Fats, Vitamins and Minerals

Ex-Philippine President Joseph Estrada has been pardoned by his successor Gloria Arroyo, just weeks after he was jailed for life for corruption. As part of the deal, Estrada guaranteed he would not seek office again - fueling accusations that Mrs Arroyo’s move was politically motivated.

Here, readers from the Philippines discuss what is behind the move and what implications it will have for the country’s politics.

Four short statements are published on the website. Here is a short quote from each:

“With so many Filipinos opening up to the realities of more important global issues, I think that Philippine politics will slowly move into a new era of pragmatism and maturity.”

“If Estrada’s removal was symbolic of our desire for a change for the better, then his pardon is symbolic of the fact that so very little has changed.”

“Some people of power - and mercy - have learnt to tactically use what is right and corrupt it for their own private gain.”

“In this country everything is so distorted and confused because every leader in our history has twisted the law for their own convenience.”

In my view, the two middle quotes describe the internal situation in fairly accurate and general terms -while the first and last quotes seem (in opposite ways) to contexualise the situation in more “international” terms. To sum up:

Nothing has changed -because some people have learned to take good things and use them badly (as is also stated in one of the quotes in the article). The question that then remains (for me) is: Is this purely a “local” issue -as suggested in the last quote -and will the situation be trully improved through a more international and pragmatic
maturity?

As an outsider, I too am fascinated by these issues, especially the relationship between “global” and “local” culture (if the latter can still be said to exist in any meaningful way). As a result of this interest I have read and taken notes from: The Erap Tragedy: Tales From the Snake Pit by Aprodicio A. Laquian, Eleanor R. Laquian ISBN 971-27-1184-6 (NP). Some short (perhaps key) excepts follow. For simplicity (and perhaps copyright reasons) I have left out most of the references to poverty, nationalism, civil society and the military -which I suspect most local readers already know.

Philippine Political Traditions (p 138)

“Philippine political tradition entitled each congress member or senator to a pork barrel allocation, depending on his or her party affiliation, the number of electors in the constituency, how these electors voted in previous elections, personal closeness and clout with the president, and other factors. These pork barrel allocations were indicated as lump sum amounts in the president’s general appropriations bill. Hundreds of millions of pesos were also hidden in specific development funds under the care of the specific ministries (roads and bridges in transportation and highways, ports, airports and harbours in
public works, hospitals and clinics, in health, public school buildings, gymnasiums and parks and playgrounds in education, sports and culture, etc.). Since each legislator usually had a long shopping list of pork barrel projects, there was always a shortage of funds for implementing them. The president, supported by his Budget director, directly controlled the purse strings so legislators took care to be on his good side so the spigot would not be turned off on their projects.”

Social Stratification: (p 231)

Economic progress, industrialisation, and increasing globalization have deeply influenced social stratification in the Philippines. Human interrelationships have become more complex in large cities like Manila, Cebu, and Davao. Commerce, trade and the important role of government have contributed to the emergence of a new wealthy class whose attributes are not derived from family, land ownership, or ascribed status and prestige. In turn, rural and urban differentiation have become more pronounced as more cities expanded in population and economic activities. However, one can still say that the main issue in Philippine society and politics is the widening chasm between the rich and the poor (Balisacan 1994: 26-27).

Finding Resources in a poor economy: (p 204-5)

While he was mayor of San Juan, Erap was said to have used some jueteng money for the common good. He allegedly used it to cement the roads, increase the salaries of policemen and teachers, build schools and health centers, provide free medical care, and even to pay for the burial of the poor. For these and many other accomplishments, Erap won prestigious awards and was re-elected mayor four times……

…..There are some people who may not agree that the end justifies the means. They would argue that ill-gotten wealth should not be used for any public purpose because that would be immoral, even if it can be justified as legal. If this puritanical argument is used, however, it would be practically impossible for many local officials to carry out their functions. Their salaries are pitifully low. Their local government incomes are usually inadequate to meet even basic services. Philippine political practices, however, expect these local officials to extend personal assistance to their constituents. Where will they get the money for the extra expenses?

The Essential Assistant: (p 123)

“Among the members of the Ejercito clan, Erap had depended most on his brother-in-law, Raul de Guzman. From the time he was mayor of San Juan, Erap had been assisted by Raul in policy analysis, training, selecting key individuals for apointments to important positions, and other tasks.

In 1996, however, Raul had a stroke and encountered some difficulty in getting around and expressing himself. Still he set up a policy studies group that met regularly to thrash out policy options for the president. As presidential advisor on development administration, he looked after sensitive issues that usually fell outside the jusistiction of Cabinet ministers. He headed the Erap sa Mahirap Foundation and the controversial Muslim Youth Foundation with the serious desire to help the president. But because of Raul’s diminished capacity, the president started relying more and more on the advice and help of other people, not all of whom had the same selfless interest as Raul in protecting the president’s image and the honor of the Ejercito family.”

Accomplices? (p 204)

If proven to be true, the prosecutors’ allegations that Estrada maintained multibillion-peso secret bank accounts in the past two and a half years will show how easy it is to launder money in the Philippines. The “Jose Velarde” accounts were opened with the apparent collusion of some senior bank officials. Estrada was the only one accused, although he still insists that he was innocent. But one wonders how many of his cronies also maintained secret accounts in these banks to hide their dirty money, and how will they be dealt with?

Naive Assumptions (p 307)

One of the naive assumptions of the Estrada campaign was that by going to his Chinoy supporters, Erap would be able to win the election without incurring too many political IOUs. He would not be encumbered by the demands of tens of thousands of local political leaders and ward heelers who, in the Philippines, traditionally decided political outcomes. Thus freed from these entanglements, Erap’s supporters hoped that he would be able to pursue developmental policies that would not be based on corrupt deals and political compromises. The pro-poor promises and programs of Erap would be pursued without the usual cuts and kickbacks to local politicians. The usual pork barrel allocations to congress members and senators could only be used for truly developmental projects that would directly benefit the poor. Erap would not need to accommodate the political kingmakers and big donors and thus could devote all his efforts to lifting the poor out of poverty.

Friendly Rewards (p 308)

As president, Erap had the power to appoint individuals to more than 6,000 positions in all branches of government and, in true Filipino fashion, he merrily accomodated friends, relatives, political supporters, and favor seekers until the list of advisors, assistants, consultants, and aides became so long that it had to be kept highly confidential. Erap was a guy who couldn’t say no.People who had helped him win the presidency (and those who claimed that they did) had to be be rewarded. Influence peddlers opened doors for investors and contractors to Malacanyang and they also had to be accomodated.

My personal conclusion (without going into the legal issues regarding evidence presented at the trial -which may or may not be a fair picture) is that, if I was a jury member (basing my conclusion on the book and my personal experience) I could not easily convict Erap as a vicious perpetrator and master-mind. Perhaps he was simply the unlucky (13th) president -who, being outside the traditional political structure. became the “fall-guy” for reactionary forces protecting personal interests within a structural network of “pork barrel”
politics. Clearly, he could not have acted alone -it is inconceivable that neither those who caused his downfall by supporting his “corruption” or those who caused his downfall by opposing it, can have clean hands. Presumably, the political structure of the Philippines does not exist in a vacuum. Its structure is also based very much on the political (and economic) system of its former coloniser, the USA.

Economically and politically, the Philippines survives within a nexus of international trade and politics created and maintained by “the international community”. The income of the Philipppines seems to be largely built on the export of foreign workers to richer countries - who’s own economies presumably profit (more) from the import of cheap labour (and in fact might not even survive without it). In turn, the rich countries are able to exploit countries like the Philippines by selling expensive (useless and often socially damaging) consumer goods to rich and poor alike. Ultimately, (whoever is in power) many expensive projects undertaken (and used to fill the pork barrel) by the Philippine government are collaborative projects involving international finance -both supporting and supported by the international infrastructure.

Within a fundamentally corrupt system -it is difficult to escape contamination. To be honest, I’m not sure that if I was in Erap’s position I wouldn’t also ignore the whole system and set up a “black” fund -to pay for effective but privately run social projects organised by a few friends that I could trust. As a matter of fact, several years ago, in Holland, the director of a nature reserve used exactly that technique to effectively manage his reserve with limited governemnt funds. Initially, he too was the star of conservation conferences -until he was charged with corruption (and eventually acquitted).

Maybe Erap really did mean well, but was unable to control the corrupt genie once he let it out of the bottle. Maybe if Raul de Guzman had not been taken so dramatically ill -then Erap would still be a hero…. or maybe not. However, one can surely conclude that “globalisation” is not a sophisticated solution to naive local politics -in fact, it is probably more the problem than the solution.

From BBC News-Asia Pacific:

“Given all the allegations of corruption against Arroyo, I think that she is the wrong person to use the wisdom of executive clemency.

It is not a question of whether it is right or wrong to pardon Estrada - she is the wrong person to do it.

Any criminal must be punished for their deeds in accordance with the law. But the law also favours mercy as well as justice, and that mercy is especially biased towards the poor, the underclass.

When President Arroyo’s own pardon powers were being awaited by poor female prisoners over the age of 70 last year, she took so long that some of these women died before she could pardon them. And some of these women were in prison for crimes as small as smoking pot.

But it took her only six weeks to pardon a rich, powerful and immensely popular man, who has been convicted for plundering the nation.

A pardon is more an act of grace than an act of law. But when you give the wrong person the right means then the right means will turn out the wrong way.

Some people of power - and mercy - have learnt to tactically use what is right and corrupt it for their own private gain.”

Below are interview questions and my replies on the subject matter of “online publishing” sent to me a few days ago by a staff member of an academic community newsletter. While I am no longer a member of the academia, I was approached more as a member of the editorial board of the Leonardo Electronic Almanac.

I have kept my replies to the interview brief and concise, intending to touch on issues that I consider important. If you are interested in expanding the dialogues, you are most welcome to do so.

Fatima Lasay

1. What to you is online publishing? What areas does it cover? How is it different from traditional print (not just in terms of medium, but in terms of methodology)? What are its advantages over the other (print)?

The implementation of the online system dates back to hypertext technology research at Stanford Labs in 1965, with the “NLS Journal” as probably the first online journal. In this context, “online publishing” today could simply be an industry term for one of the numerous commercial and non-commercial exploitations of hypertext technology and the online system.

“fineArt Forum”, for example, started in 1988 as an experiment by the Leonardo Art Science and Technology journal on the potentials of hypertext (and later “hypermedia”) technology. In 1992, Leonardo inaugurated the “Leonardo Electronic Almanac” as the electronic arm of the print journal. Evidently, sending and receiving information through the electronic networks presented new advantages to the print publishing world, especially when the electronic network expanded from local network emails to the World Wide Web.

2. What specific materials can be published online? Are you free to publish just about anything? Who makes the distinction? Who filters?

The “Leonardo Electronic Almanac” (LEA) publishes writing by artists and scholars about their work in art, science and technology. LEA especially gives opportunities for young artists and scholars in the field. As with any academic publishing system, we have an editorial team and external consultants who work together with readers and authors in determining the content and direction of LEA.

3. What are the potentials of online publishing in an academic community? What is your view regarding moves to widen scholarship through online media? Is it even possible?

It was the academic and research community that pioneered the online system and online publishing over 40 years ago. So any active academic community involved in dynamic debates whether through face to face dialogues, academic papers and journals, field and laboratory research or exhibitions, should know that online systems have the significant
potential of expanding the debates within and outside the community.

The technology has been there and has been used for decades; the most powerful obstacle to widening scholarship in the academic community is not technical but political.

4. Do we follow the same rules of strict scholarship standards in online journals? How is this made possible?

It is not really very difficult to map the print paradigm to the online. At LEA, we follow the same standards established by the Leonardo print journal, a pioneer in the field of art, science and technology when it started publishing nearly 40 years ago. However, I think the real challenge is how the online system re-defines not only the print paradigm but also the very basis and standards of scholarship as they have been shaped for centuries by the “Gutenberg revolution.”

Many have a media-based bias towards what accounts for good scholarship and research; specifically, many in the academic community still believe that only the printed book and journal qualifies for good scholarship and a reputable venue for publication. But the fact is, many born-digital monographs are as and even more intellectually vigorous as those seen in print.

5. What about the dangers or difficulties commonly encountered? Are such issues as plagiarism, copyright concerns and intellectual dishonesty, valid concerns? Do we follow a certain rules of practice or ethic?

LEA, as with the print journal, employs the blind peer review process. But we know that peer review is a very subjective process, although it has been used over the last century in judging the quality of research. There are principles of conduct in the peer review process in research and scholarship (i.e. competency, security, effectiveness, responsiveness and responsibility, constructiveness, etc.), and in some countries, peer review may be governed by federal regulations.

But given the biases and limitations of peer review, I think that the peer review process should be re-defined, in particular, through the mechanism of instantaneous feedback, back tracking, versioning and (machine-readable) copyleft licenses, enabled by online systems. The electronic network should also allow the wider intellectual community to participate in the peer review process and not simply a selected number of “experts.”

6. Finally, what advise would you give to colleagues in the profession or students who are planning to venture into online publishing?

Let us try to work towards genuine dialogue and openness even if there are emotional and political restraints imposed upon us by the academic establishment. The mechanism of feedback is tremendously useful in the blogging community, for example, and despite the current frenzy, we should be able to use it creatively and intelligently.