When I decided to write a biography about my father, I thought it would be a nice, safe project off my bucket list. Was I ever surprised when I started uncovering the secrets of this virtual enigma, the man I called “father” based on what little I knew of him. Here is a book I would like to share with everyone ready to be entertained with little-known facts that affected so many lives.
Watch the horrifying buildup to a global war that forces one man to throw in his lot with Filipino guerrillas to save himself and the one he loves. Read The North Korean Unmasked.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte favors declaring the Chinese-occupied Scarborough Shoal a marine sanctuary where fishing is not allowed. He voiced his sentiments in a media interview after visiting his father’s grave early Thursday morning, November 24, 2016 in Davao City.
According to Rappler, Duterte issued the following statement in advance of his executive order giving special status to the contested shoal in the West Philippine Sea. Here is the translated version.
”China should also give the same order not to fish on the spawning ground because that’s also theirs, they should guard it. They say it’s theirs. As for me, it’s ours. So I say, don’t destroy it because that’s Filipinos’ source of food.”
In Duterte’s executive order, fishermen will be allowed to fish in waters surrounding the shoal.
On August 4, 2015, Inquisitr online news reported on a solution proposed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, to resolve the South China Sea dispute. He suggested as an olive-branch alternative for China and other claimants of features and islands in the contested area, to regard the South China Sea a sanctuary for fish and part of the global commons.
Following bilateral talks between President Rodrigo Duterte and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on October 20, 2016, Justice Carpio said that the Chinese were unlikely to abandon their South China Sea claims in compliance with a decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to that effect. He made his point in a recent interview with the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
“I don’t see them leaving just because they’ve lost. And we have to think of a creative way to give China a face-saving exit here, and I think the way to that is to declare Spratlys as a marine protected area. It’s a win-win situation. If you look at it, China needs to fish in South China Sea because they have the highest per capita consumption of fish in the world, and they have to feed 1.4 billion people.”
Meanwhile, a non-aligned third party warns that the burden on fish stocks by China’s island-building projects, is not a matter of economics but of starvation. Professor John McManus of the National Center for Coral Reef Research at the University of Miami, is calling on China and other claimants to get past their disputes and declare the South China Sea an international protected zone like Antarctica. He issued the following statement to a panel organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on July 12, 2016.
“If we don’t do this, we are headed toward a major, major fisheries collapse in a part of the world where [that] will lead to mass starvation.”
John McManus of the University of Miami proposes a freeze on territorial claims in the South China Sea, along with joint resource management shared by the countries concerned. He believes it in Beijing’s interest to diminish tensions, while seeking to consolidate its position as a leader on the regional and global stage. Also, squandered marine resources could result in billions of dollars of lost trade for China.
On a smaller scale, Duterte wants to get past the conflicting claims on the Scarborough Shoal by declaring it a no-fish zone. The sacrifice he is willing to make lies in the fact that the shoal is a traditional Filipino fishing venue off the coast of Zambales province, well within the country’s 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (E.E.Z.). He spelled out his stance in unmistakable terms.
“I do not care what China says about their ownership of that. Me, as President, I claim that in the arbitral [award], so no fishing.”
During their November 20 bilateral meeting in Lima, Peru, Duterte explained his planned no-fish zone order to Chinese President Xi Jinping. This development modified Duterte’s earlier position during a state visit to China in October, which had garnered a “friendly” understanding over the Filipino right to fish in the shoal.
Duterte deems it in the interest of the Philippines and China to ensure the shoal is a no-fish zone, on top of the fact that any building of structures in the shoal would disrupt the spawning of fish. He calls it a matter of common sense.
“Even if no country would claim it to be their territory, common sense should tell you not to destroy the source of the life in the sea.”
Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin have both expressed optimism for improved relations with the United States through its President-elect Donald Trump.
On November 10, 2016, Wednesday, after contentious U.S. elections the previous day, the Inquirer published the following statement from Duterte’s Communications Secretary Martin Andanar.
“President Rodrigo Roa Duterte wishes to extend his warm congratulations to Mr. Donald Trump on his recent electoral victory as President of the United States of America… (Duterte) looks forward to working with the incoming administration for enhanced Philippines-US relations anchored on mutual respect, mutual benefit and shared commitment to democratic ideals and the rule of law.”
The same morning, according to Fox News, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent Donald Trump a telegram congratulating him for winning the presidential election. Putin told Trump he hoped relations between Moscow and Washington would improve “from their crisis state” with ties “based on principles of equality, mutual respect and a real accounting each other’s positions.”
Philippines’ Duterte has expressed hostility towards U.S. criticism of his much publicized anti-drug clampdown, telling President Barack Obama to “go to hell” and warning U.S. pundits not to treat his country “like a dog with a leash.”
In contrast, Duterte revealed to Al Jazeera that Russian President Vladimir Putin is his “idol”. The Philippine president underscored similarities he shares with the Russian president.
“Yes. He has no illusions about himself. He knows that he was not trained for politics. Or to be a statesman. He acts just like a President. My characterization of Putin is what I would describe myself.”
According to CNN, Duterte has moved to bury the hatchet with the U.S. after Donald Trump’s election to the White House. Duterte expressed the following sentiments on Wednesday.
“I would like to congratulate President Trump. Long live!… We both like to swear. One little thing, we curse right away, we’re the same.”
One day after Trump won the 2016 U. S. presidential election, Philippines’ Duterte said that some military exercises would be back on. The traditional alliance between the United States and the Philippines had been strained since Duterte called Obama a “son of a whore” in September, and during a visit to China in October, had described the US alliance over, claiming “America has lost.”
Meanwhile, Putin stood up in defense of Duterte after former Philippine President Fidel Ramos rated Duterte’s first 100 days as a “letdown”. Putin said that anyone who does not see what “Duterte has achieved and is achieving is blind”. Putin did not hesitate to press home his point.
“You do not need medicated spectacles to see what Duterte has done.”
As for Trump, his opinion of Putin as a leader is on public record. Trump praised Russian President Putin’s ‘strong control’ over Russia and said he was ‘far more’ of a leader than President Obama. Trump said the following at a pre-election commander-in-chief forum on NBC.
“The man has very strong control over a country.”
With the three leaders of a mindset for positive renewal, a new chapter in foreign policy engagement seems to have started.
Sea turtles champion Frederick C. Yeh is facing down poachers on China’s island province of Hainan.
Wildlife biologist Yeh, 34, who runs a sea turtle hospital in Hainan, shares the concerns of the United Nations Tribunal regarding marine life destruction in one of Earth’s most diverse marine habitats.
As a founding member of Hawaii-based Sea Turtles 911, Yeh has enlisted National Basketball Association’s Yao Ming and United States Ambassador Max Baucus to help him protect the sea turtles of Southeast Asia’s “Coral Triangle”, home to six of the world’s seven marine turtle species. Ming and Baucus have publicly stated their support of Yeh as he exposes illegal turtle traffickers in the island province between the Coral Triangle and mainland China.
BBC quotes a 2012 Traffic East Asia report explaining why Hainan has been targeted by Yeh.
“It appears that the majority of illegal fishers involved originated from Hainan, the majority of catches were landed in this island province, and the Hainan markets were the main source for processing and distributing turtle products northward into mainland China.”
Since locating his hospital in a floating fishing village of Hainan’s Lingshui Li Autonomous County, Yeh has rescued 273 sea turtles from the traffickers. He has successfully rehabilitated the endangered creatures and released 238 of them back to their marine environment. Yeh explains why the decimation of sea turtles would affect the entire ecological system.
“Turtles are like underwater lawnmowers: they eat sea grass. A lot of fishermen talk about how there are fewer fish today. Well, if sea grass isn’t there, it produces less oxygen, which leads to less fish.”
After graduating from Johns Hopkins University and Duke University in the United States, Yeh returned to Hainan where he’d spent his childhood years watching the sea turtles’ nesting habits. To his dismay, he found them being sold illegally for their meat and shells by poachers working the Coral Triangle, especially its fertile South China Sea region.
Yeh has done more consciousness-raising than two environmental entities well-positioned to protect the Coral Triangle which encompasses the tropical marine waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste.
The first entity is the Coral Triangle Initiative (C.T.I.), a multilateral partnership of the above-named countries who empowered themselves in May 2009 to use their individual jurisdictions and prevent activities that endanger marine life.
The other entity poised and ready to champion the cause of the sea turtle, is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations representing 10 member countries. They armed themselves with a Memorandum of Understanding on ASEAN Sea Turtle Conservation and Protection in 1997, endorsed by ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry at their 20th meeting in 1998.
According to Quartz, the ruling of the United Nations Tribunal at the Hague on July 12, 2016, slams marine life destruction in the South China Sea. The tribunal ruled that China’s island construction “caused permanent, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem and permanently destroyed evidence of the natural condition of the features in question.”
Either of the two multinational conservation entities could take the ruling as a cue to act.
The U.N. body also determined that Chinese fishermen have been harvesting such endangered species as corals, sea turtles, and sharks, and China’s artificial island-building program has caused “devastating and long-lasting” damage to the marine environment. A 2016 study found that 60 percent of the shallow reef habitat at seven reefs has been directly destroyed by wanton activity under Chinese navy watch.
A good turtle shell can fetch tens of thousands of dollars in the black market. Thus the Hainan poachers range far and wide across the Coral Triangle for such bounty on top of profits from unregulated fishing. Their behaviour has pushed even “neutral” Indonesia to lash out at them, creating waves felt by Beijing.
Shanghaiist reported on Jun 11, 2015 that a district court in the Philippines ordered the release of nine Chinese fishermen who’d been, according to China, “illegally detained” for a year. They were among 11 crewmen of a Chinese fishing boat seized by Filipino police for poaching at the Half Moon Shoal in Philippine waters on May 6, 2014. Of the 555 sea turtles found on the boat, 177 were still alive and liberated back to their habitat.
Nine of the 11 crewmen were put in jail after failing to pay fines of $100,000 each for poaching and additional fines of $2,662 each for harvesting an endangered marine species.
Though press-worthy, these South China Sea squabbles are a distraction from the bigger picture of an ecological disaster in progress, as exposed by the U.N. Tribunal at the Hague. The international community would be well served if someone stepped up to the plate and asked China to pay for the environmental loss. Funding for reef conservation could come from punitive damages levied against China, drawn from its assets wherever it does business outside its borders. Any takers?
While marine biologist Yeh can count on satellite tracking technology and luminaries like basketball legend Yao Ming and U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus to facilitate his advocacy, he can only do so much. It would take the clout of motivated government entities to decisively address the plight of the sea turtles.
South China Sea fish stocks put in jeopardy by China’s island building projects, is not a matter of economics but of starvation. Professor John McManus of the National Center for Coral Reef Research at the University of Miami, has called on China and other countries in the South China Sea to get past their disputes and declare the region an international protected zone like Antarctica. According to L.A. Times, he issued the following statement to a panel organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on July 12, 2016.
“If we don’t do this, we are headed toward a major, major fisheries collapse in a part of the world where [that] will lead to mass starvation.”
The Diplomat delineates the “starvation factor” when it comes to fish stocks affecting the South China Sea claimants. There are an estimated 1.5 million traditional fishermen in the Philippines where the industry accounts for 2.7 percent of the national GDP, with three-fourths of the total fishing production from the contested region. About 35.3 percent of all animal proteins consumed in Vietnam comes from fish, higher in the Philippines at 42.6 percent and even higher in Indonesia at 57.3 percent.
According to The Wall Street Journal, University of British Columbia researchers estimate that South China Sea fish exports grew to 27 percent of global fish exports in 2011 from about 11 percent in the 1980s, topping at least $22 billion a year. The research forecasts a possible decline of fish stocks by up to 59 percent in the next 20 years if governments don’t discourage overfishing.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal in The Hague ruled on July 12 that China’s claims to historic and economic rights in most of the South China Sea have no legal basis, favoring five governments whose claims in the sea overlap with Beijing’s. The end result is that various claimants’ fishing fleets have staked claims to reefs, rocks and other maritime features.
Fishermen moving farther into disputed waters often subsidize the purchase of new boats or more advanced navigational equipment to reinforce their claim to prime fishing grounds. Staking out vast swaths of ocean, China controls fishing fleets of far greater numbers and technological superiority than smaller claimants the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.
Though it does not have rival territorial claims with Beijing in the South China Sea, Indonesia has blown up hundreds of foreign boats that it said were illegally fishing. Vietnamese and Chinese coast guards and fishing fleets ram each other routinely in their scramble for fishing grounds.
A National Geographic report features the dilemma of Gilbert Elefane, the Filipino captain of a tuna boat based in the municipality of Quezon, on Palawan. His complaint is about having to make do with the leavings of up to a hundred boats, many Chinese, on a single two-week fishing trip in the South China Sea. Only a few years ago, he’d seen no more than 30 tops on a similar run.
Chinese fishermen have the advantage of military training and sophisticated GPS and communications technology from Beijing, enabling them to call in the coast guard if they have a run-in with a foreign law enforcement vessel. They can also alert the coast guard of the presence of fishermen from other claimant nations.
What motivates China is the fact that fish is increasingly important to the Chinese diet. According to The Diplomat, China’s fish consumption grew annually at 6 percent between 1990 and 2010, with Chinese gobbling 34 percent of the global fish food supply, nearly triple that of Europe and Central Asia combined, and over five times the amount of North America. With China’s fish consumption estimated to increase more than double the projected global average, the growing demand threatens to outstrip supply, necessitating ongoing expansion of maritime fishing operations into the South China Sea.
With a starvation crisis imminent, China would have to stop its island-building that’s decimating fish stocks. University of South Florida professor Frank E. Muller-Karger explained this urgency to the New York Times recently.
“Where do people get that sand and gravel to build new islands? It’s taken from nearby lagoons and reef flats, damaging their ecosystems too. The sand and silt billow up, which damages coral tissue and blocks life-giving sunlight from reaching the corals. The sand and gravel put atop artificial islands can wash back into the sea, forming plumes that can smother marine life and could be laced with heavy metals, oil and other chemicals from the ships and shore facilities being built.”
On May 16, 2016, newly elected Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte appealed to Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua for China to allow Filipinos to continue fishing around the contested Scarborough Shoal, as they’ve done for ages. Informed that his request was granted, Duterte issued the following statement as reported by GMA News.
“Then I would like to thank China for understanding the plight of the Filipino.”
All claimant countries would be better served if they got their heads together and agreed to follow a suggestion put forth by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court. Carpio has repeatedly asked China to partner up with the Philippines in declaring the South China Sea a sanctuary for fish and part of the global commons.
The Davao City bomb blast of September 2, 2016, ripping through a popular night market along Roxas Avenue at 10:50 p.m. with a casualty count of 14 civilians killed and 71 injured, has left a nation in anguish and mourning. Reported to be a retaliatory act by the terrorist Abu Sayyaf group facing intensified government military action in Sulu less than four months into President Rodrigo Duterte’s term in office, the explosion across the Philippines’ model city, has made Filipinos refer back to an important message their new leader has been trying to hammer home.
As if to answer the existential question “Why am I here?”, President Duterte said this.
“I am here because I love my country and I love the people of the Philippines.”
President Duterte made this historic pronouncement in his 60-second closing statement for the first leg of the pre-election PiliPinas Debates on February 21, 2016. Pundits would note that he said the same thing in a campaign speech and at his inaugural address as president of the Philippines.
His public confession challenges listeners to examine themselves and decide how they feel. Filipinos reflecting on his “I am here because I love my country and I love the people of the Philippines,” could very well use the same sentiments as their own.
Filipinos of the New Millenium, better educated, more in touch with the times and less gullible than their predecessors, are pre-disposed to recognize pragmatism and common sense behind President Duterte’s passionate confession. What better guiding precepts are there than love of country and love of fellowmen?
President Duterte needs Filipinos who are emotionally charged up enough to get on board with him in securing these vital goals: 1) putting food on the table of every Filipino household, 2) eliminating the drug trade, and 3) attracting foreign investments. He needs Filipinos who possess a true love for their country and their countrymen.
Empowered farmers are key to increasing food production, and factors that limit their output need to be addressed. Loan sharks and middlemen on whom the farmers depend, would have to cut their fees down to manageable levels and partner up with their clients in planning for the next crop. Businessmen would have to marshal their time and financial resources to help President Duterte build a Mindanao Railway System for transporting food from the hinterlands at minimal cost. Government bureaucrats would have to exercise due diligence in taking out the irrigation fee imposed on farmers. A change in the old way of thinking would have to be induced by the “love factor.”
Love of country and countrymen are valuable aids in President Duterte’s drive to eliminate the drug trade in six months, at the forefront of his war on crime and corruption. The “shabu” industry is perpetuated by two players, the user and the dealer, and cannot flourish, one without the other. Both share responsibility for this problem. A body count is inevitable, but a joint effort by law enforcement and the concerned public to remove “shabu” from their midst, will happen. And they will be motivated, if you will, by love for one’s country and one’s people.
Foreign investments are vital to President Duterte’s goal of job-creation to improve Filipino quality of life. Extremist groups have been creating a negative economic climate that prevents this scenario from happening. By kidnapping civilians or extorting money from them, these bands demonstrate that 1) they do not love their country, and 2) they do not love the people of the Philippines.
Such a simple yardstick reveals all. Everyone would be better served if these extremist groups were to move offshore, say, to Borneo. No matter the guise they put on, the political or religious agenda they spout, they have no love for the Philippines, and they do not love the Filipino people. These extremists can be described as “a band of lazy, angry men who contribute nothing to our future.”
Not only in the Philippines, the political “love factor” is evident today even in such an advanced society as that of the United States. Republican presidential aspirant Donald Trump has called for a restriction on migrants who do not love Americans or the American way of life. It is his common sense approach to cracking down on homegrown terrorists who would do Americans harm.
The Roxas night market in Davao City where ordinary shoppers spend their hard-earned money on sidewalk fare, discount clothing and massage services, was the ideal soft target for a terrorist bombing. The perpetrators have clearly demonstrated that they do not love this country and do not love the people of the Philippines. The authors of this atrocity do not belong here.
Youngsters who are the vanguard of the next Filipino generation, should recite the pledge of allegiance everyday at school, and should also be made to say the following.
“I am here because I love my country and I love the people of the Philippines.”
The South China Sea marine life slaughtered by reclamation projects in the Spratly Islands, was an issue raised by the United Nations tribunal while quashing Beijing’s claim to historic rights over the international waterway. The court’s censure on July 12, 2016, blamed China’s island building for causing “permanent and irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem”.
According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, the U.N. body deemed Chinese authorities fully aware of the havoc they were causing on the South China Sea, while they did their land reclamation. Despite its obligation under Articles 192 and 194 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment, Beijing essentially destroyed marine life within the fragile ecosystem, the court found.
Documented instances of Chinese fishermen engaged in destructive activity affecting 76 percent of the world’s coral species and 37 percent of reef-fish species in the South China Sea, have reportedly taken place with China’s full knowledge. Given that marine life was strangled over the last two decades under the watchful eye of the Chinese navy, suggests China’s culpability.
At the receiving end of the South China Sea debacle, the Philippines and other countries have suffered a considerable loss of resources, quantified by Forbes magazine to the tune of $177 billion in rent and damages against China. For Mischief Reef alone, a low-water elevation in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, China would have to ante up $12.4 billion in rent and damages. Occupied by China since 1995 during which a Chinese garrison and an airstrip were built, the reef system has been the killing fields for sea clams, turtles, fish and coral.
According to Forbes, its calculations are based on the following formulation. The United States paid the Philippines $1.97 million in 2015 for damages to .58 acres of coral reef when the U.S.S. Guardian ran aground. By this determinant, the Philippines could sue China for about $4.6 billion of environmental damages to the South China Sea’s Mischief Reef in 2016 dollars, plus the requirement to pay $7.8 billion in rent. If China tries to buck paying the combined $12.4 billion, the Philippines could seek redress in foreign civil courts to attach China’s offshore assets, enough to fund the required amount.
China occupied six features within Philippines’ claim in 1988: Hughes Reef, Johnson South Reef, Gaven Reef, Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Cuarteron Reef. China has since dredged and built on all these sea-level formations, and slaughtered their marine occupants. Based on the Philippines’ 1988 demand for rent from the U.S., each of these six features should yield (in 2016 dollars) about $10.3 billion for 29 years of use — a total of $62 billion.
China occupied Scarborough Shoal in 2012, but has not yet built on this South China Sea feature. There are no known environmental damages to the shoal, but rent for five years would amount to some $1.8 billion (inclusive of 2012 and 2016).
Along with giant clams, sea turtles have been harvested from the South China Sea for their meat and decorative shells. Fish have been blasted or poisoned in expeditious ways. Coral clusters have been crushed by propellers to pry loose embedded clams worth thousands of dollars. Thus have the rich and diverse forms of marine life in the region been slaughtered.
A mere 400 miles away from the hotly contested Spratly Islands sits the Tubbataha Marine Park off the coast of Palawan in the Philippines. The park is an example of how an offshore reef can go from being over-exploited to successfully managed. A Unesco world heritage site that was set up in 1993, Tubbataha plays the same role as the Spratly chain in the South China Sea, stocking the entire Sulu Sea with fish.
According to The Guardian, John McManus of the University of Miami proposes a freeze on territorial claims in the South China Sea, along with joint resource management shared by the countries concerned. He believes it in Beijing’s interest to diminish tensions, while seeking to consolidate its position as a leader on the regional and global stage. Seeing how land-grabbing and slaughtered sea creatures could result in billions of dollars of lost trade for China, McManus suggests the following.
“Antarctica has been one of the most successful environmental treaties in history. China is now in a position to benefit tremendously by taking the lead on this.”
Meanwhile, outspoken Filipino Justice Antonio T. Carpio is urging China to join the Philippines in declaring the South China Sea a sanctuary for fish and part of the global commons. An advocate for peace in the region, he has repeatedly called for its use as a marine life reserve.
Noteworthy is the fact that the Tubbataha Marine Park has earned the reputation of being among the best dive destinations in the world. Whale sharks as well as tiger sharks and other apex predators frequent the park and promise a healthy, recovering ecosystem within the South China Sea.
While China tallies up the cost of doing business as usual in the South China Sea, and Filipino fishermen, as well as conservationists worldwide, grieve the loss of coral colonies, clams, turtles and fish slaughtered needlessly, the U.N. Tribunal decision stands. A wrong has been done, and redress in the form of payment for damages to such victim nations as the Philippines, is long overdue.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio is urging China to join the Philippines in declaring the South China Sea a sanctuary for fish and part of the global commons. He recently aired this suggestion on Facebook after finding China guilty of “grand theft of the global commons.”
According to Inquisitr online news, the Philippine Supreme Court senior associate justice is not alone. He has the backing of the ten-member ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam). The 2015 ASEAN conference hosted by Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur between August 1 and 6, allowed member countries to voice their objections to China’s reclamation projects across the South China Sea.
ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh expressed members’ concerns in a Yahoo! report. Minh urged China to adhere to a code of conduct.
“We are calling for the termination of such activities, which are of concern to us, and eroding trust and confidence among the parties, and complicating the very process of negotiating. In the face of the situation, it is even more urgent for ASEAN and China to early conclude the COC.”
Echoing ASEAN’s concerns, the Arbitral Tribunal of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas) is studying the case filed by the Philippines against China for illegal occupation. The Philippines presented its side of the case to UNCLOS last July, while China refused to participate in the hearing. The Tribunal is looking into 1) the admissibility of the claims raised by the Philippines, and 2) China’s objection saying that the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction over the case.
Through an ongoing lecture series that has taken him from the Philippines to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, Justice Carpio shares his viewpoint with the public. He illustrates China’s “creeping invasion” of the South China Sea, with cartographic evidence.
The first takeover was of the Paracel Island chain in 1974 from the Vietnamese who lost over 70 troops trying to expel Chinese warships. Next seized was the Mischief Reef (part of the Spratlys) from the Philippines in 1994. The latest to fall into Chinese hands was the Scarborough Shoal (not part of the Spratlys) in 2012.
To validate its claims, China has been using a concept inherited from the old Kuomintang regime of a 9 dashed line boundary that includes certain islands beyond Hainan Island (China’s southernmost point). A departure from the original concept occurs when the People’s Republic claims not just the islands as the delineation intended, but also most of the South China Sea.
This would endanger world economy, according to Carpio, because over half of seaborne trade goes through this region. A Chinese takeover of the high seas where all countries are free to fish, would be especially disruptive if Chinese fishing bans were to be implemented.
While Carpio says that the Philippines adheres to its 12 nautical miles of territorial sea and 200 nautical miles of EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) as defined by UNCLOS, China uses a different tack, backing its 9 dashed line inclusions with historical evidence. It cites records from the Yuan Dynasty identifying the reef now called the “Scarborough Shoal” as an ancient possession.
Through the China State Shipbuilding Corporation, China has used its reclamations in the Spratly chain, to accommodate a 3 kilometer runway. This, Carpio points out, would position fighter bombers carrying cruise missiles within combat range of Australia and all its U.S. military installations.
Japan and the United States, while not involved with ASEAN, have been compelled by a sense of justice to speak up on what is widely perceived as China bullying the Philippines. Japan’s Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera made official his country’s support of the Philippines’ territorial sovereignty. Guided missile destroyer U.S.S. Fitzgerald demonstrated its readiness to stand by old U.S. ally Philippines, by staging naval maneuvers no more than 50 miles from a Filipino shoal position surrounded by Chinese naval ships.
Meanwhile, according to the Xinhua news agency, the Chinese navy went through a “live firing drill” in the South China Sea, involving about a hundred naval ships with aircraft, missile launchers and battalions of troops.
Instead of sabre rattling, the best option open to China is to follow Justice Carpio’s suggestion: the South China Sea should be protected as a fish sanctuary and part of the global commons.
The dubbing of English movies in Tagalog is a reflection of the makers’ patronizing attitude toward the Filipino audience. It’s what you call dumbing down. To accommodate the comprehension level of the viewer. Filipinos speak English – HELLO!
The rationale by the TV station that does this, is to create fare classified “pang-masa” or “for the masses.” The result is a grotesque matchup between normally English-speaking actors and the Tagalog verbiage they spew.
Filipino movie-goers have been exposed to English instruction since pre-school years. They’ve grown up on Sesame Street and have flocked to standing-room-only theatres featuring The Ten Commandments, The Sound of Music, Love Story and the James Bond series. All in English.
A recent online survey among Filipinos revealed a number of disgusted responders. “We understand English,” ”we want our children to perfect their English,” ”the dubbed versions are awful,” constituted the rhetoric among other comments.
Sure the novelty factor or attention-grabber works well in a carnival sideshow. Is that what dubbing English movies in Tagalog is all about? Turning them into a carnival sideshow to gain more viewers? Hey, a bearded lady, a dwarf or a two-headed embryo can only go so far in entertainment value. Not to mention transvestites and cross-dressers on family television. Sure you might laugh when Clint Eastwood says, “Gawin mo ang araw ko,” (make my day), or when a bikini-clad model with a masculine face sashays down a runway. Where’s the redeeming factor in that? Yeah, scratch your head.
Here’s what a friend of mine said after watching a Tagalog-dubbed Hollywood blockbuster on T.V. “I think my i.q. just dropped a few points.”