrols in the South China Sea to demonstrate joint Philippine and U.S. determination to prevent China from building on Scarborough Shoal.

5) Avoid any act, statement, or declaration that expressly or impliedly waives Philippine sovereignty to any Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea.

And we should add Duterte's own campaign promise:

6) Ask the Navy to drop him on the nearest safe point to Spratlys. Ride a jet-ski, plant our flag & challenge the Chinses to suntukan-o-barilan.

Giving up Spratlys, Panatag and soon Benham Rise to China; doing nothing; saying "we can't do anything"; all the while begging for Chinese loans & trains for Mindanao is not only dereliction of duty. It is treason.

-------------

WILL CHINA WALK ITS TALK?

March 23, 2017

China's reported plan to set up a permanent structure at Panatag Shoal met loud opposition from Philippine netizens. This was in stark contrast to Duterte's "can't-do-anything-about-it" defeatism.

Apparently feeling the heat (ok all ye noisy patriots give yourself a pat in the back now), China has since backtracked & said it is not building a monitoring station on Panatag. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said "That does not exist at all".

So will China do what it says? Let us look at the evidence.

1. CHINA LIED ABOUT PANATAG BEFORE

In 2012, there was a standoff on Panatag involving the Philippine Navy's BRP Gregorio Del Pilar (whose crew tried to arrest Chinese fishermen who had illegally caught giant clams, corals & live sharks) and 2 Chinese Marine Surveillance ships (who blocked the Navy ship).

Ex-Philippine Ambassador to US Jose Cuisia Jr told a news conference that US State Dept brokered a deal for both sides to withdraw simultaneously from Panatag to avoid conflict. The Philippines complied. China reneged on the deal & did not withdraw its ships. "We were short-changed" Cuisia said.

2. CHINA LIED ABOUT KAGITINGAN BEFORE

Kagitingan - Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys - has been occupied by China since 1988.

It started with a marine station. Then the Chinese started reclaiming in 2014 - building one of seven artificial islands in South China Sea. Official excuse was to provide shelter for fishermen. They added a runway for an air base in 2015. Then anti-aircraft guns & weapons systems in 2016.

This pattern of reclaiming reefs, building artificial islands & militarizing fits the Chinese template in South China Sea.

3. CHINA TALKS ON ONE HAND. MILITARIZES WITH THE OTHER

Asean and China agreed on a 2002 Code of Conduct Declaration on South China Sea covering the usual motherhood statements – commitment to UNCLOS, freedom of navigation & overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law (including UNCLOS), refrain from action of inhabiting uninhabited reefs & shoals.

What did China do? Ignore UNCLOS & Arbitration Tribunal ruling. Impose 12-mile territorial claim & infringe on freedom of navigation & overflight. Blockaded Panatag. Reclaimed & populated reefs. Built military facilities & installed weapons systems.

Asean and China began discussing a new, tighter Code of Conduct in 2010. China has been delaying negotiations to buy time to expand & consolidate its military position in South China Sea.

4. CULTURE OF FAKES & SUBTERFUGE

In 2015, the global trade in faked goods was valued at $1.77 trillion. 63% came from China. Taobao - the online shopping platform of Alibaba - is in U.S. government's blacklist of "world’s most notorious markets for counterfeit goods."

Domestically, the Chinese have faked practically everything - counterfeit goods, fake milk, fake rice, even a fake lion in a zoo that used a Tibetan mastiff to dupe visitors.

On the diplomatic front, other countries are wary of China.

An good pulse-check can be found in The Straits Times op-ed "Asean contends with gap between China's words and deeds" which is quoted here:

"On the South China Sea, Premier Li expressed the hope that "specific disputes be resolved through dialogue by the parties directly concerned and all countries in the region work together for peace, stability and development.”

“Almost on cue, Mr Li's reassuring words to Asean were put to the test when the Hainan Daily, a state-owned newspaper, quoted Sansha City mayor Xiao Jie as saying that the local government would build an environment- monitoring station on Scarborough Shoal, rattling the Philippines."

“But the Sansha City mayor's statement should not be brushed away. Sansha City was established by the Chinese government in 2012 as a prefecture-level city to administer China's maritime interests in the South China Sea, making Mr Xiao the most senior Chinese official on the ground privy to Chinese plans for the contested shoal.

5. CHINA PLAYS THE LONG GAME

The Chinese Foreign Ministry statement “That (monitoring station) does not exist at all” is correct. It does not exist now.

This statement also does not conflict with the Sansha City Mayor’s statement that China plans to build one. It does not exist yet, but will happen in the future.

China can even claim to be truthful if it went ahead & built a military airbase – instead of a civilian monitoring station – on Panatag. They said “No monitoring station.” They never said “No air base.”

Bottom line, should we trust China? Will China be better than Duterte at keeping promises? Or is this another moro-moro by a couple of proven hardened liars.

-------------

See also:
China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison? March 20, 2015
China Watch 21, Is a War Between US and China "Inevitable"? May 30, 2015 

China Watch 22, On many rich Chinese leaving their country, January 17, 2016 

BWorld 46, China's debt, central planning and central crashes, February 27, 2016 

BWorld 99, China insecurity and belligerence, December 30, 2016

President Duterte and 'Psychopath' comment by Agot Isidro

Last October 9, 2016, Filipina actress Agot Isidro posted in her fb wall 3 points about her opinion of the President, the 3rd of which was the most controversial, "you are not bipolar, you are a psychopath". It was shared several thousand times, re-shared further, picked up by local and foreign media.

Famous fb commentator Bernard Ong posted this in his wall that day:

“PSYCHOPATH”

Psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits & behaviors – first described by Dr. Hervey Cleckley in 1941.

Psychopaths are superficially charming, make a good first impression on others. Self-centered, dishonest & undependable. Engage in irresponsible behavior. Devoid of guilt, empathy & love – they have casual & callous interpersonal & romantic relationships. Offer excuses for their reckless & outrageous actions, placing blame on others rather than taking responsibility. Rarely learn from mistakes or negative feedback. Have difficulty controlling their impulses.

Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

Best-established test is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) which requires standard interview plus review of criminal & educational history. Covers 3 overlapping sets of traits: interpersonal deficits (grandiosity, arrogance, deceitfulness), affective deficits (lack of guilt & empathy), impulsive & criminal behaviors (including sexual promiscuity, lying, stealing, killing).

Check. Check. Check.

Psychopaths are not psychotic or insane (dissociated from reality). Psychopaths are usually rational. They are aware that their irresponsible or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society. They just don’t care anyway.

Psychopathy is treatable, or at least manageable. Most psychopaths resist voluntary treatment. Even if core personality traits of psychopaths are difficult to change, their criminal & reckless behaviors may be amenable to treatment.

Now here’s the twist. Psychopaths are not the same as sociopaths. Both exhibit similar anti-social behaviors (law-breaking, lying & deceit, impulsive acts, fighting & aggression, disregard for safety of others, irresponsible, lack of guilt or remorse).

According to psychologist Michael Tompkins, the main difference is that a psychopath does not have a conscience, he does not feel any moral qualms. A sociopath has a weak conscience. He knows his action is wrong but will do it anyway. Psychopaths are considered more dangerous.

Researchers believe psychopathy is likely a genetic disposition (related to underdeveloped parts of the brain) while sociopathy is likely a result of environmental factors (e.g. upbringing, child abuse, childhood trauma).

A visit to a psychiatrist is advised. They can help diagnose which is which & subsequently plan proper treatment.

So the question is this: Should we be like the adults who pretended to be blind? Or the little girl named Agot who innocently said the obvious - "The Emperor has No Clothes".

During the campaign period last April, at least 2 newspapers carried a story about the findings of a psychologist of former Davao City Mayor and now President Duterte.

http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/2000-psych-report-du30-a-mental-case

"HAS ANTI-SOCIAL NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

The volatile and abrasive character of PDP-Laban presidential bet Rodrigo Duterte has roots from a psychological imbalance based on a report made on his mental health 15 years ago which described him as anti-social and narcissistic.

A psychological assessment on Duterte which appeared in a television news report stated that he has an “Antisocial Narcissistic Personality Disorder” or what psychologists refer to as psychopathy.

The report said the assessment became the basis for the civil annulment of Duterte’s marriage to first wife, Elizabeth Zimmerman.

Because of this personality disorder, the report said Duterte tends to humiliate other people or violate their rights.

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10), of the World Health Organization (WHO) called what afflicts Duterte as a dissocial personality disorder which is characterized by at least three of the following:

- callous unconcern for the feelings of others;

- gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;

- incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;

- very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;

- incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; and

- marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationali-zations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

The WHO paper states that the diagnosis included “amoral, antisocial, asocial, psychopathic, and sociopathic personality.”

The assessment on Duterte’s personality, conducted in 2000, also showed that the mayor has difficulty controlling his emotions. He was also described as impulsive and because of this, he usually does not consider the implications of his acts.

The assessment was undertaken by psychologist Natividad Dayan, former president of the International Council of Psychologists, and concluded that Duterte was suffering from “Antisocial Narcissistic Personality Disorder,” a condition charac-terized by “gross indifference, insensitivity and self-centeredness,” “grandiose sense of self-entitlement and manipulative behaviors” and “pervasive tendency to demean, humiliate others and violate their rights and feelings.”

“For all his wrongdoings, he tends to rationalize and feel justified. Hence, he seldom feels a sense of guilt or remorse,” the assessment said....

And in ABS-CBN news,

http://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/focus/04/19/16/understanding-duterte-what-a-psych-report-says

President Duterte indeed exhibits a number of those 6 characteristics or symptoms as outlined by WHO-ICD. No or little feeling of remorse, keeps repeating past mistakes and violent behavior (physical or verbal like the frequent SOB or PI, Pakyu,...), always blame others never the self.

-----------

See also:

President Duterte and Hugo Chavez, September 30, 2016 

President Duterte and Hitler, October 05, 2016 

President Duterte at the ASEAN Summit, Obama tussle, October 11, 2016 

President Duterte and 'Pakyu' EU, October 13, 2016

President Duterte and 'Pakyu' EU

These are news reports from September 21 to 23, except the news on "Killings prompt 'hesitation' among European investors" which was published a month earlier, August 2016. I also include here the fb postings by a friend, famous commentator Bernard Ong. No further comments from me.

From Bernard Ong, September 21, 2016:

"China supplies almost 100% of the shabu to the Philippines. Coddles the international drug lords & their syndicates. Takes over our seas & reefs. Chases Pinoy fishermen away from their traditional livelihoods. Corrupts our local officials to extract minerals in irresponsible manner.

Sounds 1000x more damaging than other countries urging the Philippines to respect universal human rights. Something we ought to be doing without anybody's prodding.

If you must say Pakyu. Be brave, be smart. Point your Pakyus in the right direction.

Pity the die-hard followers who have to switch-on & switch-off their anti-US hatred and pro-China/Putin love.

Those who don't suffer from mood swings due to drugs, bipolar & other conditions will find it hard keeping up with whom to bash & whom to praise. Last time I checked, the Mochas & Sassots & ThinkingPinoys that feed their confused minds are still on bashing the West (govt, media, human rights) mode. Those guys have not received the memo. Slow. Andanar is sleeping on his job.

My suggestion to die-hards is not to wait for clues from Idol's speeches. Flip-flops do not provide useful guidance.

Just think for yourself. Think of what is best for the Philippines. Key word is think. Then you won't bash the UN, US, EU, international media. Not that they are saints. But it is against Philippine interest to do so - we risk losing a lot (investment, aid, trade, tourism, jobs, defense) for the shallow pleasure of petting one man's ego and venting anger. High cost, high risk, no benefit.

Ignore the leader's mood swings. Better yet, correct him when he goes off course. Maybe he will listen to you."

"EU is the Philippines' biggest foreign investor with an FDI stock of over 366 billion pesos.

EU investment is distributed among 600 companies, employing about 400,000 Filipinos, in relatively higher-paying jobs, in sectors like energy (e.g. Shell), manufacturing (e.g. Loreal, Unilever), finance (e.g. Deutsche Bank).

EU invests almost $400B overseas each year. Philippines gets only 0.1% of that. Could easily double or triple with our market potential - IF we don't create the perception of risk by behaving like a rogue nation ruled by thugs instead of laws.

To make these numbers digestible: If the Philippines misses out on $3 billion investment in next 6 years, that means 60,000-120,000 fewer high-paying jobs, less income, less buying power, less taxes, less money for infrastructure. There are multiplier effects. Ignore at your own peril.

So "Pakyu EU". Close the lights on your way out."

-------------

See also:

President Duterte and UNexit, August 22, 2016 

President Duterte and Hugo Chavez, September 30, 2016 

President Duterte and Hitler, October 05, 2016 

President Duterte at the ASEAN Summit, Obama tussle, October 11, 2016

President Duterte and Hugo Chavez

I am reposting this post last Tuesday by a friend, Bernard Ong. It has gone viral, shared nearly 6k since more than two days ago. Keep writing this kind of analysis, bai. Thank you.
-------------

HE CROSSED HIS RUBICON

Bernard Ong

September 27, 2016 at 9:29pm

Updating my May 2016 post on Hugo Chavez. Very important lessons for the Philippines today. The photo collage shows 3 things: An emergency room in Venezuela - hospitals have broken down to the point that there are shortages of basics like soap, gloves & medicine. A nursery where babies are kept in boxes. And the man who started it all – who crossed his Rubicon, the “point of no return”, and dragged his country into the abyss.

In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela.

1. He promised “order" and a "strong hand to fight crime & corruption"

2. His friends, relatives, leftists & military cronies took key positions in government

3. He amended the constitution, giving himself greater powers; abolished existing checks and balances, congress & the judiciary; giving the military a major role in governance

4. He launched his paper, own radio show & TV show – where he mixed socialist rhetoric with songs & jokes

5. He alienated the Church

6. He waged war against "oligarchs" declaring "being rich is bad"

7. He nationalized companies in key industries – oil, finance, telecoms, transport, power

8. He demonized the US

9. He aligned with Russia, bought billions in arms from them

10. He allowed China to take over large areas of the economy.

Sounds familiar? Not a coincidence, Hugo Chavez is the template for modern-day socialist dictator wannabes.

Chavez stayed long in power, getting reelected several times & even coming back after being ousted by a coup. Venezuela was a major oil exporter & oil prices were high. Oil profits bankrolled his social welfare programs to buy popular support. He died in office in 2013.

Despite huge oil bonanza, Chavez mismanaged the economy.

1. He imposed currency controls to prevent capital flight. - This policy prevented companies from buying equipment, supplies & raw materials, eventually leading to shortages in production.

2. He imposed price controls – This policy drove local suppliers stop producing just as imports were scarce due to currency controls. This led to shortages & inflation.

3. His government spent far more than it could afford – This policy caused Venezuela to run huge fiscal deficits & incur heavy debts when oil prices collapsed from $120+ per barrel in 1998 to $60 in 2015.

Basically, Chavez didn’t know math & couldn’t care less about policy. In his mind, he was always correct & it was the world’s responsibility to adjust reality to his view.

Today Venezuela has completely collapsed.

There are shortages of everything – energy, gasoline, food, medicines. There is rationing & widespread looting. Crime is far worse. Consumers line up to wait for food from 4am. Those who buy “too much food” are arrested on grounds of violating laws against interfering with the production, transportation or sale of food. Pets like dogs & cats are let go by owners, because it is costly to feed them. Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones become meals to feed hungry humans.

Inflation was 150% in 2015, estimated at 481% in 2016, and 1642% in 2017. In Philippine terms, your one peso today will be worth 6 centavos in 2017. Tough labor laws make it impossible for business to fire workers. It doesn’t matter anyway as workers’ wages are unable to keep up with inflation - they provide cheap underpaid labor. GDP is forecast to decline 10% in 2016. There is massive unemployment. 75% of the population live in poverty.

And corruption? The richest Venezuelan today is reported to be Maria Gabriela Chavez, Hugo's daughter with $4.2 billion stashed overseas. She ignored daddy's "being rich is bad" dogma. Smart hija did not cross the socialist Rubicon.

Who does Venezuela blame for this policy-induced disaster? President Maduro – the successor of Chavez – blames the mess on a “conspiracy” by the United States.

We've seen his type here at home before. Marcos' 14-year dictatorship – hyped to fight communism & restore order – ended up sucking the Philippine economy dry & led to world-record plunder by the Marcos family. He too crossed his Rubicon when he imposed Martial Law & plunged the country into darkness.

The next time a leader says he is crossing his Rubicon, do your homework – check the policy implications, do the math, think steps & years ahead. If it does not make sense, step back from the abyss. Your country will need you to help clean up the mess after the disaster.

--------------

See also:

BWorld 68, Criminal justice and Duterte, July 07, 2016 

BWorld 69, Foreign direct investments and Pres. Duterte, July 08, 2016 

BWorld 74, Pres. Duterte's anti-corruption programs and Transparency Intl., July 30, 2016 

The PH drugs war, part 2, July 27, 2016 

Pres. Duterte and UNexit, August 22, 2016

Duterte vs Media, Bernard Ong's analysis

I am reposting two analysis by a friend. Not much to add, just highlight the point that assassination and murder -- by corrupt or non-corrupt, sob or non-sob, media/politicians/NGOs/academics/church/ corporate leaders, etc -- is not justified. There are existing laws that provide a system of penalties for wrong doing, and assassination is not one of them. I am also adding some news headlines, not part of Bernard's comments.
-----------

(1) From Bernard Ong, June 01,2016:

"EXTRAJUDICIAL MEDIA KILLINGS

Duterte blames media corruption as root cause of journalists' killings. “Di ka naman papatayin kung wala kang nagawa. It’s not because you’re a journalist you’re exempted from assassination if you’re a son of a bitch.”

1. Nobody - including corrupt journalists - should be assassinated. There is the law & due process to settle wrongdoing.

2. The statement "corruption is root cause" is wrong. Many journalists are killed because they threaten powerful interests like corrupt politicians or crime groups.

Couple of high-profile cases to illustrate the mistake:

Gunmen linked to Ampatuans massacred 32 journalists & 25 other civilians in 2009. The journalists were merely accompanying family members of a rival candidate. (To put that number in context, total number of mediamen killed in 2010-16 Pnoy administration is also 32).

Palawan ex-gov & his then-mayor brother were convicted of murder of hard-hitting environmentalist radio broadcaster Jerry Ortega.

3. It was actually Duterte's idol - Ferdinand Marcos - who corrupted media wholesale as an institution. The dictator took over media outlets, bribed or rewarded loyal journalists (while killing or jailing critics). It was called "developmental journalism" which was widely ridiculed as "envelopmental journalism".

4. Sounds like it is open season on journalists on the suspicion that they are "corrupt". Name one politician assassinated on the mere suspicion of corruption.

None. So why pick on journalists doing their job."

(2) From Michael Ortega, June 01, 2016.

"Our family is incensed by the hasty and crass generalizations made about murdered journalists in the country. Doc Gerry Ortega was killed for his courage and integrity. He was murdered precisely because he was honorable. He fought for social justice. He stood up against mining in Palawan. He exposed corruption in the provincial government, which included the misuse of billions of pesos from the Malampaya funds.

This kind of speech is alarming because without due process, it casts absolute judgment on all murdered journalists including those who were killed for telling the truth."

(3) From Bernard Ong again,  June 02,2016:

"APOLOGISTS WHO DON’T APOLOGIZE

Apologists are out in full force. Senator Koko Pimentel said Duterte was misinterpreted. Spokesman Peter LaVina said his statement on media killings "was taken out of context, misinterpreted, and misunderstood." Incoming Press Secretary Panelo told media to be more discerning, saying there was no mistake in Duterte's media killing statement. Their statements amplified a million times by repetition on social media.

The problem with these explanations is their dissonance with what was spoken in simple English & Tagalog. The questions were clear. The answers equally clear. The specific context was media killings. There was little room for misinterpretation.

Here’s a short transcript.

“Q: What is your policy about the journalists’ killings that the Aquino government failed to act?

A: Kung papatayin ka talaga, papatayin ka… Hindi ka naman talaga papatayin diyan kung wala kang ginawa. Nabigyan na tapos especially if you want to take sides. Nabayaran mo na tapos you play. Yan ang karamihan na mamatay. Or tumatanggap na sa mga sugarol. There is still corruption sa inyong side. Marami yan… Kasi kung journalist ka lang na tama, wala man gagalaw sa iyo.

Q: Is that an excuse to kill him, just because a journalist is corrupt

A: Well that is the reason. You are asking why. That is the reason. Na sinabi mo hindi dapat, you have to debate with the killer not me. Of course, I know who killed him (referring to Duterte critic Jun Pala). Kasi binastos niya yung tao… Do not make it appear that they are clean. Kaya namamatay, ang sinasabi ko karamihan niyan nabayaran na. They take sides. Or sobrahan nila ang atake.

Q: Banta ba ito sa freedom of expression?

A: Yung freedom of expression cannot help you if you have done something wrong. Just because you are a journalist, you are not exempted from assassination if you are a son of a bitch.”

Notice the following:

1. He did not directly answer the policy question of what his administration will do about media killings, and went on to expound why they are being killed in the first place

2. He unequivocally said corruption & bias are root causes of most media killings

3. He claimed to know mastermind behind killing of Jun Pala – a media critic & resident of Davao City. He knew about murder suspect but failed to inform police on material lead that could help prosecute the killers. Seems to imply Pala’s killing was justified, because he was a son-of-a-bitch

4. He did not defend freedom of expression, or due process, at any point in the interview.

Proper context includes reflecting not only on the speech but also on the speaker. Statements out of the horse's mouth - from rape jokes to throwing dead criminals to Manila Bay - show a lack of respect for human life. "Kill" is the top verb in the speaker's vocabulary. And he uses it as simplistic solution to complex problems like drugs, crime, and corruption.

It does not help that the apologists have frequently covered up for Duterte in the past. Sometimes with conflicting narratives. Recall the fake rape joke pseudo-apology issued by his campaign team, which was disavowed by Duterte barely hours later. This frequent urong-sulong between Duterte and his apologists, sometimes between Duterte before and Duterte later, does not inspire confidence in their words.

Finally, there is the matter of the credibility of the apologists themselves. Pimentel used to be a fighter against corruption & human rights abuses. He lost his mojo when Duterte's bank deposits reached the headlines. The Duterte campaign was itself a master class in deception – Sun Tzu they proudly call it. Good for winning votes perhaps, bad for governance.

And then there is the primus inter pares – first among equals – of the apologists. Last time Salvador Panelo talked about media killings, he was lying about the Ampatuans role in the killing of 32 journalists at Maguindanao – that they were just framed up for the massacre in their stronghold, 200 witnesses notwithstanding. Doubtful if anyone, even his clients, believed him.

So we have apologists who don’t find error in their master’s ways - blaming the public instead for lack of discernment, weak understanding, contextual difficulties. They have forgotten what is usually taught to toddlers - when you have done wrong, apologize."

--------------

See also:
BWorld 56, Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky and Duterte, April 30, 2016 
BWorld 57, Eric Hoffer, Machiavelli and Duterte, May 06, 2016 
Election 22, Is Du30 victory almost certain? May 07, 2016

Election 13, Bernard Ong's Analysis

I do not want to do serious political analysis of the coming May 2016 Presidential, Senatorial and local elections in the Philippines for several reasons. First, my hands are full  with other papers to write and I often miss deadlines. Second, there is no single free market-leaning national candidate or political party. And third, there are so many analysts of this subject around, it is entertaining to read them, from the sensical ones to the absurd. 

So I resort to reposting the ideas of some friends whom I think make useful analysis. Below, some random thoughts posted by a friend way back from UP Diliman in the 80s, Bernard Ong, in his fb wall. Reposting these with his permission.

----------

June 16:  

Serge Osmena is the premier campaign strategist of the Philippines. Local version of Karl Rove or David Axelrod. He saved the Pnoy candidacy in 2010. Villar was polling well vs Pnoy, until Serge took over the campaign management & messaging.

Here's what he has to say for 2016: Grace Poe should run as an independent. She can win w/o a party. Like Miriam or Roco before, plus the FPJ magic. Poe should drop Chiz. He will be a baggage to Poe for people who don't like him.

Exactly my thoughts. The added bonus is she can govern w/o political debts afterward. Our current party system is a joke - local parties are mainly a mix between personality cult, marketplace for exchanging political favors, and exclusive club for rich families.

June 18-20: 

Binay went to 3 markets in Antipolo - shaking hands, asking for votes, giving away wheelchairs & T-shirts with his face & slogan. Typical trapo & epal stuff. HIndi daw campainging. Part daw ng kanyang official duties (which are Housing & OFWs).

Law on premature campaigning is flawed. It only covers acts after one files his candidacy. Any campaigning before that is allowed. It should be amended to cover retroactive acts by eventual candidates. Meanwhile we should not vote those who use technicalities to go around the spirit of the law. Like this thief & liar.
----------

Biggest gainers in lastest survey: Poe & Duterte. Biggest losers: Binay & Others. Shortlist seems to be Poe, Duterte, Binay, Roxas (unless he drops out). Erap only comes in if Binay can't run. Otherwise, he "endorses" Binay but his followers vote FPJ/Poe.

Poe can win this 1-on-1. Or 1-on-3. Duterte not so because of narrower base & appeal. Nice to have both "outsiders" trending positively. Major parties (UNA & LP) should be on panic mode. All the e-pal, premature campaigning & preemptive strikes aren't working. Probably thinking of Plan B which is PCOS & Smartmatic.

---------

Drilon said "No party convention needed. Mar is the man." Good. I'd like Mar to run for President. It will cure his itch & redistribute some of that fabled Roxas-Araneta-Ayala wealth.

More important, it will keep Grace Poe free of Liberal Party baggage. Beyond May 2016, those responsible for PDAF, DAP & Mamasapano should be held accountable. Without political debts to worry about.

--------- 

"A P-Noy endorsement of Roxas is clearly a secret vote for Binay. Roxas is one weak challenger to Binay and it is doubtful public sentiment will drastically change."

It is Poe vs Binay now. I've said this before: Poe can beat Binay 1 on 1. Poe can beat Binay + Roxas + Duterte 1 on 3. Machinery is over-rated. The game has changed.

--------

Binay's preemptive strikes (residency, citizenship) & half-baked apologies backfired big time. It firmed up Poe's resolve. And changed the storyline from Binay-vs-Others (where he had a comfortable lead) to Binay-vs-Poe. Or more accurately Looter-vs-Orphan. Unwinnable for him without Smartmatic intervention.

In effect, Binay annointed Poe to be the anti-Binay alternative. Drove most of the "Anybody But Binay" millions into one candidate. Under the spotlight, Poe parried the attacks skillfully. And now we have Poe-vs-the-Rest. Salamat Toby Tiangco!

---------

Personally, I wish that Sen. Grace Poe will run for President. Her being a "newbie" compared to Binay, Roxas, Duterte, Estrada, etc. is for me, an advantage. It means less political baggage and old compromises. When a candidate is financially- and politically-indebted to certain economic interests, it  is hard to decline their political and business "requests." Thus, it is easier for that "newbie" to further advance trade and investment liberalization in the country than candidates who were long indebted or engaged to local monopolists, duopolists and oligopolists.
--------

See also:

Election 9: India's Political Dynasties vs. Democracy, April 21, 2014 

Election 10: Comelec Critics and Commissioner Luie Guia, December 26, 2015 

Market Reforms in the 2016 Elections, May 25, 2015

Election 11, Dr. Doy Romero on Binay, Roxas and Grace Poe, June 01, 2015 

Election 12, JV Bautista and Toilet Politics, June 05, 2015

Pork Barrel 5: Abolish Pork Fund, or Shrink Government?

The other day, a friend way back from UP Diliman undergrad in the 80s, JB Baylon, posted this in his facebook wall and tagged me, below. I am attaching some posters circulating in facebook for the Citizens' indignation rally on Monday, August 26.

PENNY-WISE, POUND FOOLISH??? THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE

…I think it is important to highlight the fact that the PORK we wish to save from the clutches of the porkish is only 1% of our total national budget. This is not to say that it is not worth "saving" even just 1% from ending up in pockets and not in real projects. But it highlights that there is a bigger issue here which should show us to the ultimate purpose of our "agitation". You see we could be focused on the 1% and all het up about it -- but what about the 99%? Who's watching that?

In the Western world they have this saying, "Penny wise, pound foolish".

You see, in my view, the objective should NOT be to remove pork, to do away with it, because that will NOT solve the fundamental problem or address the fundamental weakness. The objective should be to INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN AS MUCH OF WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES as is possible -- which means we focus as much on the 99% as we are now so agitated over the 1%!!!!

That's where my argument about the need for the FOI bill comes in.

This is why I keep saying, we cannot fall back on our usual habit of knee jerk reactions to issues. We will end up focusing on the 1% and leaving unattended the 99%. Penny wise, pound foolish.

The real issue, folks, is TRANSPARENCY.

… Now, will it take too long to populate the database? of course not. Everytime an NGO CSO or whatever entity applies for a pork grant it should enter its info into the website -- so long before the COA can finish an audit most of the info should be there, for the public to see and the media to verify! Early on we will know if Senator Pork is lining his pockets or Congressman Swine is filling his sty. And then it is up to us to act.

To repeat: I am worried that our focus on pork and its abolition misses the bigger issue: TRANSPARENCY. Eliminate the pork but do not institute transparency and you have a problem with the 99% of the budget. Insist on the institution of TRANSPARENCY -- easier to do in this day and age of Information Technology -- and you strengthen the power of the citizenry -- the Bosses -- over any public servant who may wish to pull a fast one. That would still happen, for sure -- but at a scale far less than the one we are discovering as we sift through the sty.

I thanked JB for his ideas and commented that more than transparency, government size -- the bureaucracy, regulation and prohibition powers, the budget, should shrink, or at least should stop expanding fast. 

http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/08/pork-barrel-4-ten-q-on-pork-scandal.html

I support Malou Tiquia's proposal that the 2013 budget (P2 trillion) be re-enacted, throw away the 2014 proposed budget (nearly P2.3 trillion). For those in automatic appropriation like IRA, a supplemental budget can be passed. Interest payment this year is P333 billion, will rise to P352 billion next year. Government just keeps the spend-spend-spend, borrow-tax-borrow policy irresponsibly, spanning all administrations from Marcos up to the present.

A mutual friend, Steve Cutler, replied that “the phrase "moderate your greed" comes to mind for citizens and residents, too. For the government to shrink we as the people must stop asking for so much from the government. It seems like every time something happens, we turn to the government and demand action. We fall on hard times, and we want the government to give us a helping hand. Most often, that is cash, but other times it is some kind of service. Turning more to our own resources, and paying for services we want on an as needed basis, which is the model for a toll road, seems to be what you're suggesting.”

Yes, Steve is correct. Many people asking for the abolition of pork barrel are unaware that they are pointing some fingers on themselves. You want more condoms for the poor? Buy some of it and give to the poor, do not ask for more budget (and more taxes and fees to finance it) even for simple and ordinary procurement. Government should focus, even expand, on its 3 core functions:

The main function of government, its raison d’etre, is to protect the citizens’ right to life (against aggressors), right to private property (against thieves and saboteurs) and right to liberty and freedom of expression (against bullies). All other government functions are either secondary or unnecessary. This is where shrinkage of government bureaucracies and spending should occur. Where there is less money to steal, less stealing will happen.