Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2018

Water and sanitation is not a human right, not an entitlement

Last February 04, 2018, Rotary International posted this,

"Clean water and sanitation is a human right. When people, especially children, have access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene, they lead healthier and more successful lives."  http://on.rotary.org/2DYyVWT
·
A friend and an active Rotarian (I am an ex-Rotarian) Bruce Hall posted this in his fb wall:

Rotary is wrong. Water and sanitation is not a human right, thought it can be a civil right.

Human rights are those things that we have because we are human, that we are born with, that we have been endowed with by our Creator.

Human beings are born with the ability to communicate, to pray, to move, to think... human beings are born free. Someone must use violence or threaten to use violence (like an army or a police force) to take away those things. Those are human rights. When violence is used to take away those things from us, that is oppression. Our human rights are violated.

We are not born with a lifetime supply of water or sanitation.

We must work hard -- and we must work together -- to provide those things to ourselves and to others. If we don't have water and sanitation, that might be our fault, or the fault of others, or the fault of no one.

The lack of water is NOT ALWAYS the result of oppression. If we die of thirst in the desert or on a lifeboat at sea, who oppressed us?

The lack of human rights is ALWAYs the result of oppression, is always the result of someone's act or threat.

Thirst can be the result of oppression, or someone taking away our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but it could also be the result of something else. Therefore water cannot be a human right. 
---------

I agree with Bruce here. People can live on top of high hills and mountains far from natural water sources and government should bring pipe water to them because water is their "human right"? Bad proposition.

Re UN SDGs declaring that water is a human right, almost everything should be a "human right" for the UN actually. Free healthcare, free education until university, free books, free medicines, free condoms, etc. And soon free iPads, free flat tv, free cars for the poor?

Bruce added:

To take away human rights requires an act and therefore an actor. It requires oppression. To have human rights requires no action, no actor. We have human rights BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN. Nothing more is required. A government isn't required, technically, for us to have our full human rights. However, there will always be people who may try to take away our human rights. Therefore we band together to defend ourselves, and we might call that government. Governments are instituted among men, as the saying goes.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

On the CHR P1,000 or $20 budget for 2018

The House of Representatives led by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez passed the proposed 2018 budget and it gave the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a mere P1,000, less than $20, budget for 2018. Key Duterte officials are displeased with the CHR, headed by Atty. Chito Gascon (a friend since the 80s in UP Diliman) because of its investigation of many murder cases where the main suspects are policemen.

Last Wednesday, September 13, while I was queuing at NAIA for my flight to the US via Korean Air, Chito called me, he would be on the same flight as mine. Picture muna :-)


The CHR was created by the 1987 Constitution, not by Congress and much less by the House of Alvarez. Alvarez wants Chito to resign as CHR head, then he will reinstate the proposed P600+ million 2018 budget. Now look at his reasoning below. Low life logic.


Another lawyer-friend from UP, Gigo Alampay, explained it well in his fb wall the other day.

It is the responsibility of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to protect the rights of the people from abuse BY STATE AGENTS such as the government, police and the military. As a response to our experience with Martial Law, the CHR was created to ensure that the government will not abuse and violate its duty to protect the primary rights of the people.

It is NOT the job of the CHR to investigate violations committed by a non-state or non-government actors, such as criminals. This is not because the CHR condones those heinous acts. Rather, it is simply because investigating crimes is the job of the police. Requiring the CHR to expand its responsibilities to these violations is not only redundant. It would also be a massive waste of manpower and resources. (Is Congress prepared to add the equivalent of the PNP's billion-peso budget to the CHR?)

Do not fall for what appears to be a systematic effort by the President, legislators in the majority, and by Pro-Duterte apologists to discredit the CHR by confusing the public on this issue, and insisting that the CHR must investigate ALL cases of human rights violations.

A former tv clown and entertainer and now Senator Tito Sotto added his equally low-life argument. Suggesting that all government officials including those heading constitutional bodies (CHR, COA, Comelec,...) should always obey the President's orders and wishes.


When I posted my photo with Chito in my fb wall, a certain Manuel Saludadez jumped in with this accusation.


The man did not provide any proof, even news link. I have a term for this type of attitude -- emotional or arrogant idiocy. If one should make a serious accusation of robbery or plunder ("nakulimbat"), one should present some reliable proof. Otherwise, remove the comment or say "sorry, I do not have proof, I take back my words" or similar statements. If there is humility. There is none.

Meanwhile, I think the Senate should also give a P1,000 2018 budget for many agencies that are favored by the President and the Speaker, like the DOJ. That way, a compromise can be made between the two chambers.

Monday, May 08, 2017

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 

Saturday, November 26, 2016

EFN Asia 63, Day 1 of Conference 2016

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference 2016 at Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati ended last Wednesday. Thanks again FNF and EFN for another wonderful conference.

Here are some tweets from #efnasia2016 and my own thoughts about the event.

Protection of human rights is part and parcel of EU policy – Walter van Hattum, EU Delegation to the Philippines.


It's a responsibilty of businesses to respect human rights... It is state duty to protect and defend human rights in its territory.

Nobody can seriously suggest that businesses can opt in and out of respecting human rights as they wish... There is legal obligation for businesses to respect HR.

Businesses should be as transparent as possible so they will be less likely to be attacked by false news. Business leaders are often uncomfortable explaining to the public how they work. It's understandable but unwise. -- Markus Leöning, former Himan Rights Commissioner in Germany.


Increasingly populist goverments a threat to human rights and economic freedom. The pendulum has swung as globalization has failed in its promises to those who have lost out in its benefits. Food for thought. -- Frank Largo

For me, among the important human rights of the people is freedom to choose in the market place, freedom to sell or not sell, freedom to buy or not buy. Political human rights like the right or freedom from theft (especially organized criminals), murders, prosecution and harassment, that is where the state should come in.

A minimal government focused on enforcing the rule of law, enforcing contracts between and among people, is consistent with economic freedom and human rights protection. That minimal govt should have no business creating and expanding lots of endless welfarist programs. Prosperity is not an entitlement or privilege. Lazy and irresponsible have no right to a prosperous life, they deserve poverty. Politically incorrect statement, as usual.

Rule of law means the law applies equally to unequal people. So the law should apply to both rich and poor people, to big/giant and small firms. A law or contract can be written, verbal, done by govt or private entities. Basic human rights then means that people have access to such equality before the law.

Below, Rainer Heufers moderating, with Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Peter Kompalla, Rishi Sher Singh, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad in the new panel.


People's definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can also be another's sole income source... Definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can be another's sole income source. -- Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Good point. Some westerners may consider temporary child labor as HR violation already but for some households, it is ok and necessary. If a sole family breadwinner is gone for instance, the young need to work to help sustain the family. Harsh but necessary.

Stakeholder values, not just shareholder values. -- Rishi Sher Singh

Barun Mitra tweets:

Business of business is indeed business! Inclusive of profitability for investors, benefit to consumers, add values to society.

Better protection of human rights, improved environmental quality, higher sense of justice, necessary social value additions.

Value added products, economic and social, become affordable with prosperity, and necessity in a free competitive market.

Implentating Rule of law carries cost, level of effective enforcement has to be affordable, economically socially politically. #EFNAsia2016

I think corporate branding will help global firms stay the course in HR and econ freedom protection, respecting #ruleOfLaw. Firms would dislike to be associated with bad products, bad services, bad corporate image. So they will try to be as transparent as possible, to be accountable to their products and practices. Transparency is good protection vs negative image/attacks.

Session 2 Panel speakers: H.E. Franz Jessen of EU, Dr. Lee Taekyu of KERI, and Atty. Arpee Santiago of Ateneo Human rights Center.


Govt and countries don't trade, individuals and businesses do. Govt negotiating trade treaties leading to anti-trade backlash.

Free trade is voluntary, so win win. Govt negotiations may liberalise trade, but legitimises govt in trade n economy, corruption.

Environment, labour or human rights standards in national trade treaties, focus on outcomes, give advantage to large, richer cos!

Society / govt benefit most if they adopt unilateral free trade. All politics is local, a local decision will minimise backlash

Govt negotiating trade, inevitably adopt export is good, import is bad outlook. Free trade is beneficial when govt has no role.

Access to internet can't be a "Right". Political rights are negative rights. Any +ive right paid for by others can't be a RIGHT.

TPP may be good agreement, but has lost legitimacy because govts. no longer carry credibility among large sections of people. -- Barun Mitra

As usual, I agree with Barun's ideas and observations: unilateral trade liberalization; countries and governments do not trade with each other, people do; so governments, national and multilateral, should step back from trade negotiations as much as possible. Let companies and people organizations negotiate with their suppliers and consumers abroad and keep prices low via low or zero tariff, minimal non-tariff barriers.
-------------

See also: EFN Asia 60, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 5, April 03, 2016
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016

EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila, November 20, 2016

Sunday, November 20, 2016

EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference 2016 will start in two days, November 22-23, 2016 at Dusit Thani Hotel, Makati. It is organised by EFN Asia and Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), with support from four organizations: the Philippine Economic Society (PES), EU Delegation to the Philippines, Ateneo Human Rights Center, and Bloomberg TV Philippines.

The program is here, http://efnasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EFN-Asia-Conf-2016-Full-program-as-of-17.11.pdf. Below, I just copy-pasted the program minus the time and some space.

MC for Day 1 will be Minnie Salao, Program Manager, FNF - Philippines, and Pett Jarupaiboon, Regional Program Manager (Economic Freedom and Human Rights), FNF Southeast and East Asia (based in Bangkok).

Good line up of speakers from many countries on Day 1. 


I think President Duterte's admin might raise their eyebrows on the subject of "human rights". But the conference will talk less, if ever, of murders and large deaths in the on-going "drugs war" of the government, more on the conduct of business in the age of expanding trade and business globalization.


Day 2 of EFN conferences are always devoted to the launching and discussion of the annual EFW reports by Fraser Institute, based in Vancouver, Canada. Fraser is almost always represented by Fred McMahon for several years now.


Session 9 will be a more political discourse of human rights but not necessarily mentioning the Philippines. This is because the three speakers -- Tom (US), Razeen (Sri Lanka) and Barun (India) -- are long-time fighters of individual freedom, dating back to 3 decades ago or more.


Economic freedom, not economic central planning. Rule of law, not rule of men and dictators. Looking to another exciting conference next week.
--------------

See also: 
EFN Asia 59, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 4, April 01, 2016
EFN Asia 60, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 5, April 03, 2016
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016

Monday, October 31, 2016

BWorld 88, Economic freedom and human rights

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last October 18, 2016


Economic freedom is the ability and privilege of people to engage in various social and economic activities without unnecessary restrictions and prohibitions. Such freedom is guided by voluntary exchange, open markets, personal choice and accountability, and clearly defined private property rights.

People are economically free if they can choose to buy or not buy certain goods and services from various sellers, when they are not forced and coerced to buy something expensive and/or poor quality. Freedom is not absolute though and free people have no freedom to harm other people nor destroy, burn or steal their private properties.

Human rights include the right to life, right to private property, and right to liberty and security of person. Thus, even a person who has committed a wrong act should be given due process to defend him/herself from false or exaggerated accusations. Murders of individuals based on flimsy or unsubstantiated accusations like what is happening in a number of instances in the on-going war on drugs are deprivations of those people’s human rights.

Combining these two concepts is very important for people to live with freedom and dignity.

And these two concepts will be tackled in a big international conference by the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia on the theme, “Economic freedom and human rights in business” this coming Nov. 22-23 at Dusit Thani Manila Hotel, Makati City. The conference is jointly organized by EFN Asia Economic Freedom Network Asia (EFN Asia) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), supported by four local organizations, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Philippine Economic Society (PES), Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), and Bloomberg TV Philippines.

Among the key speakers and major resource persons in this event will be Siegfried Herzog, head of Regional Office, FNF South East and East Asia; Ms. Rosemarie Edillon, president of PES; Markus Loening, former German Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid, and Vice-President Leni Robredo.

Other speakers will be Wan Saiful Wan Jan, CEO of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia; Chito Gascon, chairperson of CHR; Franz Jessen, ambassador and head of Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines; Nicholas Sallnow-Smith, chairman of the Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong; and Peter Perfecto, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC).

So, how economically free are the people of the Philippines and big nations of the ASEAN? How free or unfree are they from heavy regulations that tend to restrict entry into markets and interfere with the freedom to engage in voluntary exchange?

The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2016 report give scores to countries (0 most unfree, 10 most free) based on five criteria and areas: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulations. Then they are ranked from the most free to the least free economies.

For this short paper, only the performance in Area 5 will be tackled and in particular, sub-areas on labor regulations and business regulations.


The Philippines has a modest score in both labor and business regulations, meaning not yet choked by those multiple bureaucracies and permits. In particular, the country has a good score in labor hiring regulations and enforcement of the minimum wage, but it has a low score in hiring and firing of employees.

From some existing policy debates in the Philippines today, we can apply the principles of economic freedom and human rights on these issues.

(1) On labor contracting including endo, being hired for short-term labor contracting is a privilege, a human right for new job entrants and the unskilled. It is much better than being rejected and not hired by employers because of the high cost of hiring new additional workers and the threat of government harassment for firing the un- or less-experienced, less skilled people.

(2) On a nationwide minimum wage and abolition of regional wage disparities, this one-size-fits-all policy will make hiring people in the provinces become more expensive, and, as a result, there will be fewer hiring of lesser-skilled, lesser-experienced people. There are now more machines and robots available that can slowly replace more laborers.

(3) On entrepreneurship, it is a privilege and human right for the more hard-working, more ambitious people and they should not be deprived or discouraged to try that route because of heavy government regulations, bureaucratism, and taxation.

Increased market dynamism and fewer government regulations and taxation are the keys to ensuring economic freedom and protection of human rights.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a SEANET Fellow. Both organizations are members of EFN Asia.
---------------

See also:
BWorld 81, Property rights are human rights, September 30, 2016
BWorld 86, Philippine industrial policy, October 15, 2016 
BWorld 87, Economic, fiscal and energy policies of the Duterte administration, October 17, 2016

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

BWorld 85, Drugs war morphed into war on critics of President Duterte?

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last September 27, 2016.


One of my friends, a respected economist and a fellow UP School of Economics (UPSE) alumni, has criticized some policies of President Duterte by posting her misgivings on her Facebook account.

Past 12 noon of Aug. 20, she was threatened with murder while inside her car, together with her mother.

As she was struggling with traffic at the Holy Spirit Drive in Quezon City, a man on foot whose head was covered by a jacket suddenly appeared on her side. The man tapped his finger on her car window and shouted, “Ma’am putang ina mo! Papatayin ka na namin!”

Shocked and scared, my friend put pedal to the metal and hightailed it to UP Diliman, where she informed her friends and officemates. She also wanted to report the incident that day to the police but did not, since she knew no one personally there.

Take note that not all of her Facebook updates are critical of the President.

Besides offering good words for the President’s past TV and newspaper interviews, she also produced an international article supporting his proposal to access Chinese official development assistance (ODA) but improved on the proposal by de-emphasizing the bilateral mode and advising the use of the multilateral Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).

On the day she was threatened, she chose to deactivate her Facebook account, which contained her critical comments regarding the decision to allow Marcos to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, the violent narcotics war, and extrajudicial killings.

My friend says that she and her family thought of the threat as random “trip,” a prank; and that she and her mother were probably at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

But they still took precautions and remained open to the possibility that it was a serious and direct threat.

She did not use her car for several days and took Uber or a taxi and changed her route almost daily, if only to try to avoid the area where the threat was made.

Since she was never been into drugs, just a studious student at UPSE (undergrad and graduate), the threat against her cannot be viewed as anti-drugs but possibly as a threat against the critics of Duterte policies.

Can we possibly conclude that this dirty “war on drugs” has morphed into something more sinister like a “war on some critiques of the government and its narco war policy?”

Here are some possibilities or conspiracy hypothesis that can be derived from the above circumstances.

1. It was just a prank threat/attack on her by some mentally unstable minds in the streets.

2. It was a serious threat, not from the government but from some civilian fanatics of the President who dislike the idea that he is being criticized.

3. It was a threat from the President’s political opponents and/or drug cartels to target and scare civilians, to make the people be scared of the Duterte government.

If it was #1, it remains scary because the President’s mantra about the drug war -- that “it will be bloody” -- has been hanging upon us since he won the May elections. Many of his supporters smell blood, they want to see blood, more blood on the streets. Even the soldiers were recently ordered by the President to kill by the dozens, to “massacre” a group of drug criminals, whether guilty or suspected.

If it was #2, the more that she -- and others who take an independent view of the President and his policies -- should be alarmed.

If it was #3, then the President’s warning has been hijacked by various groups. Whether politically-motivated or just crime-inspired. A theft-murderer can shoot and kill his victim/s that would resist giving their valuables voluntarily, with a ready placard to be thrown at the lifeless body saying “Pusher ako, ‘wag tularan.”

There is a common denominator to all the three (or more) possibilities mentioned above. And that is the violent and bloody “war on drugs” has become a “war on nerves” against many ordinary citizens. It is confusing and is meant to confuse.

It does not matter now if the person who curses you and says that he/they will murder you is a deranged man or not. The PNP is either deep into drugs murder cases itself or unable to solve hundreds of such murders from self-proclaimed vigilantes and fanatics, or plain criminal attacks. Intolerance is acquiring its own momentum.

Another friend, a solid supporter of the President, commented when I posted this incident in my Facebook wall.

He said: “Why can we not support him in his “war on drugs” and do something about his crazy supporters instead? Why can we not help address the flaws in his style of governance to help him succeed instead? Do we not succeed too if we help him do so?”

Some good points there but I argued and commented the following.

First, I do not believe in continued criminalization of drugs. I believe that drugs, like alcohol, jueteng and other gambling, should be legalized and decriminalized; allowed but regulated. It is the act of murder, rape, theft, etc. -- whether the person is sober or under the influence of drugs or alcohol -- that should be penalized. Also consider that a number of violent crimes and murders occur when people are sober, like road rage, disputes in parking, personal and clan disputes, and so on.

Second, keeping the “war on drugs” should be guided by existing laws, the rule of law should prevail.

The police should first gather evidence, arrest drug pushers and addicts on the basis of evidence, charge them in court and lock them in jails if proven guilty. Drug possession of certain quantities is non-bailable so the arrested pushers will be off the streets while due process is ongoing.

The Filipina accused and convicted of being a drug mule/courier in Indonesia, Mary Jane Veloso, got due process. She went through trial, her side was heard and written, she was not killed and murdered outright. That is the due process that the PNP is not known to be consistently doing.

So has the “war on drugs” morphed into “war on critics of President Duterte?” It seems that the answer is No. There are no big evidence to prove this statement yet. And that is a good news. The bad news is that the “war on drugs” remains a messy and violent one and created a new uncertainty, the “war on nerves” on the people.

Assuring due process of all accused, respecting the rule of law, that is the only assurance we have to remove these uncertainties and fear in the hearts of ordinary citizens.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, and a Fellow of SEANET.
-------------

See also: 
BWorld 74, Pres. Duterte's anti-corruption programs and Transparency Intl., July 30, 2016
BWorld 82, No FIT for geothermal and other renewables, please, October 02, 2016 
BWorld 83, Climate change, the UN and 'Clexit', October 05, 2016 
BWorld 84, Eliminate red tape in the Philippine energy sector, October 08, 2016

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Free Trade 37: Multiple Concerns and Regulations in the ASEAN

The next and 25th Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit will be held this coming  November 12-13 in Myanmar. Among the preparations for this, the Department  of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is conducting consultation with some stakeholders in the Philippines to explain its position on certain issues and get feedback from the public.

Yesterday, the DFA consultation with civil  society organizations (CSOs) for the 25th ASEAN Summit plus related matters -- PH advocacies in the 23rd and 24th Summit, 47th ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeeting -- was held at the DFA Auditorium, main building in Pasay City. DFA Under Secretary for Policy Evan Garcia gave the welcome message and an overview of the recent ASEAN Summit and this coming event in Myanmar.


An update on the ASEAN Intergovernment Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was given by the PH Representative to the Commission, Rosario Marcelo. Ms. Daza of ASEAN office in DFA was the event moderator while Assistant Secretary Luis Cruz was the discussant in the consultation with CSOs.

Issues on (1) foreign policy and national security, (2) economic diplomacy and ASEAN economic integration, and (3) social protection for overseas Filipinos were discussed.

Most NGO participants lobbied for more social protection re human rights, labor rights, environmental protection, some even calling for postponing economic integration. No other free trader in the room except me, as usual. Fellow free marketer Kenneth Varona accompanied me but he did not speak, thanks Kenneth.


All CSO leaders were given the floor to first introduce themselves and their institutes or organizations in round 1, then in discussing their position on the presentation of DFA advocacies and agenda as earlier presented. Some spoke longer than others, as usual. 

When my turn came, I just argued on four points.

1. Rule of law on the SCS/WPS conflict. China's communist government is a bully and would unshamelessly bully its own citizens. It would even deprive its people access to facebook, twitter and  youtube. No independent NGOs, no big citizens assembly, people can be imprisoned if they do so. But internationally, China can be ashamed. Thus, the need for endless, continuous, internationalization of the conflict. Do not be tempted by the militarist approach. China is shameless internally/domestically but can be ashamed internationally.

2. Food security. Thailand and Vietnam are the world's top rice exporters, they are our neighbors. Cambodia and Myanmar are approaching that stage too of being major rice exporters. They have abundant, wide, flat lands with good irrigation that are suitable to rice farming. Hence, they have cheap rice there while we have expensive rice due to trade protectionism. Our neighbors should prioritize us in cases of emergencies like large scale destruction of rice crops due to heavy flooding. 

3. Energy security. The 3 power plants in Batangas that run on Malampaya's natural gas supply about 45% of total Meralco customers (M.Manila, Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite; and Laguna?). Malampaya's gas output is slowly declining and will be depleted by 2022-24, or 10 years or less from now. Nat gas is abundantly available in some of our neighbors. Brunei is 99% dependent on nat gas for its power; Singapore is 78% dependent on nat gas, about 45% for thailand, etc. Successor to Malampaya is question mark, so we need to import LNG Our neighbors should prioritize us. We don't want to go back to candles and noisy gen sets in houses and shops.


4. Economic integration must proceed. Do not postpone or delay it. While some sectors have expressed reservations about it, the argument of "hindi tayo handa" (we're not ready) with more economic competition and integration has been argued in the 60s, in the 70s, 90s, until now.

I could see some smirks, raised eyebrows from some NGO leaders in the room when I said that. It is expected from a protectionist perspective. It is a policy dialogue so diversity of ideas is expected.

If I have to illustrate a supply-demand graph. Supply curve 1 (S1) is the status quo curve. S2 is free trade supply, moving to the right of S1 because domestic supply expands with the entry of more products and services from abroad, giving local consumers more choices, more options re quality and prices.

Having more regulations though -- labor regs, environmental regs, energy regs, human rights/gender regs, health regs, LGU regs, etc. -- effectively a form of bureaucratic protectionism, will restrict the entry of more foreign goods and services. This shifts S2 back to S1 position, or worse, to S3, to the left of S1. Meaning higher prices, lower aggregate supply. Local consumers will be penalized and worse off.

The draft presented by DFA as PH agenda for the 25th ASEAN Summit contains many social concerns that can divert the main purpose of integration -- more trade, freer flow of goods and services across countries who are ASEAN members. Yes, ASEAN is more than trade, there are human rights and other political and social concerns. But trade is the single most important aspect of the association. Countries that have less trade also have more human rights violations, like Myanmar and Laos. Countries that have more trade also have more economic prosperity and less human rights violations, like Singapore and Thailand.

I believe that the only considerations in regulating foreign trade is if things involve public health and safety. Like bringing in guns bombs, poisonous substances, fake medicines, virus-infected animals, etc. All other goods should be allowed entry with the minimum or zero restrictions and taxation as this will significantly bring down prices and benefit consumers, especially the poor.
------------

See also:
Free Trade 33: ASEAN Economic Community 2016, February 16, 2014

Free Trade 34: ASEAN's Bilateral and Regional FTAs, February 27, 2014

Free Trade 35: EU-FNF Forum on 'FDI Engine for Job Growth', May 15, 2014

Free Trade 36: Taxation, Regulations, Trade and Rule of Law in ASEAN, August 05, 2014

Business 360 16: ASEAN Economic Community 2016, March 20, 2014
ASEAN Tax Reform Initiative, April 10, 2014
EFN Asia 25: The ASEAN Economic Community in 2015, July 23, 2014
Stratbase Forum on ASEAN Competitiveness, July 25, 2014

Friday, May 27, 2011

Free Trade 17: Consumer Surplus and Human Rights

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the forum, Did the Philippines Sacrifice Human Rights in the Altar of Free Trade?, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty, FNF Philippines and the Ateneo Human Rights Center, held at Ateneo Rockwell, Makati, campus.

The speakers were Dr. Felipe "Philip" Medalla of the UP School of Economics (UPSE) and Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Comm. Loretta "Etta" Rosales of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and former Sen. Wigberto "Bobby" Tanada of the Fair Trade Alliance (FTA).

Philip had an explicit NO answer to the forum title, Bobby had an explicit YES answer, and Etta I think had an indirect Yes. In my earlier discussion, Forum on HR, free trade and democracy, I also argued that the quick answer to the forum title is NO.

Bobby had a long, prepared speech, argument, why free trade is contrary to human rights. He cited certain rules of the WTO which disallow countries to protect their workers via certain "safety nets" and subsidies, as unfair intervention and dictation by the rich countries over poorer countries, resulting in more unemployment, more poverty in the latter. He also cited some economists like Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman for their critique of neoliberal policies by the WB, IMF and WTO imposed upon poorer countries.

Of course I don't believe those arguments by him. So when it was open forum time, I was the first to raise my hand and asked the former Senator with two direct questions:

1. When people go to Divisoria, Baclaran, Quiapo, tiangge-tiangge to seek cheap, free trade price of various commodities, was there any human rights violation committed?

2. Many protectionists and statists criticize the WB, IMF, WTO, other multilateral agencies for their "neoliberal" and "Washington Consensus" policies. Do you support the abolition of these bodies then as you criticize them anyway? Many free marketers that I know of, are calling for the abolition of such international bureaucracies.

Bobby said trading in Divisoria, Baclaran, etc. involve smuggled goods that is why those goods are cheap. There are human rights violations there because more local companies and more local jobs will be threatened with extinction if more people will patronize foreign smuggled products. Government is also deprived of additional revenues which can be used to provide social and economic safety nets for the affected workers and small businesses.

He did not answer my second question though.

To illustrate the mistake of the above reasoning by the former Senator, I developed this graph below. Consumer surplus before and after free trade.

Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between the maximum amount or price that a consumer is willing to pay for a commodity, and the current or actual price of that commodity. For instance, a shopper loves a particular handbag that she is willing to pay P2,000 for it. Upon checking various shops from various malls that sell that particular handbag of same quality, she finds one, two or three shops that sell that handbag for only P900. That shopper then realizes a consumer surplus of P1,100. Thanks to competition among many shops and retailers.


Free trade expands the supply curve from the original S1 to S2. This results in reduction of the price from the previous equilibrium price of P* (before free trade) to P1. Likewise, the quantity sold in the market expands from the original Q* to Q1. That's what free trade mainly does -- expand the volume and quantity of various goods and services that are available to the local consumers. Various suppliers and sellers from many parts of the world bring in their goods to the local market, and local consumers are happy with lots of choices. And protectionist philosophy thinks this is wrong.

What happens to consumer surplus? CS A (before free trade) expands to CS B (after free trade), or CS B > CS A (B is greater than A). This is good, not bad, right?

What do the consumers do with the larger consumer surplus? Most protectionist and statist arguments are silent on this question. They only think that the shift of consumer patronage from local producers to foreign producers result in the bankruptcy of the former, loss of many local jobs (that is why there are many Filipinos working abroad), and hence, more poverty. Wrong.

When a poor household benefits from rice free trade, so that what used to be P40 per kilo rice can be sold for only P30 per kilo, that household realizes a consumer surplus of P10 per kilo. If they consume 2 kilos per day, they realize a P20 per day saving on rice alone, or P140 per week. This household will not throw away that P140 per week consumer surplus. They will use it to buy an extra kilo of chicken, or extra 1.5 kilo of tilapia, or extra 3 kilos of vegetable X, and so on.

The lesson is that savings and additional CS from free trade will expand the consumption capacity of the average consumers even if their average household income remains the same. Instead of buying 3 kilos of chicken per week, they can now buy 4 kilos per week. Or instead of buying 4 kilos of tilapia per week, they can now buy 5.5 kilos per week, and so on. And this expands the market and consumers of chicken farmers, tilapia farmers, vegetable farmers, etc. Which creates more jobs for those sectors and sub-sectors, which reduces poverty.

Free trade is fair trade. Protectionism is unfair trade.
--------

See also:

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Forum on HR, free trade and Asian democracy, Manila

There are two good fora this week and next week here in Manila, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty, FNF Manila Office and Liberal International.

On Thursday this week, forum on human rights (HR) and free trade, and on June 1 Tuesday, forum on Asian democracy. I particularly like the May 26 forum. Though it seems that of the 4 speakers that afternoon, 3 would be coming from the Human Rights aspect and only 1, Dr. Medalla, coming from the free trade aspect.

Now, if I will be asked to answer this question, "Did the Philippines Sacrifice Human Rights in the Altar of Free Trade?", my quick answer would be NO. We are not a free trade country. The notoriety and corruption of the Bureau of Customs is one quick proof to that. Another would be the high difference between Philippine prices and foreign prices of certain products and services (computers, iPad, certain brands of cellphones, tv, rice, etc.). For me, the Philippines sacrifice human rights in the altar of bureaucracy and BIG government. It has nothing to do with free trade and free market.

On the June 1 forum, I like it because of the speakers, especially Rainer Adam. Rainer is the head of FNF South East Asia, and FNF is active in the human rights campaign in the region. Talk about human rights in front of the Myanmar and Laos generals, for instance, and one will see the difficulty of pushing the subject. Another good speaker there is Neric Acosta, former Congressman and incoming DENR Secretary.

These two events are free, no need to pre-register. Just show up at the venue and register right there.

Friday, December 10, 2010

China Watch 9: Liu Xiaobo, Human Rights and the NPA

Today is International Human Rights Day. Every December 10 every year is human rights day. And on this day, two significant events happened in the Philippines.

One is that the President has ordered the release of the health workers who have been detained for nearly a year now, called the "Morong 43". The Philippine military hauled them on charges of being members of the Communist Party of the Philippines - New People's Army (CPP-NPA).

The CPP-NPA were receiving some indirect assistance from the China communist government in the 70s under the leadership of Mao Tse Tung. The founder of the CPP, Joma Sison, was a hard-core Maoist. He patterned the CPP revolution on three communist thinkers, Marx-Lenin-Mao. The kind of revolution they want to pursue is mainly Maoist -- use of farmers, rural workers, to "encircle the cities" in an armed revolt and capture state power.

The second important event today is the decision of President Aquino to join other countries who will boycott the awarding ceremony of the Nobel Peace Prize awards in Oslo, Norway, today.

This year's awardee is Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident who was among the leaders of the Tiananmen rebellion in 1989 that resulted in the Tiananmen massacre. Liu was imprisoned then, got out, imprisoned again on other charges later, got out. And about a year ago, he was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment.

China's government violently opposed the decision of the Nobel Peace prize committee, so it launched a diplomatic offensive and pressured some countries not to participate in the awarding of the prize.

I think the China government simply over-reacted, its OA. Nobel is a private foundation, not a government or a multilateral institution. If it was the UN, or any state government around the world that gives that Peace award, the China government has every reason to react negatively diplomatically.

So now, what if Rotary International, or Mason International, or the International Red Cross, or Transparency International, or any other private and international NGO will give a similar award on peace and non-violence, to any other Chinese dissident, past or present, the China government will again launch another negative diplomatic assault?

It is true that President Aquino and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) were so embarrassed by the hostage-taking and death of many HK-Chinese hostages a few months ago. China reacted angrily with the massacre inside the tourist bus. So P.Noy does not want China to be angry again, and this should be the main reason why the Philippine government will boycott the Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremony. In this case, the PNoy government danced along with the over-reaction of the China government.

Back to the NPA. The National Democratic Front (NDF), the chief negotiator in behalf of the CPP-NPA, made a mistake earlier of making the "freedom of Morong 43" as their no. 1 precondition before they will resume peace talks with the Philippine government. It's like implying, "they're our buddies, set them free first, then we can talk". The detained health workers would not want the public to think that way.

Lesson: Big government, like the China communist government, can be evil. The right to dissent, the right to self-expression, is part of human liberties. So long as words do not call for violence, like calling for an armed overthrow of a government, critique of corrupt and dictatorial governnts are rightful privileges of people in a free society.

The same way, the CPP-NPA-NDF dream of estabilishing socialism and a socialist government in the Philippines, their main strategy of armed struggle and violent overthrow of the Philippine government, is evil. Many civilians, including health workers like the Morong 43, have been trapped and hostaged in the endless but hopeless goal of establishing a socialist government via armed revolution,

If they want health socialism, education socialism, housing socialism, pension socialism,management socialism, etc., then they should work in the open, non-armed, battle for ideas. They should bring books and blogs, not armalite and grenades.

The Big Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and their corruption is directly proportional to the corruption and idiocy of the CPP-NPA. If the AFP is not heavily corrupt along with the politicians, the communist rebellion would have ended a long time ago.

It is important that NGOs should remain independent -- independent from government, independent from politicians, independent from communist rebels, independent from other bodies that rely on coercion for their continued existence. That way, they will not be indebted to those politicians, government agencies, and can praise or criticize when it is due.

* See also: China Watch 8: World's Largest Economies in 2010, August 16, 2010