China Watch 26, PDP-LABAN loves the China Communist Party

Last February 28, 2018, the ruling party PDP-LABAN celebrated its 36th anniversary -- with the China Ambassador to the PH and other China officials on stage.

Yes, why celebrate with officials of the China Communist Party? Ewww. Officials and leaders of the dictatorial, one-party, authoritarian government? That government cannot even allow facebook, youtube, twitter to its own citizens because communists and dictators are highly insecure. Now the buddy-buddy of PH ruling politicians and would-be communists?

Part of the report says,

"The symposium “aimed to introduce ‘Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era’ to the Philippines’ ruling party,”

Introduce Xi Jinping thoughts on socialism and dictatorship to the ruling PH party, wow. Mabuhay komunismo, Mabuhay Xi-Tsino-Dutertismo?

The China Communist Party, is a one-party, zero-opposition, dictatorial, authoritarian party. When the Party Congress voted to remove the term limit of the China President, many of their citizens reacted negatively so state agencies in charge of social media censorship disallowed posts with words or terms like "immortality","1984". 

'Immortality,' 'disagree,' 'emigrate,' and 'personality cult' — here's every word and phrase China censored after criticism of Xi Jinping's potentially unending reign

Tara Francis Chan Mar. 2, 2018, 12:18 AM 
http://uk.businessinsider.com/censored-words-in-china-xi-jinping-term-limits-2018-2/#1984-4

Politicians like House Speaker Alvarez and Senate President Koko Pimentel perhaps wouldn't mind having a dictatorial, authoritarian party as their buddy. Little or zero opposition, in political power forever, sino ayaw na politiko doon?

I just hope that the Liberal Party or any new political party can re-assert the classical liberal philosophy: more individual liberty and economic freedom, less state intervention ala socialist-communist govt. Propagate the thoughts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill -- NOT Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Xi Jinping.
--------------

See also:

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

China Watch 23, Bernard Ong on Du30 defeatism with the China communist govt, March 23, 2017  

China Watch 24, PH Defense Secretary's visit at Pagasa island, May 06, 2017 

China Watch 25, Benham Rise/ Philippine Rise and Chinese exploration, January 31, 2018 

On expensive China loans/ODA, March 18, 2018

On expensive China loans/ODA

On February 21, 2018, Philippines Defense Forces Forum posted this photo and brief note:

NEDA secretary Ernesto Pernia admits China's interest rate of 3% is much higher than Japan's 0.25%-0.75%, in talk in front of businessmen and economists this afternoon.

Asked why the government is availing more of China's expensive loans than Japan's cheaper offer Pernia could only reply "Because we need more friends". #IdolNiDuterte #ChinaPuppet

It was Dr. Ciel Habito who asked Pernia that questions. Now notice this statement: 

"Pernia admits China's interest rate of 3% is much higher than Japan's 0.25%-0.75%... because 'we need more friends.'"

Ok, PH taxpayers are "less friends" of the Duterte administration that is why we must pay more taxes via TRAIN and they will give more money to their "more friends" China Communist Party. Magaleeeng.

To the Dutertenomists and TRAIN rah-rah boys and girls -- eto abangan nyo: the main purpose of "more revenues via TRAIN" is not exactly more infra but more payment for China loans. We have NLEX, SCTEX, TPLEX, SLEX, STAR, CAVITEX, NAIAEX, Skyways, etc even without big tax hikes. Lots of "hybrid PPP" were actually integrated PPP before President Duterte came to power.

Integrated PPP means no need for new ODA, new loans from China or elsewhere, no need for tax-tax-tax because the private builders of those big infra have the financial, technical and engineering resources, network to build those behemoth structures at minimal cost to taxpayers (only right of way cost, etc). Hybrid PPP means more loans, especially from the China communist party.

Recall also that when Ernesto Pernia was newly appointed as NEDA chief, he justified the series of drugs murders as "necessary evil." 

Tweets February 21:

@bendeveraINQ (Ben Arnold de Vera)

@SecPernia: First basket of infra projects for Chinese financing includes Kaliwa Dam, Chico River Pump Irrigation, North-South Railway south line between Manila and Bicol.

@Noysky

Replying to @bendeveraINQ @SecPernia @InquirerBiz

Wow, tax-tax-tax de TRAIN so that PH govt can pay these big loans fr China? Horrible. These shd be integrated PPPs and not charged to taxpayers.

Gus Cosio @gus_cosio

Replying to @ClaireJiao @Noysky @cnnphilippines

Japan offers better quality performance at cheaper cost. Why in heaven’s name will you burden us with this preposterous idea?

@bendeveraINQ

@SecPernia: But the Japanese had been slow in process of financing projects, while the Chinese has become more aggresive @InquirerBiz

@bendeveraINQ

@SecPernia: Chinese loans, at best, slapped 2-3% interest per annum vs. Japan soft loans/ODA at 0.25-0.75%, but we haven’t signed loan agreements with China yet DD-biz-INQUIRES_

@bendeveraINQ

Pernia: We don’t want a repeat of our previous experience with China (referring to NBN-ZTE deal), that’s why PH and Chinese govts established vetting process for Chinese firms bidding for PH projects under @NEDAhq ICC @InquirerBiz.

Now see this report,

http://bworldonline.com/3-chinese-firms-interested-kaliwa-dam/

3 Chinese firms interested in Kaliwa dam

February 16, 2018 | 12:15 am

"Under the previous administration, the P18.72-billion Kaliwa dam had two pre-qualified bidders, which are now out of the picture... It used to be a public-private partnership, with MWSS as implementing agency.

Since the project is funded by ODA from China, Mr. Velasco said there will be no pre-qualification stage since the Chinese embassy identifies the three pre-qualified companies."

Another big China loan, contractors and suppliers identified by China embassy, very likely cronies of the China Communist Party. PH goverment agencies will wait for the terms and say "Yes", and PH taxpayers will pay for the bill, courtesy of TRAIN de tax-tax-tax. 

From sir Doy Segundo E Romero, Feb. 22:

"ON CHINA'S HEGEMONIC ACTIONS AGAINST THE PHILIPPINES

A few weeks ago, an EU ambassador posted in Sri Lanka repeated to me what a Chinese diplomat told him: 'No big deal. The Philippines is not even a real country.' Nasaktan talaga ako."

Last week, Dr. Pernia replied in my fb wall where I tagged him on this subject. He wrote,

"Nonoy Oplas got it all wrong — making a comment without even knowing the context. Rather unscholarly and malicious!"

I replied, "Ok Sir Ernie, what is the non-malicious explanation why (a) PH government should get new foreign loans when many projects were already under integrated PPP (not "hybrid" that require new loans, or new public spending and hence, new taxes), and (b) why China loans considering that China interest rates are high, and China Communist Party is a theft of PH territory?

I will apologize for my statements above if these can be clarified. Thank you."

As I expected, no further reply or clarification.

China Watch 24, PH Defense Secretary's visit at Pagasa island

On April 21, 2017, PH Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and top officials of the AFP went to Pagasa island, near Subi Reef that CN has illegally occupied. I say "illegal" because the UN PCA (The Hague, Netherlands) ruling says that CN's claims at the SCS/WPS have no international legal basis.

Good move, Defense Secretary. Please do this more often. If CN will shoot down your plane and kill you, you will be a new hero.

The CN communist government remains arrogant. And any PH government official who will placate China despite its continued belligerence and arrogance should be exposed. Including the President if he continues his lick-a__ attitude to the commie government in Beijing.

The report says, "The plane, during such incidents, is told it is entering Chinese territory." Pagasa island is "Chinese territory" haha. And PDu30 is silent, not slam-dunking with his usual "PI nyo/Pakyu" China.

Taiwan, Vietnam, other countries also claim some of those islands and atolls at the SCS, but they are silent, did not make any challenged to the visit of the PH Defense Secretary. In the case of CN, their claim to the area is wholesale -- political, legal, military, etc. See other news -- "CN protests PH defense chief's Pagasa island visit", but we don't hear or read a similar "VN or TW protests..."

China will soon swallow its own pill. VN, US, others will not recognize CN claim on those artificial islands. That is why Defense Sec. Lorenzana's move is good, something that PDu30 never did. He recently ordered the AFP to occupy PH islands in the disputed territories, palusot after his many kowtow statements to China. After a series of public defeatism with the commies across the sea, he needs to shake his "joke only" image with respect to China. 

About the PH fishermen who were driven away by CN boats, I bet Du30 will reprimand instead the Pinoy fishermen, something like "sinabi ko nang wag lumapit sa isla ng China eh. Atin yan dati, ngayon sa kanila na". 

PNoy was right in asserting the international rule of law on the seas, PDut is wrong to ignore it, and FVR sides with PNoy.

News headlines below were published April 21-24, 2017.

Meanwhile, I am reposting comments from a friend, Bernard Ong. He posted these April 21 and 23.

(1) WHAT WOULD DU30 DO...

If the Chinese shoot down the plane carrying the Filipino Defense Secretary to our own territory in Pagasa Island...

I bet he sends his deepest apologies to China, checks with them if the deal for trains + loans + banana exports is still on, goes on an angry incoherent speech about how we should not have tested China's resolve, tells the military they should focus on Jolo instead, then bans future voyages on sea & air by Filipinos to that area to avoid 'provoking' the squatters.

Don't give me that "but he's sincere, will stake his life and honor" bullshit. Look at me in the eye & tell me I'm wrong. Kumander Topak is a traitor.

(2) WAITING FOR THAT RANT

China hits PH over Defense Chief visit to Kalayaan Island. Chinese fires at PH fishermen.

Now would be a good time for Kumander Topak to launch ito a "Put@ng ina. Amin yan. Sisipain ko sila" rant.

C'mon if you can do it to the US - the #1 military superpower in the world - launching your curses & insults at China should be easy.

Show us some of that "I am willing to die" and "I will stake my life, my honor, my presidency" drama. Don't forget the flag-draping & fist bump for added effect.

Sayang naman yung TIME Most Influential kung tiklop ka pala agad. Huwag ka matakot. China lang yan. Hindi yan UP Diliman.

Magparamdam ka naman. Ok ka lang ba dyan?

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

See also:
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 

China Watch 23, Bernard Ong on Du30 defeatism with the China communist govt, March 23, 2017 

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

BWorld 99, China insecurity and belligerence

* This is my article in BWEconomicForum last December 14, 2016.

ON OCCASION, a fraternity gets big enough such that its members begin to establish cliques of their own, causing disunity in the organization. This, in turn, prompts the officers to initiate a “rumble” with another fraternity. As a result, cliques are set aside and the frat moves as one in protecting their brods or beating up members of the other fraternity. This same logic may apply to China. 

One of my dormitory roommates, a member of a fraternity, told me that anecdote while we were both students at the University of the Philippines in Diliman. While fraternities would seldom or never admit publicly that they initiated a rumble, it nevertheless is common knowledge to some members.

The same strategy may have been practiced by China in its continuing belligerence, particularly over secessionist regions and territories that it presumes to claim. The government in Beijing is increasingly becoming insecure with its more informed, more assertive citizens who dislike central planning and government-led intimidation. Some irreverent or potentially secessionist regions keep asserting their aspirations so it acts belligerently and court regional or global fallout in the process.

During the BusinessWorld-PAL ASEAN Regional Forum held last Nov. 24, one of the sessions was “The South China Sea or West Philippine Sea: The Economics of Competing Territorial Claims.” Speakers were Bonji Ohara of Tokyo Foundation, Thanh Hai Do of Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, and Dindo Manhit of Stratbase-Albert Del Rosario Institute in Manila.

The three speakers talked about non-military, non-confrontational schemes to resolve the territorial dispute. Rightly so. An insecure government like the China Communist Party (CCP) that bullies its own citizens will have no hesitance to bully other countries with smaller military capabilities.

What are the sources of insecurity by the CCP? First and foremost are the vocal and assertive potential secessionists.

Insecurity driving China’s hostility in territorial rows, secessionist areas

The election of Ms. Tsai Ing-wen (DPP) in Taiwan last January has temporarily jolted the CCP and sounded another round of belligerence. Hong Kong pro-independence activists never went away, as shown by the Umbrella Revolution two years ago to the recent election of young legislators who are openly campaigning for HK independence from China.

The Uighur activists have figured in violent and fatal attacks in recent years. XUAR shares borders with five Muslim countries — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And there are other potential rebel areas too like Macau and Manchu.

Second, a debt-fueled economy propped up by cronyism and dictatorship. As of 2015, China’s debt (government household + corporate debt) has reached 280% of gross domestic product (GDP).

Two papers have made the following observations:

“Unsurprisingly, the lion’s share of the money has been funneled into China’s immense state-owned enterprises, which largely explains why they hold an outsize share of the country’s corporate debt,” John Minnich said in a piece entitled “China’s economic problems will come to a head in 2017,” published in Market Watch on Nov. 23. “(State-owned companies account for over 55% of that debt, despite contributing only 20% of GDP.) It also explains why, by comparison, China’s central government has an unusually low level of debt. (Beijing’s debt equaled only 22% of GDP in 2015.)”

Similarly, in a May 10 piece for Fortune Magazine entitled “China’s Government Says It’s Over Debt-Fuelled Growth,” Scott Cendrowski said that: “[C]redit ratings agency Moody’s noted that China’s total debt has climbed to 280% of gross domestic product, including China’s state-owned company liabilities that totaled 115% of GDP at the end of last year. For comparison, in Japan and South Korea, which also have large government-owned sectors, SOE (state-owned enterprises) liabilities were 31% and 29% of GDP in 2014.”

Insecurity driving China’s hostility in territorial rows, secessionist areas

Third, rich and intelligent people are leaving China, with a potential to come back as new reformists or outright becoming members of the opposition.

There was one survey in 2015 showing that more millionaires leave China than any other country in the past 14 years.

Here is another observation from the Wall Street Journal, two years ago: “China’s culture of corruption and abuse of power is a major reason so many of the country’s rich want to leave. A Barclays survey released Monday found that 47% of Chinese with more than $1.5 million in assets are planning to emigrate, and this is consistent with past research. Developed-country programs that allow investors to essentially buy residency continue to attract waves of Chinese,” Hugo Restall said in a piece entitled “China’s Unhappy Rich” for the WSJ’s Sept. 17, 2014 edition. “Many of China’s brainiest young people also want out. According to the state-run Xinhua news agency, the annual number of students who go abroad for study and don’t return reached 70,000 in 2012….”

The CCP’s insecurity should rise through time because their own citizens inside and outside China hate heavy restrictions and dictatorship. To hide or temper this insecurity, China will try to be belligerent to hype up nationalist sentiments from its people.

China imploding someday, perhaps in one or two generations, will be a welcome news for the world. China may also break up into many new countries and governments. The main country may remain under the communist party, similar to what happened in the former USSR. But the newly formed countries will be more democratic.

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

See also: 
BWorld 96, Free trade means more investments and people mobility, December 19, 2016 
BWorld 97, Direction of trade of Asian economies, December 21, 2016
BWorld 98, Asian stock markets and the Duterte administration, December 30, 2016

China Watch 22, On many rich Chinese leaving their country

China implosion, it will happen because people and nature hate heavy restrictions and dictatorship. This event will have huge impact on the rest of the world especially in Asia. Not soon, but a few decades now.

On June 5, 2014, Fortune made this headline, Why China’s rich are leaving and showed this table.

The top 3 reasons why rich Chinese leave their country, based on the Hurum-Visa survey are: (1) better options for their children’s education; (2) distressed about growing pollution problems; and (3) concerned about food safety in the country.

Other news reports here.

(1) “China's debt has soared to two and a half times its economy, Standard Chartered estimates…Total financial credit has surged to 251 percent of gross domestic product from 147 percent at the end of 2008, the bank said.”

July 21, 2014, http://www.cnbc.com/id/101854344

Not clear if the report refers to public debt or of the entire economy and including private corporate debt. But there is a rise, from 147% of GDP in 2008 to 251% in 2013.

(2) "China's failure lies not in the structure of its dairy industry but in the structure of its economy.... That contamination incident happened partly because China's safety regulatory apparatus remains weak and its unfree press can't serve as a watchdog. Rule of law is too erratic—to put it kindly—to function as an effective check on bad behavior."

-- Joe Sternberg, July 16, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/.../joseph-sternberg-the-milk-of...

(3) "He even called on cadres to allow for a little dissent if necessary.

 We should push ahead with reform and opening up without hesitation,

"Xi said cadres should have the political will to try new initiatives, and in remarks that signal that his massive anti-corruption campaign would continue, he said cadres should set aside their personal feelings and even hire people who had opposing views."

August 20, 2014, http://www.scmp.com/.../xi-says-china-must-not-deteron...

Interesting development. Foreign direct investments (FDI) to and from China was negative, meaning FDI inflows were lower than outflows. Chinese businessmen and state-owned enterprises are investing more abroad -- mainly in the US, EU, Japan. This means what?

a. Labor costs, taxes, bureaucracies, corruption, etc. are rising fast in China, investors would rather do business outside, or

b. Strategic move to further internationalize China capitalism guided by socialist dictatorship. Or

c. Generation of pacifist, trade- and business-oriented communist leaders are rising. The hawks and war-mongers in the Communist Party are shouting their last Hurrah via more militarism and provocation of their neighbors to say they are not losing in the party.

(4) Sept. 16, 2014, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/chinas-overseas-investment...

(5) "According to a Barclays survey, which polled over 2,000 Chinese residents with a total net worth greater than $1.5 billion million, 47 percent of Chinese respondents said that they wanted to move abroad in the next five years, compared to a global average of 29 percent."

Sept. 15, 2014, http://shanghaiist.com/.../study-nearly-half-of-wealthy...

This news is consistent with the previous news report. Many rich Chinese want to experience more individual freedom, something that they cannot enjoy inside China, even if they are very close to the Communist party leaders.

(6) "Democracy is defined not only by people's right to vote in an election but also the right to participate in political affairs on a daily basis," Xinhua quoted Xi as saying. "Democracy is not a decoration … it's for solving people's problems."

Sept. 22, 2014, http://www.scmp.com/.../democracy-not-decoration-xi...

Really? the China Communist Party will allow public participation in government? Allow elections? 

(7) "About 30 Chinese officials, including managers of state-owned companies, are known to have committed suicide this year. Among them were several high-profile cadres under investigation for graft... entrepreneurs and private company managers are under greater stress as the economy slows. Last year more than 80 businessmen committed suicide in a six-month period in the city of Wenzhou alone.

"Entrepreneurs complain that making a fortune paints a bull's-eye on your back. Hence the so-called "curse of the rich list." Unlike in most countries, China's most successful tycoons don't want to be ranked among the country's wealthiest individuals, since honorees tend to find themselves ruined or in handcuffs.

"China's culture of corruption and abuse of power is a major reason so many of the country's rich want to leave. A Barclays BARC.LN -1.07% survey released Monday found that 47% of Chinese with more than $1.5 million in assets are planning to emigrate, and this is consistent with past research. Developed-country programs that allow investors to essentially buy residency continue to attract waves of Chinese.

"Many of China's brainiest young people also want out. According to the state-run Xinhua news agency, the annual number of students who go abroad for study and don't return reached 70,000 in 2012...." 

-- Hugo Restall, Sept. 17, 2014,  http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-unhappy-rich-1410889484

My hypothesis:

(1) Greying communist party officials of China have their kids studying in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. When they come back and become CP leaders soon, they will be tolerant of democracy, tolerant of political pluralism. And China's one-party system will implode and collapse.

(2) China internal dissent is larger than what we know or read in media. China's external bullying is partly a diversionary tactic, to create "external enemies" and hope to consolidate internally, to rally nationalism. Such internal dissent started in Tiananmen 27 years ago, or even earlier. The stabbings, massacres, riots in some restive regions, they look "scattered" and uncoordinated, but they may be wide and deep.

(3) If China implode someday, it will break up into several countries and governments, the main country may remain under the communist party. Similar to what happened in the former USSR, it broke up into many new and smaller countries, but the bulk of the country remained as Russia.

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

See also:
China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture, November 20, 2012
China Watch 19: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), October 25, 2014
China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison? March 20, 2015
China Watch 21, Is a War Between US and China "Inevitable"? May 30, 2015

Hong Kong Democracy Vs. China Dictatorship, Part 3, October 14, 2014
China -ASEAN 3: Trade and Investment Relations, March 20, 2015
BWorld 11, China's stockmarket and central planning, July 18, 2015

China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison?

A friend, Dr. Bong Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department, posted yesterday in fb and tagged me with this note,

I agree with Sen. Sonny Trillanes that we should fortify our garrisons on the islands we actually hold or control in the West Philippine Sea (sometimes known in China as the smaller South China Sea). However, that will take a lot of money and quite some time before we can build and deploy minimum credible deterrence systems on these same real estate.

I commented that I approve of that proposal. More military spending if necessary -- but money should NOT come from additional taxes or additional borrowings. Our public debt stock is rising by about P350-400 bilion a year, with or without a crisis, with or without China territorial issue. Additional money should come from privatization of certain government assets and properties. Like the huge and prime Camp Aguinaldo property in Edsa.

Another option is that we call on Batman, Spiderman, Superman, the X-Men. Not to fight the Chinese territory grabbers, but to produce and magic money from nowhere. Then we can have those squadrons of jet fighters, missiles and bombs, battle ships and submarines. By tomorrow or next week. :-)

(This photo is from Breaking Defense, March 19, 2015.

One of Bong's friends commented that a "Purely diplomatic initiatives aka triple approach of the lethargic DFA are hollow and ineffectual."

Wrong. China being a communist government bullies everyone that it can. First in line are its own citizens; no freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, no political opposition. Ordinary citizens are even deprived of access to fb, youtube, gmail, etc. Second, China Communist Party (CCP) bullies its smaller, weaker neighbors like the PH, Vietnam and Malaysia. Third, it bullies its richer neighbors like Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan.

(This photo is from Medium,com, March 16, 2015)

China commie government is creating more enemies than friends with its bullying in the territorial disputes. This alone makes that government weak and susceptible diplomatically. At the UN, APEC, ASEAN + 6, other international fora and arena.

Continued, endless diplomatic offensive at the international community terrifies bullies and dictators. Belligerence at the South China Sea (SCS) or West PH Sea (WPS) shows one faction of the CCP while another faction wants more trade, more investments, more capitalism with its neighbors, not more disputes. The creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) shows this faction.

But the noise of armaments suppliers to the PH government -- they want billions of $ from us, not just a few million $ -- is being echoed in mainstream media. The populism of war mongering is trying to be as noisy and deceptive as possible.

Another asked, "Do we have the funds?"

The direct, explicit and categorical answer is NO. Even without a crisis, even without buying a single new battleship, the PH government does not have enough money so it is borrowing yearly, around P300 B a year, just to finance various expenditures (salaries and allowances alone + maintenance/MOOE constitutes maybe 80% of the annual budget).

Any huge defense spending like "invest more in fighter planes,missiles and effective ships" as Romeo suggested above, would mean annual borrowings of possibly P400+ billion a year. And that means more taxes, more regulatory fees, more fines and penalties, to pay a fast-rising public debt.

Large scale privatization of certain government properties, assets, corporations, etc. is the least painful measure for PH taxpayers. But painful for pampered bureaucrats and politicians. PAGCOR privatization would give the government at least P200 B, from a paper I read about two years ago. Huge prime land of the AFP at Camp Aguinaldo alone including the golf course, should fetch tens of billions more.

Bong supported my suggestion of more government privatization to  raise funds. He even suggested to "sell UP Diliman property and transfer to UP Quezon Province property fronting the Pacific ocean to build a new growth center fronting the Pacific ocean (or at least map out a 20-30 year transfer to UP Quezon plan."

This is a diversion from the issue of territorial dispute with China, but I like this proposal as it is related to privatization and military modernization. A fast train connecting Quezon province with Metro Manila would make UP Quezon Province a very exotic campus to teach, study and reside. Tunnels will definitely be built in some parts of Sierra Madre, the excavated soil and rocks will be used for land reclamation and expand the land area of that province for more ports and real estate development.

Such train route and operation won't need public spending, private sector and modern capitalism will be more than happy to finance that, and make good profit in the future.

Meanwhile, UP should get tens of billions of money and proudly declare, "Malacanang and Congress, we will NOT be asking money from you for the next 20 years or more. Use that savings for whatever social or military spending you wish."

Building tunnels under Sierra Madre mt range I think is relatively easy now with more modern engineering, provided the government won't extort too much from private developers. I remember when MWSS built a tunnel in Sierra Madre to divert portion of waters from (Umiray?) river in Aurora or Gen. Nakar, Quezon (water just go to the ocean) to Angat River. That was more than 10 years ago.

My friend who conducted mountaineering training for the tunnel workers said that the tunneling machines were high tech and fast. As they excavate soil and rocks, they also plaster the cleared area with cement and steel.

Land reclamation and land banking + train operation, that should be big money for private investors. The volume of trade in Quezon as alternative port should significantly raise PH trade with Japan, Korea, US and Canada. Cargo ships won't go around the tip of Luzon and go to Manila bay. They can dock straight at the ports of Quezon.

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

See also:
China Watch 16: Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and Citizens Action, May 01, 2012
China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS, May 14, 2012
China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture, November 20, 2012
China Watch 19: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), October 25, 2014

The CPP, China, Joma and Dick Malay

Reposting a brief memoire by a former young Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) official in the early 70s, Ricardo "Dick" Malay, below.

When I was still among the leftist student activists in UP Diliman in the 80s, I would hear his name a few times. Not that I was a member of the party or its youth arm, KM , but from older Marxist leaders like Profs. Dodong Nemenzo and Randy David.

I met Dick for the first (or second?) time in November or December last year, in one of the gatherings of UP alumni at Taga UP Diliman Ka Kung (TUPDKK). Dick narrated many things when he went to China in 1971. An interview of him and Victor Corpuz by Howie Severino is here. Check at 1:25 minute mark.

------------- 

The Left, China and Rizal

By Dick Malay

December 30, 2014

We arrived in China in the summer of 1971 not  as refugees of an impending martial law, but armed with an urgent mission for the revolutionary Left. My wife and I had taken a French leave from our work with marching orders to set up a a clandestine outpost in Beijing. It was  tasked  as a clearing house for China's military assistance to the fledgeling Maoist rebellion versus a dictatorship in the making.

      

The Communist Party led insurgency felt it needed more than ideological support from the putative center of world revolution. In an era where Mao the Great Helmsman was vowing all-out internationalist assistance to rebellions and uprisings the world over, it was thought that overthrowing the strongman's rule with imported Chinese weapons was in the best interest of the revolution.  Together with a CPP politburo member, we landed in Beijing to the welcoming arms of our Chinese comrades.

     

At the same time, our mission was  to forge fraternal ties with Communist governments and revolutionary movements with chanceries in the Chinese capital. With such a global united front standing behind it, the anti- Marcos struggle was assured of victory. But for us, the first order of the day was to negotiate the shipment of armaments and ordnance from our Chinese partners.They granted two CPP proposals over the course of two years for the sea-borne delivery of weapons to the NPA, then steadily gaining in strength against government forces.

   

The initial shipment in 1972 undertaken by the vessel MV Karagatan ended in a debacle. During a deadly firefight with government troops alerted to the boat's movements, the rebels on the receiving ground abandoned most of the Chinese armaments, including powerful assault rifles, to the enemy. The Karagatan incident was one of the reasons President Marcos cited for declaring martial law.

    

But the setback did little to dampen the enthusiasm of the Chinese party to continue supporting the insurgency. In 1974, a second transshipment aboard the Dona Andrea met a more grievous fate.  Enroute to a Hainan naval base to pick up a large quantity of military hardware, the vessel manned by inexperienced cadres and fighters was shipwrecked in the Pratas Islands.

Although the Chinese authorities rescued the crew and brought them safely to the mainland, we felt the collaboration was nearing the end of its line. With two dismal failures exposing the CPP military ineptitude on one hand and uncovering China's export of revolution on the other, it was time to take a long hard look at the bi-lateral relationship born in the implosions of a perfervid era.

    

Two developments added to the emerging bleak picture. China and the Philippines were on the road to a cozy friendship after cementing diplomatic ties; and Deng Xiaobing, the pragmatic foe of Mao Tsetung, was back in power. It was Deng who voiced disgust at the price China had to pay for courting the CPP to its side. "The Filipino comrades are very clumsy," he reportedly said after reports of the two disastrous shipments came to his attention.

   

The events foretold that the times of friendship and solidarity  were drawing to a desolate close . We were compelled to shutter our mission and move to a new destination where the Maoist creed was a growing novelty  and attracting curious minds. At a farewell banquet given by the Chinese party commissar for our departing group, I raised my glass to toast the CCP and Chairman Mao for the friendship and hospitality we deeply felt during our ten year sojourn in their land.

To which the commissar responded raising his own glass of maotai:  "To the health and victories of our Filipinos comrades. Let us not forget also, to the memory of your national hero Dr Jose Rizal whose death is commemorated today. We Chinese people highly respect and revere him as one of our own heroes. Ganbei!"  

 

I had forgotten the day was a December 30. In that instant, i was jolted back to the reality that we were too busy forging on with our revolution that we had become hostage to the dogmas of a parallel world we were unwittingly creating in our quest for a better world to live.

Mabuhay ka at maligayang araw, Gat Jose Rizal!

---------

Terms from Dick which I heard, referring  to his big disappointment of China communism and Joma Sison:

1. "classless society" -- no classes especially in universities in China after the Mao revolution. Professors were either killed or sent to the farms to live like farmers.

2. "A mad dog grrr rero" -- new pronouncement of Joma Sison's alias "Amado Guerrero". 

Hahaha, Very witty Dick.

-----------

See also: 
China Watch 9: Liu Xiaobo, Human Rights and the NPA, December 10, 2010
Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?, August 30, 2011 
Pilipinas Forum 19: The CPP-NPA, Sison and Maoism, November 09, 2011 
Pilipinas Forum 26: On State-Party Relations, February 28, 2012

Hong Kong Democracy Vs. China Dictatorship, Part 3

An Indian friend, Barun Mitra, posted this interesting article from Live Mint, October 8, 2014. 

"Wang Zang is a Chinese poet who was taken into custody in Beijing on 1 October because he posted a photograph of himself holding an umbrella on the Internet. The umbrella has emerged as the unlikely icon of demonstrations in Hong Kong...

… each year on 4 June, when thousands of Hong Kong residents unfailingly congregate at Victoria Park and hold a candle-light vigil, remembering Tiananmen. China doesn’t like it but doesn’t do anything about it. This is partly due to that Basic Law, which is meant to protect Hong Kong’s character for 50 years....

Perhaps the unanticipated outcome of these demonstrations is gradual transformation in the way China’s leadership wields power. China reviled and insulted Hong Kong’s last British governor, Chris Patten, who said that the only way to deal with China is by treating it like any other country. If it glares angrily, stare back. China respects strength in its rivals, not acquiescent kowtowing. Patten had limited time in China, but he succeeded in broadening the political space. By staying firm on their demands, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are doing the same.

The outcome isn’t assured. Hong Kong might become another Chinese city. Many think it already is. Or China might become a bit more like Hong Kong. We do live in interesting times."

Beautiful analysis. Another Indian friend commented,

Why should Asians accept the Western religion of democracy? One place that has reduced wretchedness is not democratic India, but dictatorial China. And HK and Singapore are among the freest places in the world despite not being democratic.

I understand some ramblings against democracy, that majority rule can ultimately lead to majority dictatorship, the 50% + 1 of the population can wield dictatorship over the 49%+. I support some of those sentiments actually. I find this thesis on democracy by Barun as brilliant. He wrote,

Democracy is not about majority rule, but about recognition of and respect for minority opinions. So that the minority view of today, may enjoy the freedom to peacefully persuade others, and could become a majority opinion of tomorrow....  For democracy to survive in large communities and countries, where only representative democracy is possible and practical, democracy has to be minimal, so that it does not offend or alienate too many people. Secondly, as societies become complex, there is a need to recognise the challenges of centralised government, and devolve greater political authority and autonomy to lower tiers of government and local communities. Because only at such community level, with shared values, can there be a realistic prospect for widest consensus on such complex issues.

Right. As economies become more prosperous, people become  more impatient with dictatorship  and authoritarianism. Democracy is not be-all and end-all for them, but the freedom of expression available under democracy is a lot more preferable than the unfreedom and self-censorship of undemocratic but rich economies like HK and Singapore. The Singapore government is more flexible and more sophisticated in its political dictatorship than that in HK or China. But there are several signs of discontent looking for more sophisticated outlets there.

I emphasized"self-censorship" above and not "HK (government) censorship". For instance, can ordinary HK people rally in the streets and shout or have huge placards saying "Down with China Communist Party", the same way that Filipino activists can rally in the streets and shout "Down with President Aquino (and all previous administrations) and the Liberal Party"?

If the answer is No, then there is self-censorship.

The HK demonstrators, including friends at the Lion Rock Institute (LRI) reject the status quo, that all major political issues must get approval  from Beijing. There has been a slow but steady reduction of free market culture in HK under the status quo. Friends at LRI and Momentum 107 have protested the huge tax hike of real properties in HK that has been implemented several years ago. They did not support the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Fair Trade Commission, which I think has been created already. They did not support the enactment of minimum wage law in  HK.

HK under the status quo is following Beijing footsteps. The protesters want a break from Beijing, to get out of China Communist Party delegated dictatorship as much as possible. The status quo  is leading towards bigger government in HK. The Democracy movement, though not a monolithic ideological movement, has elements unsupportive of more, bigger HK government.

Good posting by LRI . Exec. Dir. Peter Wong last Sunday with a link to an article by The Economist, What’s gone wrong withdemocracy,

The rise of  China which threatens democracy is nonsense. However, "one reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise must be guaranteed. The most successful new democracies have all worked in large part because they avoided the temptation of majoritarianism—the notion that winning an election entitles the majority to do whatever it pleases."

Hong Kong (and many other countries or economies) needs more democracy than ever. Democracy is good, not bad or unhealthy, for Asia. Freedom of expression without the use and advocacy for violence and aggression is more needed now. When governments use more force and coercion, explicit or implicit, by police or court harassment to limit freedom of expression, that means governments are getting bigger and becoming more allergic to protecting individual rights and liberty.

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

See  also:
Part 1, September 25, 2014
Hong Kong Democracy vs. China Dictatorship, Part 2, September 29, 2014
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
Lion Rock 13: LRI Position on the Hong Kong Protests, October 08, 2014

Hong Kong Democracy vs. China Dictatorship

I am reposting some interesting reports and opinons here about the ugly turn of events  in  Hong Kong recently where the China Communist Party in Beijing has put its heavy feet on HK people's aspirations for freedom and deeper democratization.
----------

Undermining the Rule of Law

"As the government and bureaucrats find that they typically cannot count on the legislature making new laws, they interpret existing laws with ever wider discretion. The scope of arbitrary regulation is broadening. This does serious damage to the rule of law, although that probably does not start out as the intention." -- Bill Stacey, Chairman, LRI

From the World Street Journal, opinion papers by Hugo Restal:

Beijing Gets Ugly in Hong Kong

The people of Hong Kong want China to honor the democratic promises it made when the city became a special administrative region in 1997, and this fight for freedom deserves more world attention—especially as Beijing's counterattack is getting ugly.

Agents from Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) searched the homes of media tycoon Jimmy Lai, his employee Mark Simon and legislator Lee Cheuk-yan on Thursday. The search warrants covered records of Mr. Lai's donations to Mr. Lee and other pro-democracy politicians. The raid is especially ominous because it suggests that Beijing is compromising the independence of Hong Kong law enforcement....

Such arrests and Thursday's searches risk undermining public respect for the law and the government in general. Ironically it was Jasper Tsang, one of Beijing's staunchest loyalists in Hong Kong, who sounded the alarm last year. When leaders lose the public's trust, he warned, even their good policies will be resented. Beijing's steady erosion of the independent institutions left behind by the British will only increase the desire of Hong Kong's people for greater democracy and autonomy."

I have met and heard Jimmy Lai 10 years ago, during the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference in HK, also co-sponsored by LRI. The man was so down to earth. Typical rags to riches, never forgetting his roots and inspiring others, helping freedom-oriented people and groups to secure such freedom in the future. Now his house has been raided by the Beijing-loyal autocrats. Sad.

Hong Kong's Hopes Crushed

The people of Hong Kong can plead or protest for democracy all they want, but they can only hold a sham election for Chief Executive in 2017. That was the ruling of China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress on Sunday.

Moderates on both sides of the political spectrum in Hong Kong had urged compromise. They proposed nomination procedures that would satisfy Beijing's concerns while still allowing the free election that China promised in 1997 when it made the city a self-governing special administrative region for 50 years. Beijing not only rejected these ideas, it seems they were never seriously considered. The Communist Party insists on absolute veto power over the choice of candidates....

This Putinist politics gets a pro-business gloss because most of the city's richest businessmen long ago submitted to Beijing's will. Last week Wang Zhenmin, the dean of the Tsinghua University Law School, was sent to Hong Kong to explain that the electoral system is designed to please the business elite: "If we just ignore their interests, the Hong Kong capitalism will stop. So that's why on the one hand we realize universal suffrage in Hong Kong, on the other hand we must guarantee the continued development of capitalism in Hong Kong."

The threat to Hong Kong's capitalism comes not from democracy, but from the cronyism and erosion of the rule of law that are infiltrating from the mainland. Businessmen may want to curry favor with politicians, but it is competition that drives capitalist prosperity. Beijing foolishly believes that turning Hong Kong into a paradise for oligarchs will make it easier to control....

The tragedy for both Hong Kong and China is that the conflict is unnecessary. The city is manifestly ready for democracy, which would give Beijing fewer headaches rather than more. The cautious and pragmatic population would never elect the populist firebrand that Beijing fears. Instead a vibrant city is caught in a downward spiral of disaffection and fear. Mr. Xi deserves the blame for the consequences." -- Hugo Restall

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

Britain's Betrayal of Hong Kong

A political showdown looms in Hong Kong. Beijing has stripped the city of the high degree of autonomy it promised in a 1984 treaty with the United Kingdom. Local residents are preparing a campaign of civil disobedience in protest. Yet London has failed to express even mild criticism of Beijing's treaty violation.

The people of Hong Kong overwhelmingly want to elect their next Chief Executive, a reform that until a month ago seemed within reach. On Monday university and secondary students began a week-long boycott of classes to demonstrate for democracy. A new poll from Chinese University shows that one-fifth of the population is considering emigration because of the city's uncertain future.

This turmoil is the result of Beijing's shock decision at the end of August to rig the 2017 Chief Executive election with the most antidemocratic system tabled by its local supporters. Only politicians who receive majority support from a committee packed with Beijing's supporters will be allowed to run....

As a signatory to the Joint Declaration, only the U.K. has the legal standing to protest Beijing's broken promises. So how did London respond? For four days, the Foreign Office said nothing. Finally it put out a statement even more abject than silence: "We welcome the confirmation that China's objective is for the election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive through universal suffrage." Martin Lee, Hong Kong's doughtiest fighter for democracy, rightly summed up London's attitude as "kowtowing to Beijing for 30 pieces of silver."

It's true Britain's power to influence developments in Hong Kong is limited. Yet Beijing's xenophobic bluster shows that it still fears a principled statement from London to defend the territory's autonomy. Chinese media routinely accuse pro-democracy politicians of being funded by foreign "black money"—even as Beijing pumps money into local puppet groups.

When Margaret Thatcher agreed to return Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, she defended the decision on grounds that the U.K. would hold Beijing to its treaty commitments. Count that as one more Thatcherite legacy her successors have failed to honor. -- Hugo Restall, 

This news 3 weeks ago says that Britain did write to Beijing and the latter was upset.

The letter from the Beijing foreign affairs committee said the British probe, announced in July, would be a “highly inappropriate act which constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs”.

It urged lawmakers to “act with caution on the issue of Hong Kong, bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations and Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, stop interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs and cancel the inquiry on UK-Hong Kong relations.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/china-condemns-british-inquiry-into-progress-of-hong-kong-democracy

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

See also:
John Cowperthwaite, Statistics and Central Planning, January 23, 2014
Free Trade 32: Hong Kong's Unilateral Trade Liberalization and John Cowperthwaite, February 12, 2014
Lion Rock 12: Bill Stacey on Free Markets, Big Government and Hong Kong, March 10, 2014
Hong Kong's Corporate and Forest Jungle, June 10, 2014
FDIs, Hong Kong Democracy and China Communism, July 10,  2014