In God We Trust: It's a Pity Money Can't Buy Renewed Trust in the Financial System

It is said that money can buy anything.

But given the current situation at hand, it would be more accurate to say that that holds true, if one would exclude money's buying power when it comes to purchasing renewed confidence in a weakened financial system.

To make it worse, it seems investing more money alone cannot induce more trust in the credit system.

Just as it is foolish to argue that the mind can be harnessed to solve a psychological illness given that the source of the problem is coming from the brain itself, I find it quite similar when it comes to literally pumping money being the main factor in solving a global financial meltdown.

It has been projected that the public debt of the United States will reach to new unchartered heights - pass beyond 10 trillion dollars - which is at least 72 % of the U.S. GDP (PPP 2007).

If the United States was a developing country, the IMF would already be breeding around our necks demanding structural adjustments which meant: reducing fiscal spending, striving for a balanced budget, increased privatization of government-owned and controlled equities, and liberalization of trade policies.

But it is not. The credit of the United states is the first guarantor of global financial transactions, using its supposed financial and political stability as its main assets; indeed, managers within the international banking system sleep well knowing that Uncle Sam would come to the rescue when the time comes, just as Don Quixote would rescue his Dulcinea; and last but not the least, sovereign states with growing economic potential invest in U.S. securities like salt water in the ocean.

So, how can the U.S. think that it is not invincible? Outside advice, past experience, dependence to external volatility, and common sense might have dissuade a typical country from pursuing the path of relatively extreme laissez-faire capitalism in terms of allowing the growth of fairly unchartered markets such as high-earning speculative hedge fund investments and the derivatives market, unsullied by federal regulation.

Now, one of the few promises we here from U.S. presidential candidates, democrat or republican, in terms of "fixing" the U.S. economy are regulation, regulation, and regulation. To them, the invisible hand is too slow to react and to reach equilibrium meant a turtle like return towards previous economic levels.

The American public is on a rampage because the U.S. Congress has bailed out public and private financial institutions, of which some corporate leaders may have contributed to the financial meltdown but none the less received hefty bonuses while the common folk still have to brace the impact of the financial calamity to trickle down upon themselves. The thought of a complete breakdown in the U.S. credit system, which tremendously affect how business is done in the U.S., have forced lawmakers to find a political solution to the economic problem, even in the midst of protests, for indeed the worst may come had such solution not been approved.

The question is, if such is the case, is there really an invisible hand and if there is, should one believed that it is self-repairing? Like the human immune system, are there limits to its capacity and if there is, what are they?

Well, whatever they are, many economists believe that time and more regulations are needed to solve this crisis in the financial system, in addition to the considerable amount of money already being infused. But the fact remains that the more regulation in the financial system, the more the existence of this invisible hand is less convincing.

In any case, the status quo in the global financial system is about to change. Full faith in the credit of the United States, although wavering but never the less steady, would remain the biggest insurer and holder of wealth for the forseeable future.

However, the ability of the United States to convince other countries to pursue unhindered liberal market reforms, through the IMF and other international financial institutions, would be seriously questioned especially by those from the East Asian Region.

The call for a creation of an Asian Monetary Fund as well as IMF's current advisory tendency during these troubled times, as opposed to a global institution with formidable lending capacity, in addition to the combined and coordinated monetary efforts by sovereign central banks to ease current interest rates, are signs of a paradigm shift in the balance of economic power which is moving towards a multi-polar world economic order.

Indeed, the time for state capitalism is nigh.

How to Quickly Destroy the Credibility of ASEAN and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC): The Preah Vihear Temple Border Dispute

Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia states that the signatories of the pact,

shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :

a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;

c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;

e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;

f. Effective cooperation among themselves. *

In a matter of 10 months, Cambodia and Thailand have embarked towards a journey that could discredit a vital instrument of peace within the Southeast Asian region and the path taken by both sides can possibly cause ASEAN to lose face in the eyes of the international community.

The border dispute surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area is indeed a matter of national pride and security for both countries and must be approached from the perspective of cool-headed diplomacy; indeed, the issue must be taken away from the rhetoric of national and military leaders that could undermine not only Thai-Cambodian relations, but the stability and credibility of ASEAN as a successful and functioning institutional mechanism for dispute resolution.

Need the two countries be reminded that as signatories to the Southeast Asian regional peace treaty, ASEAN could become a laughingstock among interregional governmental organizations for its failure to neutralize or even reduce the tensions that could lead to a territorial conflict between Cambodia and Thailand?

Indeed, the policy-makers of the two countries ought to remember that the prevailing reason for ASEAN integration is that countries within the region acknowledge that peaceful cooperation is necessary for the notion of a regional identity and stability to prosper and progress.

The question now presented is can ASEAN move forward to the vision of a cultural, economic, and (possibly) political community if member states are unable to shed their extreme nationalistic attitudes towards territorial issues at the expense of pursuing regionalism?

Reducing barriers to free trade, setting up a regional socio-economic community with a binding legal charter, and announcing to the world the birth of the ASEAN way and identity are meaningless and miniscule achievements if the regional integrity of ASEAN is undermined by this long-standing border dispute, an issue which could lead to an unthinkable disintegration.

Simply put, if you want to cut ties with family, make sure to claim each other's real estate property and instead of exhausting the advise and council of fellow family members to settle the property dispute amicably, keep making threats that could further escalate the situation.

Thus, Preah Vihear, in a political sense, reflects the serious flaws of regional confederational governments when the issue of national territory becomes involved and where sovereign entities may take the path of reverberating back towards the isolationist cave of nationalism.

To encourage internal strife within the region in order to defend the integrity of the national territory, however significant such territorial issues may be to a particular nation, is a failure of national leadership, and its inability to coordinate policies within the context of regional consultation and consensus.

It must be noted that the issue of Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines, not to mention the issue of Spratly Islands between China and a significant number of ASEAN countries, should have been a good example for Cambodia and Thailand to suspend territorial issues for the sake of regional stability and harmony.

Also, the facts attest to the issue of the border dispute as already decided through international judicial arbitration; indeed, for a country to have sought an international governmental organization for national recognition of such territory, regardless of whether it pertains to a specific cultural significance, is tantamount to declaring belligerent attitudes vis-a-vis the other state party involved in the dispute.

I suggest for the political leaders of the two countries to take the path of reconciliation and spare ASEAN further embarrassment in the international community. A win-and-win situation exists if national territory issues are not given priority over the issue of regional cooperation.

It is now in the hands of Cambodia and Thailand to decide whether both truly desire to achieve regional peace and prosperity for the entire southeast Asian region.

* - Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm

Proliferation of Online Angono Forums

Ah, yes.

Thanks to the world-wide-web, the far corners of the earth are but a stone throw away when it comes to disseminating news and tackling issues regarding our beloved town of Angono.

Provided that there is courage enough to deliver unwanted and sour truths, that each individual reporting is reasonably objective to the point of providing a somewhat unbiased opinion regarding local events, that there exist the capacity to pursue common sense beyond traditional sources of what is right or wrong, and that there exist a certain degree of accepting facts as it is, the people of Angono had shown to the world the importance of keeping in touch with family and had proven that identity is deeply connected to a shared sense of belonging.

From my perspective, the whole thing started with the creation of a government-sponsored website* in which the usual headlines involved the typical "kumustahan," who's who, and testimonials of longing for and the reminiscing of days long past in Angono.

Come election time, I find it quite fascinating that a single topic called "Ms. Au Villamayor" in that government-sponsored website garnered around 50,000 views, which was, by far, the largest number of hits on any single subject topic amongst all the Angono forum websites I have ever known; it even surpasses the number of views on all subject topics in all Angono forums combined as far as it is limited to the websites mentioned below.

Indeed, the triumph of the internet, when it comes to individuals rights, emanates from empowering the uninformed - the ignorant masses (us) - enabling the many to become informed citizens with the ability to hold governments accountable for its actions.

But what does the propragation of Angono forums imply? What does this mean? Are there consequences?

There is no simple answer to the question. But I believe one can expect new things and new beginnings where the people of Angono have greater access to diverse opinions and uncensored ideas which is, in essense, vital to our democratic principles; it also amplifies the voice of those whose voice does not reach the halls of decision-making, especially of those who are in diaspora.

And note, one must not forget that uncensored information means information not coming from the government but from independent private sources, however loaded or subjective they are. Indeed, even private forums with substantial government support implies substantial government intervention.

Why did I mention this? I must insist, again and again and again, that government-uncensored forums represent the proliferation that advancing technological democratic societies ought to have, not the opposite.

Although such forums may become the tools of status quo and propaganda in pursuit of selfish ends, this conduit can be used for the common good, if only those with good intentions and those who abide by the rule of law will not allow such actions to take place; for indeed, it only takes the indifference of those who have it in their capacity to help but do nothing for the bad to prosper.

I wish all such forums success, that is, more membership.

As of current, here are online forums devoted to the discussion of Angono and everything in it:

Active:

- Angono Rizal
http://angonorizal.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi

- Angono Rizal Community Board
http://angonorizal.com/

- Northern California Angono Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/angono/

- People of Angono (Proboard)
http://angono.proboards82.com/index.cgi

Inactive:

- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)*
http://www.angono.com/

- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)
http://www.angono.gov.ph/

- People of Angono Forum
http://www.angono.com.ph/

Cui Bono? Legislating an Adversarial System on Media Exposure: Right-to-reply Law and the Consequence of Meddling with Press Freedom

A conversation between the government and the press

"You comment first and then I respond," said the government.

"No way," said the press.

"Why?" asked the government.

"Because you did not ask me to do it; instead, you told me to do it," said the press.

The press continued,

"Need I remind you? The Philippine Constitution gave birth to me, after years of fearful silence and tyranny, intending to let me be as free as I can; hence, I am aptly called Free Press.

"On the other hand, the same Constitution limits your ability to govern as a public institution, through proper checks and balances established by the separation of powers, because of your inherent tendency to abuse and misuse derived powers from the people whom you beg consent from."

"I protect the masses from your excesses. I may be sensational at times and overreaction is a usual flaw of mine. But without me, who shall expose what recorded history has proven correct?"

"Who shall remind the people that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?' "

"And now you are telling me I am required to air your side of the story?"

"Tell me, have you really consulted the constituents of your district / region when you made this specific decision or, in general, make decisions on their behalf?"

"Did you ever visited the voters in your district and solicited their opinions and grievances, even if it is not during an election period?"

"Did you ever consulted the people of the land before making a final deal that would affect their lives, the lives of their family, and future generations coming out their line?

"Did you always make yourself available and accessible to the poor, the sick, and those who are weak in order for their small voices to be heard or do you go to your clubhouses and meet your golf buddies to decide the affairs of the state?"

"Have you gone to great lengths by traveling throughout the far corners of the nation to provide the chance for all walks of people, from the remote mountain provinces to the squalor the squatter area in urban settings represent, and even deep in the jungles full of conflict and misery so that their inhabitants may be able to air their grievances and make their petitions, or do you only do so when you are carrying guns or collecting taxes?"

"Well, I have done such things and I have gone to such places," the press answered.

"Perhaps you should first remove the speck in your eyes before you notice mine," the press suggested.

"Once you have done so, you may then ask me to give you a chance to reply," the press finally said.

In Defense of the Press

Although I do not agree with the notion of an impregnable press, I have serious reservation when it comes to restricting the capacity of the press to inform the public in the manner it so chooses, regardless of whether their reports are one-sided or not.

After all, it is assumed that the public, as a collective of individuals, can think for itself, has the capacity to decide for its own, and is able to detect whether they are being lied upon, regardless of such lies coming from the press or the government.

Unless the press, as a collective entity, stifles dissent by making sure that only one opinion (perhaps its own) is publicized, I see no reason as to why it ought to be compelled to present the other side, given that other avenues of response are nonetheless available.

Surely, the congressman who authored this bill should know that if the press can present one side of the issue, he can make the other side known to the public by asking the same to present his perspective (ergo, press conference), and even perhaps take advantage of the rivalry between news networks i.e., if ABS-CBN reported the story, then go to GMA for the response.

Common sense, is it not? But if for some reason the other side cannot be expressed through the press, would not creative thinking leads us to harness the internet, text messaging, public meetings, or perhaps regularly meet the citizenry to explain your side of the story, instead of potentially suppressing a constitutionally protected institution in society?

In the United States, accusations that the media acts in a biased capacity certainly restricts the power of the press to influence public opinion, for the people, as individuals, are treated as rational beings and assumed as having enough intellectual capacity to make fair judgments of their own.

In the Philippines, politicians seem skeptical as to whether the citizenry is capable of making such decisions and I certainly would agree if it is said that, to a certain extent, that is not the case. For indeed, some still vote based upon blood ties, popularity, and given favors, not capability, integrity, and other qualifying aspects.

This maturity difference does not change the fact that the United States suffer the same problem the Philippines suffers. Corruption and political favors in Chicago alone seems to be in the same magnitude as what we may have in the Philippines.

Nevertheless, the fact that Americans are to be trusted in their capacity to decide what is good for them remains unquestionable: the notion includes the ability to discern for their own which are facts, lies, half-truths, and hurtful truths, wrong they may be in the end.

In essence then, those who accept the consequence of their actions, whatever it is, are thus considered responsible enough to make decisions of their own, regardless of whether it is beneficial.

I therefore ask our legislators to treat their fellow Filipino citizens as equals with the capacity to discern lies from facts, and not only act as protectors of an ill-informed and immature public. For once you treated them as equals, you will see that the public is not so susceptible to whatever the press tells them. There is no need to treat them as children; for if they are always treated as such, they might never grow up.

On the other hand, the press is bound to be subjective. To mandate objectivity in the eyes of the law sets a dangerous precedent in terms of press freedom. It is the right of each individual to make partial decisions, as long as they would own up to such responsibility.

If the press has become too subjective that it bends facts and employs lies to benefit its own, I surely believe that the people would not stand by and get itself lied upon, dear legislators. So please show a little bit of trust in the people, would you?

If push comes to shove, the constitutionality of this law must be questioned before the High Court, and thus finally decide whether the infringement this proposal would cause is substantial enough to constitute a violation of press freedom.

The Filipino press, for all its sensationalism and its zealous conviction to keep the public realm informed of news and issues that could determine the fate of the nation, will always be susceptible to make mistakes and thus make partial judgments. It is not unusual for firebrands to abound in journalism where doing your duty usually mean injury, ridicule, and death.

For how can you not expect Filipino journalists to be prosecutorial in their pursuit of doing their public duty, when time after time, their colleagues are gunned down just because they want to let the public know of what is going on?

Polticians expects the press to calm down when it comes to criticism them. But good gracious, how can you expect them to calm down when tomorrow, the only thing that needs to be done is to prepare for the burial of a deceased reporter? Have those granted with power to protect and serve did their job of protecting our journalists?

Urgency and sense of purpose seem to choke the air of tranquility and the traditional path of hushing up events in the wake of brutal assaults on the agents of the press.

Perhaps, the press is also frustrated because in whatever manner the report is given, a significant portion of the public just do not comprehend the danger of indifference, inaction, and maintains its blissful obedience to men in power, as opposed to adherance in the rule of law.

In this case, the public, no, more accurately a certain portion of it, deserves to be lied upon.

Where did Congress get the tenacity to demand from the press to be fair, when their actions as representatives of the people are far from being fair?

Countless times have the Philippines been named by various international non-governmental organizations (mind you, not only once, but recurring) as failing its duty to pursue the path of good governance; the most recent reports states that governance is "worst in East Asia."*

Corruption, indeed, is so rampant and thick, a mice - the common Filipinos - can hardly breed.

If corruption is indeed rampant, then there are so many fish to pry! It is only expected that the press be seen as abusive and partial by those in power because those in power have not experienced the full measure of what being a democracy is; that is, they have not experienced a formidable institution, as a private conduit of information to the general public, in society holding them accountable for their actions; ergo, the consequence of a free press.

The traditional political culture of the Philippines a quarter of a century ago provided Filipino politicians with unimpeachable standing in the eyes of the public, with some Filipino journalists going as far as calling the lack of criticism of politicans a duty to nationalist ideals.

What a bunch of kiss-asses.

What benefit does this new legislation has which is applicable to the general public, anyway?

The press does not generally act as an inquisitional group to the common person, but always focus on those who influence society in general. So, I ask again, cui bono?

Now that politicians are being subjected to close scrutiny by a press that does not kowtow to the old corrupt ways, a press which does not collude with those who are in power, it is only expected for the press to be restrained, in any manner possible.


* - "WB: Corruption in RP worst in East Asia," June 2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080625-144628/WB-Corruption-in-RP-worst-in-East-Asia