http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QZ-Gb1Q8Ao&feature=player_embedded

THAT was the first half of a brief documentary online, which gives you a rundown of recent events in Iran.

We had our Yellow Revolution; other nations since ours in 1986 have color-coded theirs; and now, it’s said, another one, a Green One, is taking place in Iran. At stake may be the future of the nation formerly known as Persia, as a theocratic state.

Ten days that have shaken Iran and in many ways, inspired the world, is our topic for tonight. I’m Manolo Quezon, The Explainer.

I.

LET me begin with a passage from a book I’ve mentioned several times on this show, and which has a particular relevance tonight.

In “Shah of Shahs”, his account of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski observed,

“Revolution must be distinguished from revolt, coup d’etat, palace takeover. A coup or a palace takeover may be planned, but a revolution -never. Its outbreak, the hour of that outbreak, takes everyone, even those who have been striving for it, unawares. They stand amazed at the spontaneity that appears suddenly and destroys everything in its path. It demolishes so ruthlessly that in the end it may annihilate the ideals that called it into being.”

Filipinos are no strangers to Iranians. Since the 1950s, they’ve lived among us, after an educational agreement helped make our country a welcoming place for Iranian students.

In the 1970s, Iran became notorious as our Conjugal Dictatorship warmly embraced the Shah of Iran. Take a look at Imelda Marcos, shown being ogled by a European royal in the fantastic Iranian monarchical celebrations in Persepolis.

But for the Shah of Iran, there came a time when his modernizing, secular, approach to rule –backed, of course, by his secret police- inspired less awe and more resentment; seemingly overnight, his subjects, egged on by Mullahs, or religious teachers, stood up to the monarchy and overthrew it.

In place of what they believed was the decadent and corrupt rule of the Shah, an Islamic Republic would take its place.

It’s a state where… well, since most of you watching tonight are Christians and not Muslims, let me describe it this way.

It would be as if Cardinal Sin, before he died, made sure his fellow bishops elected Cardinal Rosales the Supreme Leader of the Philippines.

As Supreme Leader, the Archbishop of Manila would appoint the

service commanders of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,

the head of the Philippine National Police, the heads of Channel 4 and Radio ng Bayan,

and also appointed the Chief Justice and other justices of the Supreme Court, and, if he wishes,

fire the President of the Philippines if he doesn’t like how he’s doing the job.

In very broad strokes, this is how the Islamic Republic of Iran works; people elect their President, but over and above their president, is the Grand Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader.

But that was a system put in place thirty years ago. Read, watch, or listen to any analysis of Iran and you’ll hear seventy percent of Iranians today are below the age of thirty; that unprecedented numbers of college students are women; and that they are sick and tired of religious leaders imposing conservative beliefs on them.

There’s that trend, and there’s another one that came to a head ten days ago.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905331-1,00.html

Joe Klein, in Time Magazine, paints a picture that should be familiar to Filipinos.

On one hand you had an incumbent President, Mahmoud Abedinejad, of massive charisma among the rural and poor citizenry of the country; who broke all the rules of polite conversation, and whipped up populist support for his cause. Klein describes him asa larger-than life, colorful, non-elite populist,

On the other, a candidate, Moushavi, with little personal charisma but respected by the middle class and urban elite, because he was a veteran of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, was once Prime Minister, had left politics to become an architect and educator, and who was viewed as respectable by an increasingly elderly professional politicians, in Iranian society.

Klein says that much as there was this urban versus rural divide going into Iran’s presidential elections, and in the background, a generational shift going on, it was after the voting that the trouble started.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/06/exclusive-iran-election-results-totally-corrupt.html

Thomas Kaplan writing in Vainty Fair, put it this way:

“…To claim Friday’s election results were legitimate requires accepting the fact that the Iranian authorities managed to process all 39.2 million paper ballots between the close of polls at 10 p.m. local time and the next morning, when Iran’s Interior Ministry officially proclaimed Ahmadinejad the winner with 63 percent of the vote.

The announcement came little more than 12 hours after the last vote was cast. Which translates to approximately 3.27 million ballots counted per hour, 54,444 per minute, and 907 per second.”

There were many who obviously didn’t believe the results were legitimate.

Huge and sustained protests started to take place; and as they mainly involved supporters of Mushavi, whose campaign color was green, observers began to wonder if this was a Green Revolution.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=3922

At the forefront of the photos were women, some taking off their veils; and young people; young, educated, liberal, Western-oriented, it provoked, Judah Grunstein, writing in World Politics Review to observe,

“Very interesting how globalization has essentially closed the age of the proletarian/peasant revolution and restored, on a planetary scale, the original revolutionary bourgeois of the 18th century.”

His point is one we, Filipinos, again, can easily appreciate. Just look back to Edsa Dos: middle class, and students, urban residents, in the streets; and see Teheran and other cities of Iran today, and you can see a global affinity.

Next, how the world’s coped with the Green Revolution in real time.
 

II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QZ-Gb1Q8Ao 

THAT was the second half of the online presentation on goings-on in Iran.

In the first part of tonight’s show we briefly explored some themes at work in Iran:

1. An Islamic Republic where unelected clerics hold supreme power, and a contested presidential election.

2. The election is contested because a generational shift is taking place in Iran, and because the political elite is split between the populist Amhedinijad, and the colorless but highly respected Moushavi.

3. The manner in which Ahmedeniijad won led to a totally unexpected public defiance of the authorities.

http://www.hamiddabashi.com/election-june-2009-a.html#20090616

The academic Hamad Dabashi recounted in his blog, three images that struck him, to show how the definance was unprecedented and highly symbolic.

The first involved doctors and the public.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

Let me read you part of a young medical student’s statement, circulated on line and posted on Nico Pitney’s blog:

“I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information… This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff…

This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people.”

The second involved a well-loved singer in Iran, telling the state TV to stop playing his songs; the way to imagine this impact is if Gary V told the government to stop playing his songs because it was a betrayal of what they stoo for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjct8gFjH8E

And the third was the Iranian soccer team wearing green armbands in there recent game in Seoul, South Korea.

http://blog.ted.com/2009/06/qa_with_clay_sh.php?utm_campaign=ted&utm_content=site-basic&utm_medium=on.ted.com-copypaste&utm_source=direct-on.ted.com

The government did not take things sitting down.

Last Friday, about a week after the massive rallies started taking place in Iran, the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, finally spoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFDtmuDeIbs

In brief, the Grand Ayatollah laid down the official line. The victory of Ahmenijad was too big to be attributed to fraud. Anyone who didn’t like it would have to pursue their protests in the proper forum, and with real evidence. The media, youth, foreigners, so on, were all put on notice: the government would not take any direct challenge to its authority sitting down.

The news, since then, has been of a crackdown. Accompanying the crackdown has been a clampdown on foreign media, and on sending text messages, using the internet, and other means to get the word out.

From the very start, part of the news about Iran was how Iranians got the word out that there was popular indignation over the election results. And sending photos, video, and audio of protesters being attacked by the police, by revolutionary guard militia, and even plainclothes thugs.

As, NYU professor Clay Shirkey in an interview, asserted on June 17 that,

“[T]his is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.”

But is it enough? Turn on foreign TV news, since domestic news is basically ignoring Iran’s events, and you’ll still see videos of the resistance to the Supreme Leader’s demand for everyone to go home.

For those hoping Moushavi would be radicalized, because the young, secular-minded, Western-oriented urban and student rallyists would face down the regime, it remains to be seen if resistance to the Grand Ayatollah will be sustained –or sustainable.

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/not-europe/why-ahmadinejad-will-win/

And so as Douglas Muir predicted in his blog on June 18,

“We see there are three possible scenarios. First, the government may be willing to use force, but not able: the security forces are neutral or hostile, and will not act against the protestors. This was the situation in Serbia, Albania, Romania, and the Philippines. All those governments fell….

While there are some reports of unease among the security forces, it appears the police and the military are holding steady.

Until and unless this changes, Ahmedinejad looks quite secure — green paint and massive street protests notwithstanding.”

Photos courtesy:

google.com, yahoo.com, wikipedia.com, wikimedia, Life.com, youtube.com

(June 22, 2009)

Our regular panelist, Gang Badoy of RockEd was the guest Explainer last Monday (June 15, 2009). Where she explains the beginnings upto the current struggles os some intended beneficiaries of the CARP - the Sumilao Farmers for over a decade.

Here’s the script:

Last june 10, after more than 12 hours of deliberations, the congressional bicameral conference committee finally approved the comprehensive agrarian reform program (carp) for another five years. If, as expected, both houses of congress ratify it, it will go before president gloria macapagal-arroyo to be signed into law.  And  the bill will likely  take effect on july 1st.

But not soon enough for renato peñas or ka rene…who’s the man we just saw in our opening clip. He was shot and killed on june 5th. 
 

I.
Last june 5, 2009, a little past 11 in the evening, rene penas, a sumilao farmer and a leading advocate for farmer’s rights in the country, was ambushed and gunned down in malaybalay city. He was coming home from a get-together, celebrating the passage of the comprehensive agrarian reform program extension with reforms or carper, when shots were fired at the motorcycle he was riding. He was with his nephew and another farmer. Realizing that he was the target, ka rene shouted to his companions to run away while crawling towards the opposite direction. He was then shot repeatedly until he was dead.

ka rene was one of the farmers who, in 2007, walked from bukidnon to manila for 2 months, a distance of about 1700 kilometers to ask for their rights as farmers to their land. A decade before this, he already participated in a 28-day hunger strike with his fellow farmers in front of the department of agrarian reform with the same plea. He was already back home in sumilao when he heard that the carper extension had been passed. In an interview, his son noland said that his father exclaimed, “”nidaug na ta!” or “we have won!”

A farmer since birth, ka rene was elected the national vice president of pakisama, a farmers’ organization in the country, last march. A passionate spokesman, his efforts were not limited to sumilao and he helped various farmers’ groups both in the local and national level.

Sadly, ka rene still did not own the land he had tilled for decades when he was murdered.

In september 25, 1995, the mapalad farmers, a cooperative of tribal farmers in san vicente, sumilao bukidnon, were awarded 144 hectares farming land, a few miles from their village, approximately 2.2acres for each family, under the comprehensive agrarian reform program of the government.

Under this program known as carp, the estate of a wealthy industrialist would be divided and distributed among the farmers.

But despite being declared the legal owners by the government and given certificates of land ownership, the mapalad farmers were prevented for working the soil by barbed wire, armed thugs and political intimidation. Here’s one of the farmers explaining why they were bent on installing themselves as owners.

On july 16, 1997 the armed gang made their move - destroying fences, burning tents and unleashing carabao on to the site. The farmers were driven from their land. Many people might have been tempted to surrender the struggle when  faced with such intimidation or resort to violence to protect their legal rights.

After countless petitions and appeals to the department of agrarian reform and court of appeals, the farmers decided to the mapalad farmers decided to go through lugol, an indigenous form of hunger strike in front of the dar compound in qc and cagayan. The hunger strike lasted 28 days - from october 9 to november 6, 1997.

Leaving their families and homes behind, 18 hunger strikers lived on the city streets of cagayan and manila, surviving on water alone.

Many collapsed from hunger, sickness and exhaustion. It was a time of great suffering and intense emotion. Here are some narrations from farmers who were part of that dramatic protest.

That support came from ngos, other farmers, student and paralegal groups, as well as people of all religious denominations.

Their struggle made national and international headlines, putting real pressure on the government to act.

Eventually, president fidel ramos acknowledged the legitimacy of their claim and on november 7, 1997, awarded the farmers 100 acres of farming land, leaving quisumbing with 44 acres for a conversion plan earlier submitted that includes development projects like a development academy of mindanao, construction of hotels and restaurants and an agro-industrial park  that will help in the development of the town.

The farmers returned home to cagayan to a joyful and tearful reunion with family, friends and supporters.

However, despite a presidential order, the highest executive authority in the land, then-president fidel v. Ramos, the farmers were still not granted their lands.

Whereas before they faced armed thugs, they now confronted bureaucratic delay and political corruption. It was evident that ever since the start of this case, political forces had been at work against them.

Days turned into weeks, months into years, and  the mapalad farmers still wait for justice.

The land that they dreamed about cultivating continues to lie fallow.

So close to their humble homes, yet so far from their grasp, their land now stands surrounded by barbed wire and patroled by armed guards.

One of the more admirable traits of this group is that despite their desperation, they still placed their trust in the system, went through due process.   Let’s see how the system responded….
 

II.

On april 24, 1998, the supreme court came out with a decision nullifying the order of president ramos, claiming that the failure of dar to submit a motion for reconsideration within the allowed period of time, nullifies the awarding of 100 hectares of land to the mapalad farmers and upholding an earlier decision approving the conversion of the land from agricultural to an agro-industrial property.

After the sc released the order with finality, one sumilao farmer, ruben lesion, took his own life, despondent over the decision of the supreme court.

The mapalad farmers have gone through extremes, peaceful extremes, to obtain what is legally theirs. Where can they turn next?

Defeated in the courts, the farmers and their supporters decided to wait for the 5-year conversion period to expire before taking further action. Because of the farmer’s knowledge of the law, they knew that if quisumbing failed to comply with the terms of the approved conversion, the conversion order would become void and the land should be given back to the farmers.

However, in january 2002, quisumbing sold the property to san miguel foods, inc, who planned to construct a world-class piggery in the property. The farmers claimed that this was not part of the conversion plan. 

So in november 3,  2004, after the  5-year period for conversion had lapsed, the sumilao farmers petitioned for the cancellation of the conversion order, claiming that no development has been made in the property and that future plans by san miguel violated the original terms of the conversion order. The farmers demanded their land to be returned to them.

After unproductive dialogues and denial of their petitions by dar and the office of the president, the farmers decided to bring their case to manila. On october 10, 2008, fifty-five of the sumilao farmers began the “walk for land, walk for justice.” the farmers walked for more than 1,700 kilometers for more than two months.

Braving the heat of the sun and cold rains, the group talked to parishes and communities to make the public understand their cause.

The farmers walked and appealed to president macapagal-arroyo and dar secretary nasser pangandaman to demand five things:

1. Restore the dignity of the sumilao farmers!
2. Revoke the conversion order!
3. Reclaim the 144 hectares of land in san vicente, sumilao, bukidnon!
4. Reform and extend carp!
5. Recognize the need for a national land use law!

Continually ignored by the government, public support for the farmers grew. Students, parishers, other ngos walked with them. Cardinal rosales met with the farmers and asked them to bring his letter to the president.

The farmers were able to talk to president macapagal-arroyo on december 17, 2007. The following day, she revoked the conversion order issued to quisumbing and san miguel. Many of the farmers went home after this, banking on the order and promise of the church that they will monitor the resolution of the case in manila.  They were told to wait.

Tired of waiting again and again, the sumilao farmers sent 144 of its members to walk around malacanang. They said they will not stop walking until their dignity and ancestral lands were  returned to them.

On march 30, 2008, the sumilao farmers were finally victorious in claiming their land after signing a settlement agreement that says that they will be given 144 hectares of land - 50 hectares will come from the disputed territory while 94 hectares will be taken from areas with similar characteristic and also adjacent to the disputed area.

More than 165 families immediately entered the fifty hectares and have agreed to assign farmlots to the mapalad and salfa members - organizations that composed the sumilao farmers. After twelve years of struggle, the sumilao farmers have started to make plans in making the land productive.

However, there is still work ahead - the farmers have not been granted the total 144 hectares by san miguel.

After winning the battle of re-claiming the land of sumilao farmers, ka rene continued to lobby and fight for the extension of carp, saying that his fight is not only for sumilao but for all farmers who remain landless throughout the country. Last march, he was elected vp of pakisama, a farmers’ organization.

Two days before ka rene’s death, the comprehensive agrarian reform program extension with reforms bill was passed in the senate. On the day of his death, june 5, 2009, carper finally passed into law by the house of representatives.

Though it is easy to say that ka rene’s struggle was snuffed out, slowed down or even ended by that gunshot of june 5th…it’s really up to us who watch from afar to decide if he was indeed silenced.
 

(June 15, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB70mWXrzEE
THAT was from the documentary “Tank Man” which you can find online and I hope you’ll watch the whole thing.

It has entered Chinese remembrance as SIX FOUR, for on that date, June 4, 1989, China was confronted by People Power –and crushed it. The government of the People’s Republic of China calls it the Tiananmen Square Incident. The rest of the world recalls it as the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

We go back in time to revisit SIX FOUR.

 
I.

TIANANMEN Square, in the minds of Chinese of all ages in 1989, had featured in great demonstrations before: on FIVE FOUR 1919, when students protested their government’s signing the Versailles Treaty ending World War I, and FOUR FIVE 1976, when citizens angry over the official clampdown on signs of mourning for

the death of Zhou Enlai, used the Qingming Festival to demonstrate grief over Zhou’s death anyway.

But foremost in the popular imagination were scenes like this, from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DN9M-QVCH0 ]
That was Mao Zedong in one of the great outpourings of youthful exuberance he led starting in 1966, and called The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

In its simplest terms, this was an effort, led by Mao, to reclaim leadership and dominance of the Communist Party, by purging what he called the Four Olds:

Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. This allowed Mao to smash all resistance to his radical reassumption of leadership he felt was being exercised by capitalist-minded bureaucrats.

The Cultural Revolution was ruthless, widespread, and left nothing untouched.

Take a look at this clip, from a documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrUHVFkm9A
The youth, mobilized as Red Guards, were Mao’s stormtroopers in destroying all dissent; officials had no choice but to submit, cooperate, and be more Maoist than Mao if they were to survive.

But Mao’s health was deteriorating and by 1971-72, and two factions basically emerged to fight over the future of Communism.

One group came to be known as “The Gang of Four.”

They represented themselves as the true guardians of authentic Maoism, and their leader was Mao’s wife, the former actress Jiang Qing.

Here’s part of a Philippine propaganda film showing Madame Imelda Romualdez Marcos visiting Mao in September, 1974.

Pay attention to the lady you always see prominently with Mrs. Marcos –that’s Jiang Qing, or Mrs. Mao.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2IvNFudyeA

By 1975, the excesses of the Cultural Revolution began to be tempered. Deng Xiaoping had been recalled; and in that year, Zhou Enlai, already dying of bladder cancer, announced the “Four Modernizations” in Agriculture, Industry, Technology and Defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAmZDIrPZhc

The objective then, became, as it remains, to make China a Great Power by the 21st Century.

But Mao’s allies were alarmed by the Four Modernizations and tried to disgrace Deng Xiaoping again; when Zhou Enlai died in January, 1976, they seemed poised to win the showdown. But Mao Zedong himself was already at his deathbed.

After Mao died on September 9, 1976 by October 6, the Gang of Four had been placed under arrest. But if, essentially, a coup, with the People’s Liberation Army supporting Deng Xioping and others opposed to Jiang Qing, had neutralized the Gang of Four, it still took time to consolidate power.

And so, the show trial of the Gang of Four began in 1981. Chinese citizens saw Communist justice on trial, where the accused were presumed guilty and the purpose of a trial was to secure a confession. Let’s watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91LEZxKlkrc]
With the Gang of Four safely out of the way, Deng Xioaping and the new leaders tried to undo the catastrophic damage of the Cultural Revolution.

But the youth had had a taste of power, and of freedom; and public expectations were now high.
How it all came to a head in 1989, next.

 
II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbNLKHDhIo4&feature=PlayList&p=5804EFEC9CE866DC&index=3

THAT was another scene from the documentery, “Tank Man.” There are times when great defeats result in even greater moral victories. Even at the moment the People’s Liberation Army had retaken Tiananmen Square from the people, one person, daring to stop a tank, became an enduring symbol of resistance.

You’ll remember from the start of tonight’s show, that in 1976, when Zhou Enlai died, people upset over the Gang of Four trying to downplay his death, reclaimed Tiananmen Square.

This was proclaimed by the Gang of Four’s opponents as a victory for Socialism.

And so, in 1989, when another respected Chinese official died, citizens decided to do something similar.

On April 15, 1989, Hu Yaobang died. He’d been, as Chinese officials go, pretty outspoken in questioning the Communist Party’s monopoly on power.

His relative frankness tapped into an undercurrent of disatissfaction with the ruling party.

Since 1978, Deng Xiaping had begun a period of economic reform to accomplish the Four Modernizations. But students and intellectuals began to ask if the political system, too, shouldn’t be modernized as well.

So when Huy Yaobang died, people decided to show their sympathy; the night before his funeral, a thousand citizens gathered on Tiananmen Square. This began seven weeks of trouble for the Communist Party.

The Party tried to use the usual means of control, to signal the appropriate party line. The People’s Daily called the student gatherings “turmoil.”

This clip from the documentary “China: Born under the Red Flag,” shows us how this had the opposite effect the government intended, let’s watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPMPx30F7M

This was in early to mid May, 1989, and the students occupied the square, launched a hunger strike, and officialdom didn’t know what to do.

We don’t really know how the Chinese government resolved this dilemma; a book, titled “The Tiananmen Papers,” supposedly reproduced classified documents detailing a showdown between democratically-oriented reformers and hard-line Communists.

We do know some leaders lost power; others compromised to keep it; and that a hard-line position was agreed on, to prevent a possible civil war, and uphold one party government.

Now take a deep breath, and imagine yourself switching on your TV on the night of June 4, 1989, and watching this BBC report unfold on your screen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJBnHMpHGRY

It was only on June 5, when the clearing of the square had been completed, that foreign journalists filmed the most famous scene from the whole event. Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcvaSnmqZ40
In 1992, Deng Xioping was able to restore the capitalist momentum by going on a tour of Southern China, and whether he really said it or not, the name of the game became his famous quote: “To get rich is glorious.”

And this became the government deal: we repressed you today, but you will be so rich tomorrow, you won’t challenge our rule or demand any political freedom.

Still, every anniversary of SIX FOUR, as this Wired story shows, the Chinese government makes sure the Chinese aren’t reminded of the event. Going into the twentieth anniversary, YouTube, Twitter, and cable broadcasts were censored, to prevent any discussion.

And as this  AFP video of umbrellas blocking video-taking in Tiananmen Square showed, the government also sent a reminder to locals and foreigners alike, that they call the shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzLuzaICJwQ

Let me close with a clip, courtest of the South China Morning Post, of the rally in Hong Kong, twenty years to the day since SIX FOUR [South China Morning Post video of June 4, 2009 rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7-_2xGtZUw

Photos courtesy:

google.com, yahoo.com, wikipedia.com, wikimedia.com, life.com, http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html

(June 8, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3CtKpXrE1A

THAT was from an informative video online, which shows the coverage and limitations, of the Freedom of Information Act in the United States.

The world’s developed democracies have found ways to guarantee as much information to citizens as possible, knowing full well that if we are to have a nation of laws and not of men, the individual convenience of officials has to be subordinated to the public good.

We’ll look at corresponding efforts to ensure that you, too, enjoy a freedom the West takes for granted: The Freedom to Find Out.

I’m Manolo Quezon. The Explainer.
 

I.

LAST week we saw how British parliamentarians are under attack because of the release of official records about their allowances and tax exemptions. British politicians tried to keep this information from the public, but thanks to freedom of information laws, persistent digging by journalists finally exposed the real score.

Here at home, possession remains nine tenths of the law, and what is in official hands is often out of sight and out of mind. More often than not, we, the people, only have a vague idea of what information government has, and no idea at all, how to get that information or even whether we should.

The irony is, we may be a less transparent government, now, in an age of mass media, then we were, say half a century ago during the time of President Magsaysay, shown here in a Life Magazine photo with his wife.

For half a century before Magsaysay, and a quarter century after him, the public could keep track of what was going on in officialdom through a pretty boring, but democratically essential, publication called the official Gazette. In it, you could see the President’s monthly, then weekly activities.

And even today, if you’re curious you can go back and look up the appointments and designations, the important letters, memoranda, and issuances, the court decisions and department orders, of our government up to the second administration of President Marcos.

But this fine tradition of official record keeping and even disclosure, came to an end with Martial Law, when President Marcos had to issue secret decrees and there was no longer a free press, an independent legislature or judiciary, much less effective public opinion, to value either a complete official record, or its regular publication.

By the time of the Edsa Revolution, the Official Gazette was, at best, only slightly useful; and since then, the public has no access to a really complete, reliable, catalog of the government’s actions, orders, and so forth.

Instead, we have a law that says that publication of laws and regulations in the papers is sufficient to validate a law; but once today’s paper wraps today’s fish, where can you go for a record? And who is to say everyone has access to papers today?

So the sad reality is that even as our government’s gotten bigger, and so many more decisions are being churned out everyday, we actually have less of a chance of keeping track of what’s going on –or these things being preserved for the record- than before martial law.

You can go to our government’s official portal, but it only focuses on the present government; try looking up anything before, and you won’t find it; and things you could easily look up prior to 1972 –a complete list of everyone given a job by the president, for one- is practically impossible, today.

Even the President’s own website contains incomplete information on the executive orders and proclamations, memoranda and directives of the President. Basically, it’s a major pain in rear to find out anything about anything.

What more if you want to find out something really earth-shaking. You’ll notice that many of the big issues in recent years have revolved around information. How some officials don’t want to release it, and hide behind the President’s skirts when asked.

As this photo by PJ Arca immortalized it, the stonewalling of officials asked inconvenient questions, has led to expressions of public indignation. But so what?

But as the President herself has often said, she is merely part of a degenerate political system, and the refusal of her underlings to release information isn’t anything new. Here’s a clip from the PCIJ, telling us the kinds information government finds it inconvenient to release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-DwWuAqu2A
0:29 – 0:48

And much as the President might want to answer public prayers for transparency, the PCIJ reports that the biggest of the big fish in the President’s official family are those usually unwilling to release information. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-DwWuAqu2A
1:08 – 1:26

And so, to every public prayer for relief, as priests like to tell us, sometimes the answer to a prayer is no. The PCI reports the usual reasons given by the usual suspects to refuse requests for information. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-DwWuAqu2A
1:46 – 1:50

Yesterday the Philippine Daily Inquirer editorial came out firmly in support of ongoing efforts to put an end to this frustrating state of affairs.
Next… we’ll take a look at the proposed solution to official stonewalling.
 

II.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcr9AdL7ttc

THAT was from a British news program showing the curiosity and the costs of freedom of information in the UK.

As I mentioned earlier, the Philippine Daily Inquirer has come out in favor of efforts to make official records available to the public.

There is a basis for this advocacy in the basic law, the Constitution, of our land. And it has to do with you, me, our government, and information, according to the Constitution.

Bill of Rights, specifically Article III, Sec. 7 states: “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to limitations as may be provided by law.”

Our Bill of Right says, “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to limitations as may be provided by law.”

Section 28 of Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of our Constitution provides: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

While Section Sec 28 of Article II of our Constitution’s Declaration of Principles and State Policies says “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

Now there’s an NGO called Action for Economic Reforms, which, together with many other concerned groups, feel that the time has come to put teeth into these constitutional injunctions.

They’re called “ATIN” or access to information network. They’ve taken a cue from legislation passed in the West, such as in the USA and UK, and increasingly proposed and considered in other parts of the world, and have been lobbying for a Freedom of Information Act.

The proposed Freedom of Information Act will be up for consideration by the Senate plenary on Second Reading.

The  House of Representatives has already done its work, having approved its counterpart measure (House Bill 3732) as early as 12 May 2008.

On Second Reading in the Senate, the Committee on Public Information and Mass Media chaired by Senator  Alan Peter Cayetano will present to the senate plenary the consolidated/substituted version after undergoing committee  hearings and consultations.

Floor debates and amendments, if any, will follow, culminating in the Senators’ vote on the  Second Reading version of the bill. Now let’s take a look at eight key features of the proposed Freedom of Information Act.

First, It is expansive in scope. It covers all possible government agencies, whether they’re in executive, legislative or judicial branches, or independent constitutional bodies. And it covers all information regardless of the form or format in which they are stored.

Second,  It provides only a narrow list of clearly defined and reasonable exceptions.

Third,  It provides an opportunity and right enabling citizens to override an exception whenever public interest in the disclosure of information is greater.

Fourth,  It provides a clear, uniform and speedy procedure for public access to information.

Fifth,  It provides the mechanics for compulsory disclosure by government agencies of information on government transactions.

Sixth, It provides adequate and accessible remedies in cases where access to information is denied.

Seventh, It provides clear criminal liabilities for violation of the right to information.

And finally,  It spells out numerous mechanisms for the active promotion of openness in government.

If you’d like to find out more, do visit the website of Action for Economic Reforms, and click on the projects link.

Transparency Now believes that what happens to the bill at the Senate plenary will be a test of every Senator’s commitment to transparency, accountability,  democracy, and respect for human rights.

They believe this is a crucial juncture in our country’s strategic future, given the critical role of public access to information in combating corruption that has weighed down development, as well as its role in securing meaningful public participation to facilitate effective and responsive government policies.
 

Photos courtesy:

google.com, yahoo.com, gov.com.ph, inquirer.net, Nepo Malaluan, life.com, youtube.com

(June 1, 2009) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL0GbfJfrkI 

THAT was news coverage from the State Opening of Parliament in 2008, with announcers already speculating about the political future of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Within months, that Speaker was ousted from his position, the first to be directly challenged by the Commons in three centuries. For Filipinos who wonder what role public opinion over allegations of corruptions plays in the West, the ongoing political revolution in the UK is worth exploring.

Tonight, how British public opinion toppled a Speaker and many more, from their perches in power.
 

I.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20090524-206775/Inglorious-revolution
YESTERDAY the editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer focused on the rather remarkable goings-on in the United Kingdom, where, for the first time in 300 years the Speaker of the House of Commons ended up confronted in such a manner.

Things came to a fascinating head during a stormy parliamentary session, in which the embattled Speaker tried to make an Arroyo-style “I am.. Sorry” speech. Let’s watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o7m3HUZ8UE

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3627748/speakers-statement-live-blog.thtml
But this  only poured gasoline on an already-raging fire.

Accounts of the tumultuous parliamentary session particularly struck me because of the elephantine institutional memory of everyone concerned.

Aside from most commentators pointing out it’s been three centuries (not since 1695 to be exact!) since a Speaker of the House of Commons has been prematurely removed from office,

Sir Patrick Cormack, in responding to the Speaker’s apology-flop, brought up the Norway Debate (in which Neville Chamberlain lost the confidence of the Commons in 1940).

http://vauxhallvelox.blogspot.com/2009/05/you-have-sat-too-long-here-for-any-good.html
Bloggers picked up on the reference as well,

From a Vauxhall Velox put it best:

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

The words of Leo Amery in the Norway Debate have never had such resonance and appropriateness as they perhaps have had today in the House of Commons. Sir Patrick Cormack referenced the great debate of 1940 during what can only be described as the shambolic statement by Mr Speaker Martin today.

http://talking-clock.blogspot.com/2009/05/let-us-not-under-estimate-what-has.html

And Leo Amery, a partisan of Churchill, in turn used the famous lines of Oliver Cromwell when he dismissed the Long Parliament on April 20, 1653, perhaps one of the most vitriolic speeches ever made by a politician against his peers:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

http://snarkmarket.com/blog/snarkives/books_writing_such/a_messe_of_pottage/
Although SnarkMarket points to research suggesting the speech may have entered legend but without a basis in historical fact!

http://conservativechange.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-norway-debate/
Blogger To labour is to struggle pointed out how the Speaker’s defenders tried to turn the tables, at first, on their critics, are waging war on a nationalistic) class front since Martin is Scottish and from the working class.

But the public mood was definitely not only sour, but indignant on a nationwide scale.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090522/OPINION/705219884/1080
A commentary in The National Newspaper outlines the whole issue, including some of the more lurid revelations.

The cause of the MPs’ decline is the publication of their expenses, leaked to a newspaper. It is the detail that has caught the public imagination, rather than any huge sums of money…

More seriously, several top politicians, including cabinet members, have manipulated the rules so that they can avoid paying the taxes that they legislate for other people to pay. Others have claimed for reimbursement of the interest on non-existent mortgages, which looks like fraud and is being investigated by the police.

The scandal might have been contained but for the fact that a succession of MPs have explained their conduct by saying it was “within the rules”. But the MPs themselves set these rules and fought hard to keep them secret from outside scrutiny. Many still cannot see that it was their responsibility to change a patently unreasonable and immoral system, not to go along with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21thu4.html?_r=1
The New York Times editorial today also says the issue is one of official salaries not being in keeping with what the jobs may really require:

Members do have a legitimate compliant that they are paid too little: less than $100,000 a year, compared with about $170,000 for a member of the United States Congress. Britain’s taxpayers want changes. They want to make Parliament’s doings more open, which is a good thing. They also want to cut out these fat and far too easily abused expense accounts. That’s good too. But they will also have to find a way to pay their representatives a better wage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/ 
The Daily Telegraph has been at the forefront of the issue..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5363455/MPs-expenses-favourite-shops.html
With revelations on where MP’s went shopping…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5318810/MPs-expenses-20-most-bizarre-claims.html
The weird things for which they obtained refunds and allowances from the government…

Based on this information, citizens have pointed out some of the jucier bits. Let’s watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4n3Ta7aYlU

http://spiderplant88.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-end-is-surely-nigh-for-speaker-michael-martin/
Now if at first this scandal was at about whether the Speaker would survive;

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/236
And whether he would merely be the scapegoat for Parliament’s exposed corruption. But British observers are viewing this as the greatest political earthquake in a generation.

We’ll look at our own domestic allowances controversies, and what the British may teach us as a means to curb official excesses.
 

II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA6Zj-8BsuY

THAT was the British Historian David Starkey giving us the real score on how Cromwell shut down the House of Commons, in the only case in their history, of a non-royal dictatorship.

THE unfolding scandal in the United Kingdom,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5363455/MPs-expenses-favourite-shops.html
where members of parliament are facing public outrage over their allowances and tax exemptions, reminds me of one of my favorite political autobiographies:

Jose E. Romero’s Not So Long Ago: A Chronicle Of My Life, Times, & Contemporaries published in 1977 by Alemar-Phoenix. To my mind, it’s about as honest as any politician’s account of his life can be expected to be.

His memoirs helps explain how government officials went from living within their means to trying to supplement salaries that failed to keep up with inflation or the requirements of their jobs.

Romero brings up how all sorts of allowances have to be created which supplements the take home pay, but does not address the need to offer salaries commensurate with what’s expected of an official.

Just to update a detail I first mentioned in my column in 2005: if, today, the President of the Philippines earns about 640,000 pesos a year, consider the equivalent, in today’s money, of the President’s 30,000 peso annual salary when the position was established in 1935. According to Henry Ma of the Asian Development Bank, in 2008 pesos, the presidential salary then would be 10 million pesos per annum today.

Since salaries in keeping with their responsibilities are politically-dangerous, politicians keep their salaries low by means of increasing their own allowances. Romero’s memoirs points out the precise point when congressmen decided they have to find ways to boost their salaries. In his book, he wrote of the situation the last Congress of the Commonwealth faced, in 1945:

“The members of Congress,” he recalled, “like most other citizens, had lost most of what they had. .. To compound the problems of the members of Congress and everybody else, inflation was rampant. Even sugar was lacking and was selling at five times the usual price.”

He continued, “We had to commute between the House of Representatives and the houses where we were living in cargo trucks hastily converted for the use of passengers and we had to pay a very high fare. In order to alleviate the situation of the members of Congress who were getting no more than the six hundred pesos per month provided for in the Constitution, President Osmena, in the use of his emergency powers, authorized the Auditor-General’s Office to make advances to the members of Congress to enable them to meet the cost of living in Manila during the sessions. This was the principal reason afterward for the approval of the much criticized Back Pay Law.”

An accounting problem then arose: “At the end of the sessions, the Auditor-General was pressing for payment of the advances made under the authority given by President Osmena. Their term of office was expiring. The solution was found in the payment of Back Pay to the members of Congress for salaries due them during the war. This move was bitterly criticized by the public, and the question became an issue in the succeeding elections and caused the defeat of many members of Congress in their bid for reelection.”

But, Romero argued, “Taking an objective view of the situation, however, this form of relief for the lawmakers was almost a necessity. The amount involved was only a little, over P20,000 for every member of Congress, and the payment made was only once. Of this amount each legislator had already received some P8,000 in advances. It was simply impossible for the lawmakers to live in Manila at six hundred pesos a month with the inflation then rampant. Had the lawmakers at that time less respect for the Constitution, and had they then discovered the magic formula of the allowances, they could have solved their problem by making payments to themselves, not in the relatively small amount of P20,000 but ten times as much, as succeeding legislators were to get -and not only once, but every year.”

And so, “Many of the members of Congress were defeated in the election that followed on this issue of back pay, but later members of Congress were to be reelected again and again after paying themselves much more in the form of allowances than the legislators of 1945 paid themselves in the form of back pay. This may mean either that our electorate have already become cynical and callous or that the greater fund available for election expenses is more effective to win votes than as an issue against the beneficiaries of these objectionable payments.

Had the lawmakers in 1945 voted themselves two hundred thousand pesos yearly instead of twenty thousand pesos once, perhaps not so many of them would have been defeated. But then the temper of the people at the time was not propitious for such disregard of the proprieties, and there might have been violent demonstrations. Cynicism crept in slowly but steadily and, later, the voters ceased to mind anymore what in 1945 not only would have been fatal issues but might also have triggered violent reactions.”

So the moral of the tale is things haven’t always been the way they are, but that things can change pretty swiftly and then gain their own momentum. Which is precisely what’s happening in the UK .

Official allowances have remained controversial, domestically, and economic downturns often lead politicians to trim their salaries as a sop to public opinion, while finding other ways to maintain their. For example, Magnolia Antonino ended up in the Senate because her husband based his entire senatorial campaign on opposing congressional allowances. When he died in a plane crash on the eve of the elections, the country elected his wife as a posthumous vindication of his cause.

This whole thing is extremely relevant in light of the ongoing efforts to muster public support for a Freedom of Information Act.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/19/nation/20090519191238&sec=nation
As this article (Selangor to enact Freedom of Info law ) shows, increasing demands for public access to official records may be part of the Zeitgeist.
Public indignation was sparked by journalists using the UK’s Freedom of Information Act of 2000 to secure official information damaging to officialdom. And that will be our topic next week.

Photos courtesy:

google.com, yahoo.com, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Life.com, inquirer.net 

(May 25, 2009)