Response to President Emerlinda Roman’s Memorandum “A Mandate for Growth”
UP-WIDEM 2 (University of the Philippines-Wide Democratization Movement 2)
05 April 2005
Through this statement, the UP-Wide Democratization Movement 2 would like to make manifest its reaction to “A Mandate for Growth. A Report to the Community on the UP Charter,” which is Memorandum No. PERR-05-07 by President Emerlinda R. Roman to all chancellors and deans of the University of the Philippines System.
In this memorandum, Pres. Roman (1) presents a report on the status of the UP Charter bills at the Senate (Senate Bill 1833) and the House of Representatives (still at the level of the Technical Working Group) (2) enumerates what she considers “the most alarming” of the provisions being recommended for inclusion in the UP Charter, and (3) calls on the chancellors and deans of the University to consult their “constituencies” and send the reactions to the memorandum to the Office of the UP President by April 15.
UP WIDEM 2 has been consistent in calling for the creation of a new UP Charter that will embody the changes that the University has undergone after almost 100 years and will make the University more responsive to the times. We take issue, however, with what Pres. Roman considers to be “the most alarming provisions” being proposed in changing the UP Charter. Such classification leans towards changes that are not progressive and will not advance the interests of the sectors of the UP Community.
“THE MOST ALARMING PROVISIONS”
After enumerating the provisions being recommended for inclusion in the UP Charter at the Senate and the House of Representatives, Pres. Roman enumerates the following as “the most alarming provisions” in the UP Charter bills. We quote her in full:
(1) the establishment of an oversight committee to review UP’s financial transactions, which will simply make it more difficult for the University to utilize its properties to generate revenues;
(2) the removal of the University’s corporate powers, which will substantially deprive the University of its ability to raise supplemental funds and protect its own resources, thus making it fully dependent on the political processes that lead to the enactment of appropriations acts or on the priorities of bureaucracies of other departments of government;
(3) the creation of Consultative Assemblies at the college, university and system levels with a representative from the various sectors;
(4) interference with the faculty’s prerogative to decide on admission standards and policies, which is part of its academic mandate; and
(5) the granting to students of the right to “exercise their established religious beliefs” even when these should interfere with scheduled classes or examinations.
She goes on to say that “Moreover, the substitution of ‘premier state university’ for ‘national university’ may seem like a minor cosmetic change but actually betrays a failure to appreciate the symbolic and substantive significance of official designation as the country’s national university.” In short, Pres. Roman considers six (6), not only five (5), provisions as “the most alarming” of those proposed for inclusion in the UP Charter.
It is understandable that UP constituents and officials should express concern, and even be alarmed, over Proposed Provisions (4) and (5). The UP Community after all defends and upholds the secular character and academic freedom of the University.
It is equally alarming, however, that Pres. Roman lumps these proposed provisions – which are unpopular with the UP Community – with Proposed Provisions (1), (2), (3) and (6). This manner of presentation could only cast a negative light on proposed provisions that arise from concerns and calls of members and sectors of the UP Community against the intensification of commercialization of the University, against state abandonment of UP, and for the democratization of structures of governance of the University.
AGAINST COMMERCIALIZATION, AGAINST STATE ABANDONMENT
We believe that in the concrete, Pres. Roman’s concern over proposals that will cause the “removal of the University’s corporate powers,” are directed against the following:
(1) The proposal of Senator Manuel Roxas III “to remove the corporate powers of the University,” and
(2) The proposed consolidated UP Charter bill at the House of Representatives which (a) deletes from Senate Bill 2587 the power of the Board of Regents (BOR) to plan, design, approve and/or cause the implementation of financial mechanisms such as “fully-owned subsidiaries, securitization and outright sale” of UP’s properties and (b) formulates the power of the BOR on these matters as such:
The Board of Regents shall plan, design, approve and/or cause the implementation of financial mechanisms, such as joint ventures and long-term leases, to give the University the most advantageous position in generating revenues and other resources from the land grants and other real property entrusted by the Filipino people to their national university: Provided, That such mechanisms and arrangements shall not conflict with the University’s academic mission as well as sustain and protect the environment: Provided, further, That the plans shall preserve the academic core zone of each constituent campus which shall be delineated in consultation with all sectors of the constituent university concerned; Provided, finally, that funds generated from the various financial plans shall not be meant to replace, in part or in whole, the annual appropriation provided by the national government to the University.
We, members of UP-WIDEM 2, reiterate our strong opposition to the inclusion to the UP Charter of any provision that will give corporate powers to the Board of Regents.
In the context of the decreasing yearly government subsidy given to UP, as well as government policies which explicitly mandate the systematic reduction of government subsidy to State Colleges and Universities – especially UP – in tandem with the granting of such corporate powers to the BORs of SCUs to generate the income projected to replace government subsidy, the inclusion of such provisions will only attack the character of UP as a state university. The inclusion of such provisions will only push the government to further abandon its responsibility of funding UP, and is a big step towards UP’s eventual privatization. It embodies an attack on the task of the government to give quality education to the Filipino youth and people through the UP System.
Government policies on education are likewise explicit in pushing State Colleges and Universities to generate income not only through commercializing their assets but also in increasing the fees their students pay. We oppose the granting of corporate powers to the BOR because in the context of decreasing government subsidy to UP and education, as well as government policies on education which mandate the systematic reduction of government subsidy to education, comes the power and the pressure to increase the fees of UP students we traditionally call iskolars ng bayan. This could only mean intensifying the attack on the right of the Filipino students, youth and people to quality education.
It is therefore alarming that Pres. Roman considers as one of “the most alarming provisions” the proposal to remove the corporate powers of the BOR (as proposed by Sen. Roxas) or reduce it significantly and balance it with a provision that guarantees government subsidy to UP (as contained in the proposed consolidated version at the House of Representatives). It is likewise alarming that Pres. Roman argues for the granting of corporate powers to the BOR, but considers alarming the proposal to establish an oversight committee to review UP’s financial transactions – stressing the technical difficulties that will be encountered in generating income for UP and ignoring the more important point of safeguarding UP from corruption. Pres. Roman seems to be living up to expectations that her administration will implement full-throttle commercialization.
The experience of the country with privatization clearly shows that with privatization comes corruption. Senator Joker Arroyo seems to have this in mind when he raised points relevant to this matter in the January 28, 2004 session on Senate Bill 2587 of the 12th Senate. We quote from the minutes of the Senate: “Given the temptation to sell properties, Senator Arroyo asked how the properties can be preserved. Senator (Francis) Pangilinan said that at the proper time, he would propose the deletion of the provisions on outright sale and put in a requirement of two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members of the Board before a sale or lease could be affected. Senator Arroyo said that he was thinking more of internal safeguards within the Act, noting that UP has been free of scandals so far, probably until it sells real estate assets. He further noted that throughout the deliberations, no satisfactory answers have been provided by representatives of UP.”
We reiterate our strong opposition to granting the BOR the corporate powers for transforming UP into a commercialized university that is on the way to privatization.
FOR DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE U.P. SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE
We believe that in the concrete, Pres. Roman’s concern over the proposal to create “Consultative Assemblies at the college, university and system levels with a representative from the various sectors” is directed against the proposed consolidated UP Charter bill at the House of Representatives. This document defines such Consultative Assemblies as “consultative, consensus-building, democratic and collegial bodies.” It defines the functions of such Consultative Assemblies as follows:
(1) To serve as the principal forum where faculty, students, REPS, and administrative personnel shall address non-academic issues affecting the university, its thrust and directions, and issues relating to long/medium term development plans for the university.
(2) To promote direct interaction among the various unit constituencies of the university (faculty, REPS, administrative personnel and students) in the discussion of issues and grievances which heretofore have been mainly sectoral.
(3) To serve as a multi-sectoral forum to recommend policies on administrative and non-academic matters in consultation with the Chancellors for approval by the Board of Regents.
(4) To act as a consultative body in the search process for Deans, directors and equivalent positions in the units of the University, as may be necessary.
We, members of UP WIDEM 2, reiterate our critique of the present system of governance in the University at the apex of which is the BOR. We believe that the BOR, a creation of American colonial rule in the country, has retained its colonial character as a small body not accountable to the principal university constituencies. After almost 100 years, UP has grown from one campus in Padre Faura to a University System with seven (7) constituent units in various parts of the country and with over 50,000 students. At present, there are only two representatives from the direct constituents of the University, the Student Regent and the Faculty Regent. It is only in the selection of these two regents that various constituent units such as UP Visayas or UP Mindanao is taken into account. The BOR, clearly, is an outmoded structure of governance that is undemocratic in nature and is as such unfit for a university that should uphold academic freedom and critical thinking.
It is therefore alarming that Pres. Roman considers as one of “the most alarming provisions” the proposal to create consultative assemblies at the college, university and system levels of the University. While the creation of such consultative assemblies broadens the base for consultations on administrative matters and other multi-sectoral concerns – and is as such more democratic than retaining the BOR – it is in fact a far cry from the proposed democratization of structures of governance of the University contained in the UP Charter proposed by UP WIDEM 2. Pres. Roman’s opposition to this proposed provision, when conjoined with her endorsement of corporate powers for the BOR, is most alarming. An undemocratic structure of governance which is unaccountable to the UP Community is after all essential in pushing for commercialization programs which are unpopular among the UP Community and are widely opposed by the latter.
We reiterate our call for democratic structures of governance in the University, as embodied in our proposal for a University System Assembly. We reiterate our vehement opposition to the colonial and undemocratic structure of governance that is the BOR.
FOR A DEMOCRATIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE
On the question of changing the status of the University through the UP Charter, we members of UP WIDEM 2 reiterate our earlier proposal: for UP to be called a “democratic university of the people.” The “national university” status being lobbied for by the previous UP Administration – and the present one as well – substitutes appearance for essence, form for content. It means a university that is “national” in status but commercialized in essence, with meager and decreasing government subsidy. It means a university that is “national” in status but a small kingdom in operations, with a few deciding for a vast majority of a vibrant and dynamic community of various sectors.
That, clearly, is not a mandate for growth but a mandate for betrayal of the university’s character and mission as a state university, for betrayal of the right to quality education of the iskolars ng bayan, the Filipino youth and people. It is a mandate for commercialization and undemocratic structures of governance. Against a deceptive status, we call for a real change in the relationship between UP and the government and in the UP system of governance. We believe that a genuine mandate for growth for UP is a mandate for greater state subsidy and for democratic structures of governance. UP-WIDEM 2 remains steadfast in our vision for a democratic university of the people.
The UP Wide Democratization Movement 2 (UP-Widem 2), composed of the ALL-UP WORKERS UNION, ALL-UP ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES UNION, Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA-UP) and the Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP (STAND-UP) believe that give the financial constraints and resource pressures facing the University because of the continuing state abandonment of education, it is important for the University Administration, in particular U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman to engage the University's faculty, staff and students in open, sincere dialogues. We urge the University Administration, through Dr. Roman, to meet with the leaders of the workers and academic unions, the students through their councils, and other constituents for this purpose.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
GU Protesters Savor Win - And a Meal
By: Susan Kinzie
The Washington Post
Friday 25 March 2005
Nine-day hunger strike resulted in better compensation for contract workers.
After nine days of water, dizziness, vomiting and protest, Georgetown University freshman Jack Mahoney ate a strawberry yesterday just before noon. "It was great," he said, beaming. "It was amazing."
More than 20 students ended their nine-day hunger strike for higher wages and better benefits for university contract workers yesterday, dancing in a ring, singing along with a guitar, cheering and eating strawberries, one slow bite at a time. They had duct-taped a blue banner over their huge "Living Wage" sign: The new one announced "We all won!"
The fight for better working conditions on campus has resonated across the country, said Jamin B. Raskin, chairman of the Maryland State Higher Education Labor Relations Board, and some experts expect to see more clashes.
"We're living in an era where a lot of universities are acting just like corporations," Raskin said, "and students are insisting the universities stay true to their intellectual and moral heritage."
Yesterday, after more than a week without food, the Georgetown protesters thought they had hit a brick wall with administrators. "We had a long conversation about whether we could continue," Mahoney said, and he steeled himself for a much longer fast, more weakness, more discomfort. Two students had already gone to the hospital.
But last night, Georgetown President John J. DeGioia approved a proposal to increase total compensation for contract workers from a minimum of $11.33 an hour to $13 by July and to $14 by July 2007, according to university officials. The proposal also affirms workers' right to organize without intimidation and offers access to benefits, such as English as a Second Language classes and university transportation shuttles.
"We were stunned," said protester Liam Stack. "This is a real victory."
Students hugged and cheered and then went to find workers to tell them they would be getting a raise. Silvia Garcia was cleaning a bathroom in the Intercultural Center on campus when a group of students burst in sometime before midnight and told her, in Spanish, "We won! We won!"
Workers were jumping up and down, clapping, smiling and thanking students while students thanked them, Mahoney said.
Garcia, a native of El Salvador who has been a cleaner at Georgetown since May, said yesterday afternoon, "We were all very, very happy."
Yesterday, administrators, students, union members and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who is a professor at Georgetown's law school, met to finalize the deal.
DeGioia said the change for the 450 or so contract janitors and food-service and security workers "is an appropriate next step for us" in ongoing efforts to ensure good working conditions.
He taught some of the protesters in classes on human rights, he said, and has repeatedly urged students to engage in social justice issues. "There is an irony there," he said, and laughed.
A few years ago, some Georgetown students began meeting contract workers. They offered makeshift English classes for some and brought breakfast at 6 a.m. Fridays for workers getting off the night shift. They talked to them about higher wages - students initially asked for nearly $15 an hour from the university - and encouraged them to think about unionizing.
Similar conversations are taking place across the country, said Tom Juravich, director of the Labor Relations and Research Center at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, often growing out of the anti-sweatshop movements of the past decade.
As students protested over the working conditions of overseas employees making university gear, they also began to look at workers closer to home, he said.
At Georgetown, workers stopped by late most nights during the hunger strike, Mahoney said, to check on them. He spent much of his time having vivid daydreams of eating a vegetable samosa from an M Street restaurant. He lost 10 pounds, dropping to 135 on his 5-foot-8-inch frame.
"They gave everything to solve our problems before they [graduated], by the grace of God," Garcia said. "Without them, we would have gotten nothing."
The Washington Post
Friday 25 March 2005
Nine-day hunger strike resulted in better compensation for contract workers.
After nine days of water, dizziness, vomiting and protest, Georgetown University freshman Jack Mahoney ate a strawberry yesterday just before noon. "It was great," he said, beaming. "It was amazing."
More than 20 students ended their nine-day hunger strike for higher wages and better benefits for university contract workers yesterday, dancing in a ring, singing along with a guitar, cheering and eating strawberries, one slow bite at a time. They had duct-taped a blue banner over their huge "Living Wage" sign: The new one announced "We all won!"
The fight for better working conditions on campus has resonated across the country, said Jamin B. Raskin, chairman of the Maryland State Higher Education Labor Relations Board, and some experts expect to see more clashes.
"We're living in an era where a lot of universities are acting just like corporations," Raskin said, "and students are insisting the universities stay true to their intellectual and moral heritage."
Yesterday, after more than a week without food, the Georgetown protesters thought they had hit a brick wall with administrators. "We had a long conversation about whether we could continue," Mahoney said, and he steeled himself for a much longer fast, more weakness, more discomfort. Two students had already gone to the hospital.
But last night, Georgetown President John J. DeGioia approved a proposal to increase total compensation for contract workers from a minimum of $11.33 an hour to $13 by July and to $14 by July 2007, according to university officials. The proposal also affirms workers' right to organize without intimidation and offers access to benefits, such as English as a Second Language classes and university transportation shuttles.
"We were stunned," said protester Liam Stack. "This is a real victory."
Students hugged and cheered and then went to find workers to tell them they would be getting a raise. Silvia Garcia was cleaning a bathroom in the Intercultural Center on campus when a group of students burst in sometime before midnight and told her, in Spanish, "We won! We won!"
Workers were jumping up and down, clapping, smiling and thanking students while students thanked them, Mahoney said.
Garcia, a native of El Salvador who has been a cleaner at Georgetown since May, said yesterday afternoon, "We were all very, very happy."
Yesterday, administrators, students, union members and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who is a professor at Georgetown's law school, met to finalize the deal.
DeGioia said the change for the 450 or so contract janitors and food-service and security workers "is an appropriate next step for us" in ongoing efforts to ensure good working conditions.
He taught some of the protesters in classes on human rights, he said, and has repeatedly urged students to engage in social justice issues. "There is an irony there," he said, and laughed.
A few years ago, some Georgetown students began meeting contract workers. They offered makeshift English classes for some and brought breakfast at 6 a.m. Fridays for workers getting off the night shift. They talked to them about higher wages - students initially asked for nearly $15 an hour from the university - and encouraged them to think about unionizing.
Similar conversations are taking place across the country, said Tom Juravich, director of the Labor Relations and Research Center at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, often growing out of the anti-sweatshop movements of the past decade.
As students protested over the working conditions of overseas employees making university gear, they also began to look at workers closer to home, he said.
At Georgetown, workers stopped by late most nights during the hunger strike, Mahoney said, to check on them. He spent much of his time having vivid daydreams of eating a vegetable samosa from an M Street restaurant. He lost 10 pounds, dropping to 135 on his 5-foot-8-inch frame.
"They gave everything to solve our problems before they [graduated], by the grace of God," Garcia said. "Without them, we would have gotten nothing."
Friday, March 25, 2005
Philippine Government Pushing to Get US$9 Billion in Remittances from Overseas Workers
Media Statement
National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada/SIKLAB (OverseasFilipino Workers Group)
For immediate release: March 24, 2005
The National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada (NAPWC/national alliance of Filipino women advocacy groups) is critical of a recent release by the office of the Philippine President which projects that overseas Filipino workers (OFW) will remit a whopping US$9 billion for 2005.
The Philippine economy, currently in an extreme fiscal crisis and burdened by an insurmountable foreign debt, is unable to absorb its workers. The Philippine government developed the Labour Export Policy(LEP) – a means of selling its own people to countries abroad in orderto ensure foreign remittances. This policy guarantees the Philippines as the world’s largest migrant nation.
“Already, ten percent of the population of the Philippines live and work abroad, that accounts for about eight million Filipinos worldwide sending money home to the Philippines,” says Cecilia Diocson, Chairperson of NAPWC. “It is convenient for the Philippine government to set such a projection for Filipino workers around the world while their basic human rights go unprotected”, states Diocson.
“As OFW’s, we also see the intensifying militarization and human rights violations against our fellow progressive Filipino compatriots. These increasing violations put OFW’s in a compromising and uncomfortable position as they continue to send remittances home to ensure the survival of their families.”
“As overseas workers, we remitted $8.5 billion last year alone. This enormous amount being sent back to the Philippines helps prop up thePhilippine economy, encouraging the government to keep on sending more and more Filipinos abroad", asserts Diocson.
According to Migrante International, an alliance of people's organizations composed of overseas Filipinos and their families, every hour, around 100 Filipino workers are forced to work overseas and approximately 60 to 70 of them are women. In 2004, there were 894,661 Filipino workers exported to do the cheap and dangerous jobs.
“These workers are forced to leave the Philippines to work abroad and support their poverty-stricken families, yet the Philippine government does little to protect their rights,” states Glecy Duran of SIKLAB (Overseas Filipino workers organization), which is a member of NAPWC. “We come to countries like Canada where we end up doing the dirty and treacherous jobs that no one else wants,” continues Duran.
The Filipino community is the fourth largest visible minority group inCanada and the third largest in B.C. where they number about 60,000. It is estimated that there are over 8,000 domestic workers in B.C. and 93% are Filipino women.
Canada’s Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) is a perfect fit to the Philippines’s LEP. Under this program, domestic workers are forced to live-in their employer’s homes and are only granted temporary immigration status as “foreign workers.”
Earlier this month, several progressive members of the Philippineb Congress introduced a resolution calling for an investigation into the LCP after groups like NAPWC and SIKLAB have been actively calling for the Canadian government to scrap the LCP. The resolution recommended measures to protect the welfare of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) working as caregivers in Canada as well as in other countries.
SIKLAB will be gathering the Filipino community during a day-long consultation to celebrate its tenth anniversary on April 16, 2005 under the theme, “Halina at sama sama nating itaguyod ang karapatan at kapakanan ng migranteng Pilipino” (Come! Join us in upholding our rights and welfare as overseas Filipino workers). This day long event will bring the Filipino community together to share their experiences of migration and struggle.
For more information, contact Glecy Duran at #604-215-1103
or e-mail: siklab@kalayaancentre.net
National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada/SIKLAB (OverseasFilipino Workers Group)
For immediate release: March 24, 2005
The National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada (NAPWC/national alliance of Filipino women advocacy groups) is critical of a recent release by the office of the Philippine President which projects that overseas Filipino workers (OFW) will remit a whopping US$9 billion for 2005.
The Philippine economy, currently in an extreme fiscal crisis and burdened by an insurmountable foreign debt, is unable to absorb its workers. The Philippine government developed the Labour Export Policy(LEP) – a means of selling its own people to countries abroad in orderto ensure foreign remittances. This policy guarantees the Philippines as the world’s largest migrant nation.
“Already, ten percent of the population of the Philippines live and work abroad, that accounts for about eight million Filipinos worldwide sending money home to the Philippines,” says Cecilia Diocson, Chairperson of NAPWC. “It is convenient for the Philippine government to set such a projection for Filipino workers around the world while their basic human rights go unprotected”, states Diocson.
“As OFW’s, we also see the intensifying militarization and human rights violations against our fellow progressive Filipino compatriots. These increasing violations put OFW’s in a compromising and uncomfortable position as they continue to send remittances home to ensure the survival of their families.”
“As overseas workers, we remitted $8.5 billion last year alone. This enormous amount being sent back to the Philippines helps prop up thePhilippine economy, encouraging the government to keep on sending more and more Filipinos abroad", asserts Diocson.
According to Migrante International, an alliance of people's organizations composed of overseas Filipinos and their families, every hour, around 100 Filipino workers are forced to work overseas and approximately 60 to 70 of them are women. In 2004, there were 894,661 Filipino workers exported to do the cheap and dangerous jobs.
“These workers are forced to leave the Philippines to work abroad and support their poverty-stricken families, yet the Philippine government does little to protect their rights,” states Glecy Duran of SIKLAB (Overseas Filipino workers organization), which is a member of NAPWC. “We come to countries like Canada where we end up doing the dirty and treacherous jobs that no one else wants,” continues Duran.
The Filipino community is the fourth largest visible minority group inCanada and the third largest in B.C. where they number about 60,000. It is estimated that there are over 8,000 domestic workers in B.C. and 93% are Filipino women.
Canada’s Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) is a perfect fit to the Philippines’s LEP. Under this program, domestic workers are forced to live-in their employer’s homes and are only granted temporary immigration status as “foreign workers.”
Earlier this month, several progressive members of the Philippineb Congress introduced a resolution calling for an investigation into the LCP after groups like NAPWC and SIKLAB have been actively calling for the Canadian government to scrap the LCP. The resolution recommended measures to protect the welfare of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) working as caregivers in Canada as well as in other countries.
SIKLAB will be gathering the Filipino community during a day-long consultation to celebrate its tenth anniversary on April 16, 2005 under the theme, “Halina at sama sama nating itaguyod ang karapatan at kapakanan ng migranteng Pilipino” (Come! Join us in upholding our rights and welfare as overseas Filipino workers). This day long event will bring the Filipino community together to share their experiences of migration and struggle.
For more information, contact Glecy Duran at #604-215-1103
or e-mail: siklab@kalayaancentre.net
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
GMA is Using the Abu Sayyaf to Justify the Imposition of Authoritarian Measures - Beltran
Mula sa Tanggapan ni Anakpawis Rep. Crispin Beltran
News Release March 18, 2005
House of Representatives, South Wing Rm 602931-6615
Ina Alleco R. Silverio, Chief of Staff
Email: paggawa@edsamail.com.ph, anakpawis2003@yahoo.com
Cellphone number 09213907362
Visit: www.geocities.com/ap_news
AFP and Abu Sayyaf's plans seem to be well-coordinated; crackdown against more Muslim and urban poor communities looming - Rep. Beltran Anakpawis Representative Crispin Beltran today said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) seem to be very privy to the plans and operations of the Abu Sayyaf, "This is what makes me incredulous as to why the military and police have not been able to capture and defeat the Abu Sayyaf. They all seem to know each other quite well - they're privy to each other's plans and operations. One could even say that their plans are very well coordinated. What are they keeping from the public? They seem to know everything already --- even where the ASG will strike and when," he said.
The veteran lawmaker said that investigations should continue into the alleged tie-ups between the ASG and the AFP - including the rub out of the three ASG leader Commanders Global, Kosovo and Robot earlier this week in the overkill military operations that took 22 lives.
Beltran said that now, more than ever, the public should maintain strong vigilance against the movements and operations of the military, even regarding its supposed plans against the threat of the Abu Sayyaf. "There are firm basis to argue that the military with the blessing of the Macapagal-Arroyo leadership is using the Abu Sayyaf to justify the imposition of more authoritarian measures, and to increase the powers of the military over the civilian population". All over Mindanao, the AFP have been arresting Muslim civilians on the merest suspicion of being ASG supporters or members, and all these civilians have been denied due process. Only the Muslim rights advocacy groups and human rights organizations are advocating for the release of these prisoners, and it's a massive blow against civil rights and liberties that so many of our Muslim brothers remain behind bars on unjust and illegal grounds," he said.
Beltran expressed certainty that with these latest announcement that the ASG is bent on wreaking terror this coming Holy Week, the military will implement more crackdown operations on various Muslim and urban poor communities all over the Metropolis, and even in the regions where there are Muslim residents.
"The Macapagal-Arroyo administration should be denounced for these attacks against Islam and the Muslim people. To justify the imposition of the US-dictated anti-terrorism measures such as the anti-terror bill and the national ID system, as well as the suspension of other legal rights protecting individuals' right to due process, the government and the AFP are fomenting discord between Muslims and Christians. Whatever strength or influence the ASG has is largely due to the barely secret support being given by the corrupt and ruthless elements in the AFP and the Malacanang cabinet. These, of course, include DILG secretary Angelo Reyes and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales," he said.#
News Release March 18, 2005
House of Representatives, South Wing Rm 602931-6615
Ina Alleco R. Silverio, Chief of Staff
Email: paggawa@edsamail.com.ph, anakpawis2003@yahoo.com
Cellphone number 09213907362
Visit: www.geocities.com/ap_news
AFP and Abu Sayyaf's plans seem to be well-coordinated; crackdown against more Muslim and urban poor communities looming - Rep. Beltran Anakpawis Representative Crispin Beltran today said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) seem to be very privy to the plans and operations of the Abu Sayyaf, "This is what makes me incredulous as to why the military and police have not been able to capture and defeat the Abu Sayyaf. They all seem to know each other quite well - they're privy to each other's plans and operations. One could even say that their plans are very well coordinated. What are they keeping from the public? They seem to know everything already --- even where the ASG will strike and when," he said.
The veteran lawmaker said that investigations should continue into the alleged tie-ups between the ASG and the AFP - including the rub out of the three ASG leader Commanders Global, Kosovo and Robot earlier this week in the overkill military operations that took 22 lives.
Beltran said that now, more than ever, the public should maintain strong vigilance against the movements and operations of the military, even regarding its supposed plans against the threat of the Abu Sayyaf. "There are firm basis to argue that the military with the blessing of the Macapagal-Arroyo leadership is using the Abu Sayyaf to justify the imposition of more authoritarian measures, and to increase the powers of the military over the civilian population". All over Mindanao, the AFP have been arresting Muslim civilians on the merest suspicion of being ASG supporters or members, and all these civilians have been denied due process. Only the Muslim rights advocacy groups and human rights organizations are advocating for the release of these prisoners, and it's a massive blow against civil rights and liberties that so many of our Muslim brothers remain behind bars on unjust and illegal grounds," he said.
Beltran expressed certainty that with these latest announcement that the ASG is bent on wreaking terror this coming Holy Week, the military will implement more crackdown operations on various Muslim and urban poor communities all over the Metropolis, and even in the regions where there are Muslim residents.
"The Macapagal-Arroyo administration should be denounced for these attacks against Islam and the Muslim people. To justify the imposition of the US-dictated anti-terrorism measures such as the anti-terror bill and the national ID system, as well as the suspension of other legal rights protecting individuals' right to due process, the government and the AFP are fomenting discord between Muslims and Christians. Whatever strength or influence the ASG has is largely due to the barely secret support being given by the corrupt and ruthless elements in the AFP and the Malacanang cabinet. These, of course, include DILG secretary Angelo Reyes and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales," he said.#
Monday, March 21, 2005
Noam Chomsky ... Still Furious at 76
Sunday Herald - 20 March 2005
By: Alan Taylor
ON my way to meet Noam Chomsky in Boston, I pick up a copy of The American Prospect, whose cover features snarling caricatures of US Vice-President Dick Cheney, and of Chomsky: the man dubbed by Bono "the Elvis of academia". Cheney is presented as the proverbial bull in an international china shop, Chomsky is portrayed by this "magazine of liberal intelligence" as the epitome of high- minded dove-ish, misguided idealism. Chomsky, of course, is well used to such attacks. For every cloying article by a disciple, there is a rocket from the enemy camp revelling in his perceived failings and undermining his reputation, denigrating his scholarship as a linguist and joyfully repeating statements which, when taken out of context, seem tinged with fanaticism.
To his credit, Chomsky puts them all on his website, whether it's TheNew Yorker describing him as "the devil's accountant" and "one of the greatest minds of the 20th century", or The Nation, which lampooned him as "a very familiar kind of academic hack" whose career has been"the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findings". He stands accused of asserting that every US President since Franklin D Roosevelt should have been impeached as war criminals; of supporting the murderous Pol Pot regimein Cambodia; and of comparing Israel to the Third Reich.
Leaving behind red-brick Harvard, where the winter snow is at last beginningto melt, one enters a vast industrial estate. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Chomsky has been professor of modern languages and linguistics since 1976, is home to more than 10,000 students, each ofwhom pays around $50,000 a year for the privilege of studying at America's self-styled "ideas factory".
Chomsky, who at 76 is technically retired, inhabits a suite of office so verflowing with foreign translations of his books and dusty academic journals. A photograph of the British philosopher Bertrand Russell hangs above a door, as a picture of the Pope might decorate a priest's study. The professor, his gatekeeper says, has gone for a walk, but he should return soon, if he can find his way back. Apparently, he is exploring a hitherto uncharted underground route on the campus.
I am shown into his office, which looks as if it has been burgled. Papers are piled high and strewn on every available surface. On a desk are photographs of his grandchildren. Chomsky, who has been married to the same woman for more than half a century, has three children, two daughters - one of whom works for Oxfam, the other is a teacher - and a son, who is a software engineer. When finally he does appear, I am informed that my allotted hour has shrunk magically to 45 minutes. Interviewers, it's intimated, are lining up like planes on a runway waiting for take-off. "Don't take it personally," I'm told.
I remind Chomsky of his 1990 visit to Scotland, when he spoke on "self-determination and power" at the Pearce Institute in Govan, Glasgow. "You've got to remind me what this is about," says Chomsky. This does not seem a promising start. I remind him that he is coming to Edinburgh to deliver a Gifford Lecture. "I know that," he says, rather testily. "But who are you?"
Chomsky is quietly impatient, his voice subdued and crackly. He has retained his wavy hair, which flops over his ears, and he dresses likea style-unconscious academic - black trainers, white socks, denims, charity-shop jumper. To some interviewers he comes across as bitter and despairing but others, including me, find a seam of laconic humour beneath the serious, restrained manner. When he starts to talk he often forgets to stop and in the course of our foreshortened hour he proves as difficult to interrupt as the Queen's Christmas message. Wind him up and away he goes.
But with Chomsky it's hard to know where to begin. Having spent more than 50 years at the MIT, he is the author of dozens of books and countless articles. A decade ago, Nature mentioned him in the same breath as Darwin and Descartes. Among his modern peers are Einstein, Picasso and Freud. Apparently, only Shakespeare and the Bible have been cited in scholarly publications more often than Chomsky has been.His influence is equally formidable, including generations of media students and the likes of John Pilger, Harold Pinter, Naomi Klein and James Kelman.
"If Chomsky has a specialist subject," wrote Kelman, "then some would argue it is not linguistics, nor the philosophy of language, rather it is US global policy, with particular reference to the dissemination of all related knowledge."
Not all of Chomsky's devotees would agree with Kelman. Some, such as author and columnist Paul Johnson, wish he'd stuck with linguistics and kept his nose out of politics. Through his study of language and, in particular, syntax, Chomsky is credited with transforming the way foreign languages are taught through his theory of a "universal grammar", and of "revolutionizing our view of the mind". Several ofhis books, including Syntactic Structures and Theory Of Syntax, published in 1957 and 1965 respectively, are invariably referred to as essential documents, though they're hardly accessible to the layman.
Meanwhile Manufacturing Consent, which he co-wrote with Edward Herman in 1988, is on every rookie journalist's reading list. Chomsky is the sceptic's sceptic, believing that the true nature of the US's role in the world is distorted and hidden from the American people by the corporate-owned media elite and federal government representatives who protect business interests in order to get re-elected or keep their jobs in the administration. Though he reluctantly supported Democrat John Kerry's failed pitch for the presidency last November, Chomsky is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. From his perspective, there's not a lot to choose between them; they're both "business parties".
We begin by talking about the piece in The American Prospect. "It's the journal of what they modestly call 'the decent left'," he says, oozing contempt. "It's kind of moderate social democrat and they see themselves as embattled. You know, caught between two powerful forces which are crushing them. One is Dick Cheney, representing the WhiteHouse, the Pentagon, one of the most powerful forces in history, and the other one - an equal and opposite force - is me. Do you think any intellectual or academic in history has ever received such praise? I mean, it's way beyond the Nobel Prize. I already got someone to put it on the website. It tells you something about their attitudes. They're pathetic, frightened, cowardly little people."
Interesting, I note, that though his face is on the magazine's cover, his name is nowhere to be seen in the piece. "Oh, no, no, no," Chomsky says, grinning at my naivety, "you can't mention it. You can't mention anything. You can't read anything. All you can do is report gossip. So you heard some gossip saying that I was in favour of Pol Pot or I support Osama Bin Laden. That I'm in favour of [Slobodan] Milosevic. And then you heard it at a dinner party so it must be true. My previous interviewer is doing a documentary mainly on Palestine. She just got a PhD at New York University. She was telling me that if she ever so much as mentioned my name her faculty members practically collapsed in terror. The idea that you could look at anything of mine was so frightening it couldn't happen. Which is standard. You can't think because that's too dangerous. Or you can't look at public opinion. You should see public opinion. It's amazing."
In what way? Just before last November's presidential election, he says, two of America's most prestigious public attitude monitoring institutions - the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations - published studies which showed that both political parties, the media and what he calls "the decent left" are far to the right of the American public on most major issues. "I'm right in the mainstream," says Chomsky. "And, of course, it wasn't reported."
"The major facts were just suppressed," he says. "Actually, these two reports were reported in two local papers in the country and a couple of op eds. That's it. In the entire country. The most important information possible right before an election."
What the reports showed, he explains, was that the American public are strongly opposed to the use of force, except in terms of the UN Charter, and in the face of imminent attack. "The public wants the UN, not the US, to take the lead in an international crisis," says Chomsky. "That includes reconstruction, security and so on in Iraq. A majority of the public is actually in favour of giving up the veto at the UN so the US would go along with the majority. An overwhelming majority supports the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, so enthusiastically that Bush voters assumed that he was in favour of it, because it was so obviously the right thing to do.
"The same huge majority is in favour of joining the International Criminal Court. A large majority of the population takes it to be a moral issue for the government to provide health care for everybody. It goes on and on like this. The public is far to the left of anything in the establishment."
Come the elections, he says, the public suffered from mass delusion. They didn't understand what the candidates stood for. What they were voting for was imagery. "Elections are run by the public relations industry; the same guys who sell toothpaste." Issues don't register on the radar. "You don't talk about what the candidates stand for, what you have is John Kerry goose-hunting and riding his motorcycle and George Bush pretending to be a simple kind of guy, who chops wood and takes care of his cattle.
"And plays golf?
"No, no. You don't push that too much, that's elitist. He is supposedto be an ordinary guy. Take a look at him! His sleeves are rolled up; he's just getting ready to go back to the ranch. You don't present him as what he is: a spoiled frat boy from Yale who only got somewhere because of his parents."
Chomsky, one suspects, could continue in this vein ad nauseam. Even now, at an age when most people would rather be in a gated Florida compound than constantly locking horns with the establishment, he persists in banging his head against closed doors. In the US, he is either a pariah or a prophet, "a kind of modern-day soothsayer", according to his biographer Robert Barsky.
"Unlike many leftists of his generation," says Barsky, "Chomsky never flirted with movements or organisations that were later revealed to be totalitarian, oppressive, exclusionary, anti-revolutionary, and elitist. He has very little to regret. His work, in fact, contains some of the most accurate analyses of this century."
Nobody can deny Chomsky's commitment to the cause of truth. His father was a renowned Hebrew scholar who emigrated from the Ukraine to theUnited States in 1913 to avoid being drafted into the army. His motherwas also a Hebrew scholar and wrote children's books. Chomsky was born in Philadelphia in 1928, and his precocity was nurtured at an experimental elementary school. By 10, he was reading the proofs of his father's edition of a 13th-century Hebrew grammar, and writing about the rise of fascism in Spain for his school newspaper. As a teenager he would often take a train from Philadelphia to New York to visit his uncle, who had a newspaper stand and a changeable political viewpoint. "First he was a follower of Trotsky," Chomsky says, "then he was an anti-Trotskyite. He also taught himself so much Freud he wound up as a lay psychoanalyst with a penthouse apartment."
At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Chomsky met his mentor, Zellig Harris, a politically active professor of linguistics. It was Harris who dissuaded him from abandoning his studies and going to Israel where the new state was in formation. In 1956, at an MIT symposium on information theory, Chomsky presented a paper which overturned conventional linguistic wisdom. "Other linguists had said language had all the formal precision of mathematics," said George Miller, a psychologist who was in the audience, "but Chomsky was the first linguist to make good the claim."
Throughout his life, Chomsky has maintained his twin interests in politics and linguistics but it is the former which has consumed his energies in recent years and given him such a public profile. When he speaks, he says, crowds turn up in their thousands. In Sweden, the venue changed from a small hall to a football stadium. He turns down many more requests than he accepts. Rarely does he agree to appear on American television, because - as I can testify - he will not compromise by talking in sound bites. Proper discourse requires time to allow arguments to develop.
"You can only be on television if you have concision," he says. "That means you can say something between two commercials. That's a terrific technique of propaganda. On the rare occasions when I' m asked to be on television, I usually refuse for this reason. If you're gonna be asked a question, say, about terrorism and you're given three sentences between commercials, you've got two choices. You can repeat conventional ideology - you say, yeah, Iran supports terrorism. Or you can sound like you're from Neptune. You can say, yeah, the US is one of the leading terrorist states. The people have a right to ask what you mean. And so if it was a sane news channel - A-Jazeera, say - you could talk about it and explain what you mean. You're not allowed to do that in the United States."
On occasion, one suspects, Chomsky doth protest too much. Like fellow American "dissidents", such as Michael Moore and Gore Vidal, he may complain about the manipulative power of the media and government but he can hardly complain that he has been rendered voiceless. Indeed, these days the internet is a potent weapon in his armoury. He can't be both the most cited living person and marginalised.
There is little doubt, however, that his relentless monitoring of theAmerican media and his fundamental distrust of the denizens of Washington DC make him a formidable and eloquent adversary and, consequently, persona non grata in certain quarters. In general, he believes that the US should stay out of other countries' affairs. Bush's White House, he says, only believes in democracy when it serves American interests. The same guys who backed Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of the Shi'ites are the ones who ordered the invasion ofIraq.
He is in full flow, bashing Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the war in Iraq and US nominee for the presidency of the World Bank, rubbishing Tony Blair - "I suppose Hitler believed what he was saying too" - and recalling how, in 1985, Ronald Reagan declared a national emergency because he thought Nicaragua was about to march into Texas, when his assistant pokes her head round his door and says my 45-minute hour is up. On the way out, Chomsky draws my attention to a ghoulish painting hidden behind a filing cabinet.
"It's a terrific Rorschach test," he says menacingly. "When I ask people from North America what it is, nobody knows. When I ask people from South America, everybody knows. If you ask people from Europe, maybe 10% know. What it is, is Archbishop Romero on the 25th anniversary of his assassination [in El Salvador], six Latin American intellectuals - Jesuits - who were also murdered, all by elite forces armed and trained by the United States who also killed another 70,000people. Nobody knows a thing about it.
"Suppose it had been in Czechoslovakia. Suppose the Russians had murdered an archbishop and killed [Vaclav] Havel and half-a-dozen of his associates. Would we know about it? Yeah. We probably would have nuked them. But when we do it, it doesn't exist. It reminds me of the world."
Noam Chomsky will give the Gifford Lecture - Illegal but Legitimate: A Dubious Doctrine for the Times - at the McEwan Hall, Edinburgh, at5.15 pm on Tuesday, March 22, 2005
By: Alan Taylor
ON my way to meet Noam Chomsky in Boston, I pick up a copy of The American Prospect, whose cover features snarling caricatures of US Vice-President Dick Cheney, and of Chomsky: the man dubbed by Bono "the Elvis of academia". Cheney is presented as the proverbial bull in an international china shop, Chomsky is portrayed by this "magazine of liberal intelligence" as the epitome of high- minded dove-ish, misguided idealism. Chomsky, of course, is well used to such attacks. For every cloying article by a disciple, there is a rocket from the enemy camp revelling in his perceived failings and undermining his reputation, denigrating his scholarship as a linguist and joyfully repeating statements which, when taken out of context, seem tinged with fanaticism.
To his credit, Chomsky puts them all on his website, whether it's TheNew Yorker describing him as "the devil's accountant" and "one of the greatest minds of the 20th century", or The Nation, which lampooned him as "a very familiar kind of academic hack" whose career has been"the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findings". He stands accused of asserting that every US President since Franklin D Roosevelt should have been impeached as war criminals; of supporting the murderous Pol Pot regimein Cambodia; and of comparing Israel to the Third Reich.
Leaving behind red-brick Harvard, where the winter snow is at last beginningto melt, one enters a vast industrial estate. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Chomsky has been professor of modern languages and linguistics since 1976, is home to more than 10,000 students, each ofwhom pays around $50,000 a year for the privilege of studying at America's self-styled "ideas factory".
Chomsky, who at 76 is technically retired, inhabits a suite of office so verflowing with foreign translations of his books and dusty academic journals. A photograph of the British philosopher Bertrand Russell hangs above a door, as a picture of the Pope might decorate a priest's study. The professor, his gatekeeper says, has gone for a walk, but he should return soon, if he can find his way back. Apparently, he is exploring a hitherto uncharted underground route on the campus.
I am shown into his office, which looks as if it has been burgled. Papers are piled high and strewn on every available surface. On a desk are photographs of his grandchildren. Chomsky, who has been married to the same woman for more than half a century, has three children, two daughters - one of whom works for Oxfam, the other is a teacher - and a son, who is a software engineer. When finally he does appear, I am informed that my allotted hour has shrunk magically to 45 minutes. Interviewers, it's intimated, are lining up like planes on a runway waiting for take-off. "Don't take it personally," I'm told.
I remind Chomsky of his 1990 visit to Scotland, when he spoke on "self-determination and power" at the Pearce Institute in Govan, Glasgow. "You've got to remind me what this is about," says Chomsky. This does not seem a promising start. I remind him that he is coming to Edinburgh to deliver a Gifford Lecture. "I know that," he says, rather testily. "But who are you?"
Chomsky is quietly impatient, his voice subdued and crackly. He has retained his wavy hair, which flops over his ears, and he dresses likea style-unconscious academic - black trainers, white socks, denims, charity-shop jumper. To some interviewers he comes across as bitter and despairing but others, including me, find a seam of laconic humour beneath the serious, restrained manner. When he starts to talk he often forgets to stop and in the course of our foreshortened hour he proves as difficult to interrupt as the Queen's Christmas message. Wind him up and away he goes.
But with Chomsky it's hard to know where to begin. Having spent more than 50 years at the MIT, he is the author of dozens of books and countless articles. A decade ago, Nature mentioned him in the same breath as Darwin and Descartes. Among his modern peers are Einstein, Picasso and Freud. Apparently, only Shakespeare and the Bible have been cited in scholarly publications more often than Chomsky has been.His influence is equally formidable, including generations of media students and the likes of John Pilger, Harold Pinter, Naomi Klein and James Kelman.
"If Chomsky has a specialist subject," wrote Kelman, "then some would argue it is not linguistics, nor the philosophy of language, rather it is US global policy, with particular reference to the dissemination of all related knowledge."
Not all of Chomsky's devotees would agree with Kelman. Some, such as author and columnist Paul Johnson, wish he'd stuck with linguistics and kept his nose out of politics. Through his study of language and, in particular, syntax, Chomsky is credited with transforming the way foreign languages are taught through his theory of a "universal grammar", and of "revolutionizing our view of the mind". Several ofhis books, including Syntactic Structures and Theory Of Syntax, published in 1957 and 1965 respectively, are invariably referred to as essential documents, though they're hardly accessible to the layman.
Meanwhile Manufacturing Consent, which he co-wrote with Edward Herman in 1988, is on every rookie journalist's reading list. Chomsky is the sceptic's sceptic, believing that the true nature of the US's role in the world is distorted and hidden from the American people by the corporate-owned media elite and federal government representatives who protect business interests in order to get re-elected or keep their jobs in the administration. Though he reluctantly supported Democrat John Kerry's failed pitch for the presidency last November, Chomsky is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. From his perspective, there's not a lot to choose between them; they're both "business parties".
We begin by talking about the piece in The American Prospect. "It's the journal of what they modestly call 'the decent left'," he says, oozing contempt. "It's kind of moderate social democrat and they see themselves as embattled. You know, caught between two powerful forces which are crushing them. One is Dick Cheney, representing the WhiteHouse, the Pentagon, one of the most powerful forces in history, and the other one - an equal and opposite force - is me. Do you think any intellectual or academic in history has ever received such praise? I mean, it's way beyond the Nobel Prize. I already got someone to put it on the website. It tells you something about their attitudes. They're pathetic, frightened, cowardly little people."
Interesting, I note, that though his face is on the magazine's cover, his name is nowhere to be seen in the piece. "Oh, no, no, no," Chomsky says, grinning at my naivety, "you can't mention it. You can't mention anything. You can't read anything. All you can do is report gossip. So you heard some gossip saying that I was in favour of Pol Pot or I support Osama Bin Laden. That I'm in favour of [Slobodan] Milosevic. And then you heard it at a dinner party so it must be true. My previous interviewer is doing a documentary mainly on Palestine. She just got a PhD at New York University. She was telling me that if she ever so much as mentioned my name her faculty members practically collapsed in terror. The idea that you could look at anything of mine was so frightening it couldn't happen. Which is standard. You can't think because that's too dangerous. Or you can't look at public opinion. You should see public opinion. It's amazing."
In what way? Just before last November's presidential election, he says, two of America's most prestigious public attitude monitoring institutions - the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations - published studies which showed that both political parties, the media and what he calls "the decent left" are far to the right of the American public on most major issues. "I'm right in the mainstream," says Chomsky. "And, of course, it wasn't reported."
"The major facts were just suppressed," he says. "Actually, these two reports were reported in two local papers in the country and a couple of op eds. That's it. In the entire country. The most important information possible right before an election."
What the reports showed, he explains, was that the American public are strongly opposed to the use of force, except in terms of the UN Charter, and in the face of imminent attack. "The public wants the UN, not the US, to take the lead in an international crisis," says Chomsky. "That includes reconstruction, security and so on in Iraq. A majority of the public is actually in favour of giving up the veto at the UN so the US would go along with the majority. An overwhelming majority supports the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, so enthusiastically that Bush voters assumed that he was in favour of it, because it was so obviously the right thing to do.
"The same huge majority is in favour of joining the International Criminal Court. A large majority of the population takes it to be a moral issue for the government to provide health care for everybody. It goes on and on like this. The public is far to the left of anything in the establishment."
Come the elections, he says, the public suffered from mass delusion. They didn't understand what the candidates stood for. What they were voting for was imagery. "Elections are run by the public relations industry; the same guys who sell toothpaste." Issues don't register on the radar. "You don't talk about what the candidates stand for, what you have is John Kerry goose-hunting and riding his motorcycle and George Bush pretending to be a simple kind of guy, who chops wood and takes care of his cattle.
"And plays golf?
"No, no. You don't push that too much, that's elitist. He is supposedto be an ordinary guy. Take a look at him! His sleeves are rolled up; he's just getting ready to go back to the ranch. You don't present him as what he is: a spoiled frat boy from Yale who only got somewhere because of his parents."
Chomsky, one suspects, could continue in this vein ad nauseam. Even now, at an age when most people would rather be in a gated Florida compound than constantly locking horns with the establishment, he persists in banging his head against closed doors. In the US, he is either a pariah or a prophet, "a kind of modern-day soothsayer", according to his biographer Robert Barsky.
"Unlike many leftists of his generation," says Barsky, "Chomsky never flirted with movements or organisations that were later revealed to be totalitarian, oppressive, exclusionary, anti-revolutionary, and elitist. He has very little to regret. His work, in fact, contains some of the most accurate analyses of this century."
Nobody can deny Chomsky's commitment to the cause of truth. His father was a renowned Hebrew scholar who emigrated from the Ukraine to theUnited States in 1913 to avoid being drafted into the army. His motherwas also a Hebrew scholar and wrote children's books. Chomsky was born in Philadelphia in 1928, and his precocity was nurtured at an experimental elementary school. By 10, he was reading the proofs of his father's edition of a 13th-century Hebrew grammar, and writing about the rise of fascism in Spain for his school newspaper. As a teenager he would often take a train from Philadelphia to New York to visit his uncle, who had a newspaper stand and a changeable political viewpoint. "First he was a follower of Trotsky," Chomsky says, "then he was an anti-Trotskyite. He also taught himself so much Freud he wound up as a lay psychoanalyst with a penthouse apartment."
At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Chomsky met his mentor, Zellig Harris, a politically active professor of linguistics. It was Harris who dissuaded him from abandoning his studies and going to Israel where the new state was in formation. In 1956, at an MIT symposium on information theory, Chomsky presented a paper which overturned conventional linguistic wisdom. "Other linguists had said language had all the formal precision of mathematics," said George Miller, a psychologist who was in the audience, "but Chomsky was the first linguist to make good the claim."
Throughout his life, Chomsky has maintained his twin interests in politics and linguistics but it is the former which has consumed his energies in recent years and given him such a public profile. When he speaks, he says, crowds turn up in their thousands. In Sweden, the venue changed from a small hall to a football stadium. He turns down many more requests than he accepts. Rarely does he agree to appear on American television, because - as I can testify - he will not compromise by talking in sound bites. Proper discourse requires time to allow arguments to develop.
"You can only be on television if you have concision," he says. "That means you can say something between two commercials. That's a terrific technique of propaganda. On the rare occasions when I' m asked to be on television, I usually refuse for this reason. If you're gonna be asked a question, say, about terrorism and you're given three sentences between commercials, you've got two choices. You can repeat conventional ideology - you say, yeah, Iran supports terrorism. Or you can sound like you're from Neptune. You can say, yeah, the US is one of the leading terrorist states. The people have a right to ask what you mean. And so if it was a sane news channel - A-Jazeera, say - you could talk about it and explain what you mean. You're not allowed to do that in the United States."
On occasion, one suspects, Chomsky doth protest too much. Like fellow American "dissidents", such as Michael Moore and Gore Vidal, he may complain about the manipulative power of the media and government but he can hardly complain that he has been rendered voiceless. Indeed, these days the internet is a potent weapon in his armoury. He can't be both the most cited living person and marginalised.
There is little doubt, however, that his relentless monitoring of theAmerican media and his fundamental distrust of the denizens of Washington DC make him a formidable and eloquent adversary and, consequently, persona non grata in certain quarters. In general, he believes that the US should stay out of other countries' affairs. Bush's White House, he says, only believes in democracy when it serves American interests. The same guys who backed Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of the Shi'ites are the ones who ordered the invasion ofIraq.
He is in full flow, bashing Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the war in Iraq and US nominee for the presidency of the World Bank, rubbishing Tony Blair - "I suppose Hitler believed what he was saying too" - and recalling how, in 1985, Ronald Reagan declared a national emergency because he thought Nicaragua was about to march into Texas, when his assistant pokes her head round his door and says my 45-minute hour is up. On the way out, Chomsky draws my attention to a ghoulish painting hidden behind a filing cabinet.
"It's a terrific Rorschach test," he says menacingly. "When I ask people from North America what it is, nobody knows. When I ask people from South America, everybody knows. If you ask people from Europe, maybe 10% know. What it is, is Archbishop Romero on the 25th anniversary of his assassination [in El Salvador], six Latin American intellectuals - Jesuits - who were also murdered, all by elite forces armed and trained by the United States who also killed another 70,000people. Nobody knows a thing about it.
"Suppose it had been in Czechoslovakia. Suppose the Russians had murdered an archbishop and killed [Vaclav] Havel and half-a-dozen of his associates. Would we know about it? Yeah. We probably would have nuked them. But when we do it, it doesn't exist. It reminds me of the world."
Noam Chomsky will give the Gifford Lecture - Illegal but Legitimate: A Dubious Doctrine for the Times - at the McEwan Hall, Edinburgh, at5.15 pm on Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
INSTEAD OF VAT HIKE GO AFTER EVADERS, IMPROVE COLLECTION
MEDIA RELEASE
IBON Foundation, Inc.
3/F SCC Bldg 4427 Interior Old Sta Mesa, Manila, Philippines
Tel. +632 713-2729, +632 713-2737 E-mail: media@ibon.org
References: Rosario Bella Guzman (Executive Director)
Antonio Tujan (Research Director)
March 16, 2005
Instead of hoping for the approval of the value-added tax (VAT) bill before Senate takes its recess, government can work on other pro-people revenue measures like improving tax collection and going after tax evaders.
Research group IBON Foundation advises the Arroyo administration not to be too fixated on the VAT bill approval because there are other ways for government to raise revenues. One is to plug leakages in tax collection, as government data reveals that the average VAT leakage for the period of 1998 to 2002 was P41.6 billion. This is 30% of the country’s potential tax due.
Government data also shows that there is a high level of tax evasion among corporate taxpayers, which amounted to an annual average of P54 billion, or a tax evasion rate of 38% of potential tax due. Going after tax evaders, and thus improving direct taxation is a more reasonable measure than pushing for indirect taxation schemes like VAT.
VAT itself is inherently inequitable due to its indirect nature. It imposes a uniform tax rate on all taxpayers regardless of their incomes or ability to pay. This goes against the basic principle of taxation that it must be equitable. Worse, the income from these taxes does not go back to taxpayers in the form of social services, but to debt payment.
The Arroyo administration has vowed to match the public’s sacrifice of paying higher taxes with a commitment to cut government excess spending, fight graft and corruption and prosecute tax cheats. But these are policies that government should be pursuing rather than implementing new tax measures. It is unjust for government to offer its commitment to these policies in exchange for the public’s support for a VAT increase.
Given the increasing difficulty of making ends meet as prices continue to rise and wages remain stagnant, any additional tax burden would only serve to drive the majority of the people further into poverty and debt. Thus aside from improving tax collection and going after tax evaders, government should explore other pro-people measures like reforming its debt management, addressing graft and corruption and reimposing tariffs to specially-sensitive products. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc.
3/F SCC Bldg 4427 Interior Old Sta Mesa, Manila, Philippines
Tel. +632 713-2729, +632 713-2737 E-mail: media@ibon.org
References: Rosario Bella Guzman (Executive Director)
Antonio Tujan (Research Director)
March 16, 2005
Instead of hoping for the approval of the value-added tax (VAT) bill before Senate takes its recess, government can work on other pro-people revenue measures like improving tax collection and going after tax evaders.
Research group IBON Foundation advises the Arroyo administration not to be too fixated on the VAT bill approval because there are other ways for government to raise revenues. One is to plug leakages in tax collection, as government data reveals that the average VAT leakage for the period of 1998 to 2002 was P41.6 billion. This is 30% of the country’s potential tax due.
Government data also shows that there is a high level of tax evasion among corporate taxpayers, which amounted to an annual average of P54 billion, or a tax evasion rate of 38% of potential tax due. Going after tax evaders, and thus improving direct taxation is a more reasonable measure than pushing for indirect taxation schemes like VAT.
VAT itself is inherently inequitable due to its indirect nature. It imposes a uniform tax rate on all taxpayers regardless of their incomes or ability to pay. This goes against the basic principle of taxation that it must be equitable. Worse, the income from these taxes does not go back to taxpayers in the form of social services, but to debt payment.
The Arroyo administration has vowed to match the public’s sacrifice of paying higher taxes with a commitment to cut government excess spending, fight graft and corruption and prosecute tax cheats. But these are policies that government should be pursuing rather than implementing new tax measures. It is unjust for government to offer its commitment to these policies in exchange for the public’s support for a VAT increase.
Given the increasing difficulty of making ends meet as prices continue to rise and wages remain stagnant, any additional tax burden would only serve to drive the majority of the people further into poverty and debt. Thus aside from improving tax collection and going after tax evaders, government should explore other pro-people measures like reforming its debt management, addressing graft and corruption and reimposing tariffs to specially-sensitive products. (end)
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
State Terrorism
From: SOUNDING BOARD
By: JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, SJ
We should not forget that states can perpetrate more horrifying terror. Remember Samar, Dresden, Hiroshima.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position ofdisparity [US military-economic supremacy]. . . To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. . . . We should cease to talk about vague and. . . unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization.
Theday is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, US StateDepartment, 1948.
Terrorism is a favorite topic especially after 9/11 when more than 3,000 innocent lives perished in a flash in New York. It was terrorism perpetrated by nonstate agents. We should not forget that states can perpetrate more horrifying terror. The other night I watched the The Fog of War, an award-winning documentary where former US secretary of defense Robert McNamara was the main actor. It was a reminder of the horrors of World War II.
Early in the documentary McNamara narrated how in 1962 the UnitedStates was within a hair-breadth away from nuclear war where one ofthe options was the complete annihilation of Cuba. Fortunately, diplomacy prevented it. But we need to recall horrors that had happened before.
Remember Dresden. In February 1945, within less than 14 hours Dresden, a defenseless German city, was scorched by military bombers killing about a third of its inhabitants, possibly half-a-million innocent lives.
Remember Tokyo and other Japanese cities. Thousands of people perished under rain of firebombs dropped by US bombers. This was even beforeNagasaki and Hiroshima. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki's time came150,000 died instantly and thousands more by the slow, horrible death from radiation.
The US won the war. Japan surrendered. Germany, too, was defeated.
Military leaders of Germany and Japan were tried for war crimes. ButRobert McNamara himself observed that, if the United States had lost the war, American leaders would have been tried for war crimes!
It was happening even before World War II. In 1899 Filipinos fought American soldiers equipped with superior firepower. The death toll among Filipinos was enormous, and some provinces had horror stories to tell. Samar, for instance, had a General Smith.
A historian reports the testimony of a Marine Major: "The major said that General Smith instructed [a soldier] to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness.
"Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied 'Everything over ten."
Mark Twain commented: "We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining 10 millions by benevolent assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the 300 concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. " And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power."
Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence? "No. Experts agree thatthere is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends." And states can be the more dangerous terrorists. ###
By: JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, SJ
We should not forget that states can perpetrate more horrifying terror. Remember Samar, Dresden, Hiroshima.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position ofdisparity [US military-economic supremacy]. . . To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. . . . We should cease to talk about vague and. . . unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization.
Theday is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, US StateDepartment, 1948.
Terrorism is a favorite topic especially after 9/11 when more than 3,000 innocent lives perished in a flash in New York. It was terrorism perpetrated by nonstate agents. We should not forget that states can perpetrate more horrifying terror. The other night I watched the The Fog of War, an award-winning documentary where former US secretary of defense Robert McNamara was the main actor. It was a reminder of the horrors of World War II.
Early in the documentary McNamara narrated how in 1962 the UnitedStates was within a hair-breadth away from nuclear war where one ofthe options was the complete annihilation of Cuba. Fortunately, diplomacy prevented it. But we need to recall horrors that had happened before.
Remember Dresden. In February 1945, within less than 14 hours Dresden, a defenseless German city, was scorched by military bombers killing about a third of its inhabitants, possibly half-a-million innocent lives.
Remember Tokyo and other Japanese cities. Thousands of people perished under rain of firebombs dropped by US bombers. This was even beforeNagasaki and Hiroshima. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki's time came150,000 died instantly and thousands more by the slow, horrible death from radiation.
The US won the war. Japan surrendered. Germany, too, was defeated.
Military leaders of Germany and Japan were tried for war crimes. ButRobert McNamara himself observed that, if the United States had lost the war, American leaders would have been tried for war crimes!
It was happening even before World War II. In 1899 Filipinos fought American soldiers equipped with superior firepower. The death toll among Filipinos was enormous, and some provinces had horror stories to tell. Samar, for instance, had a General Smith.
A historian reports the testimony of a Marine Major: "The major said that General Smith instructed [a soldier] to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness.
"Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied 'Everything over ten."
Mark Twain commented: "We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining 10 millions by benevolent assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the 300 concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. " And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power."
Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence? "No. Experts agree thatthere is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends." And states can be the more dangerous terrorists. ###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
