Support Reproductive Health (RH) Bill & Senator Pia Cayetano! Philippine Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile shoots down move to tackle RH bill.

My Comments:

I believe the RH Bill in the Philippines is pro-women, pro-poor, pro-life and supports the needs of Philippine socio-economic development.

Let us strongly support the RH Bill and the enlightened senators such as Pia Cayetano, Miriam Defensor Santiago and others who courageously champion this legislation for family planning in the Philippines.

(Photograph of the progressive and courageous Senator Pia Cayetano from misternow.deviantart.com)




(The controversial Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who is not supporting the much-needed RH Bill)



Here below is a disturbing news report today by GMA 7:

Enrile shoots down move by Pia Cayetano to tackle RH bill

November 13, 2012 4:29pm

 

— Kimberly Jane Tan/KBK, GMA News

 

A move to advance the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill in the Senate was immediately shot down — by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile himself — on Tuesday afternoon, further damping hopes on its immediate passage.
 
During the day's session, RH bill co-sponsor Sen. Pia Cayetano asked that the two-year-old bill be tackled for at least 30 minutes before they go on to other priority measures, like the sin tax bill and the proposed budget for 2013.
 
"I have stated before that I fully support the prioritization of the sin tax bill and the budget, but I would also like to put on record that the RH bill has been pending for almost two years and what I would like to request our colleagues is that we find time to also finish this measure," she told her colleagues on the floor.
 
The RH measure is in the period of amendments in the Senate, after which senators can vote to pass it on second reading.
 
But Cayetano said since there are only a few senators who will be seeking amendments, they would only need less than an hour to tackle the controversial measure.
 
The three senators who manifested their intention to seek amendments are Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III, and Senator Ralph Recto.
 
Enrile, however, said Cayetano should not complain if a bill is not being tackled.
 
"I have also a bill here that has been pending for 10 years and I am waiting for it to be discussed in this chamber,” Enrile told Cayetano. “I never complained and I don't think there is anyone who can compel any senator to jump simply because they want him to jump."
 
"I'm ready to defend my position in any debate here so I hope that they will understand that I'm not ready yet to propose an amendment," he added.
 
But when Cayetano asked him when he will be ready, he said: "I do not know, madam senator, when I'm ready."
 
Upon hearing this, Cayetano said she is ready to do what it takes to pass the measure. "I think it is also my right as a sponsor to defend this bill, which a lot of people are waiting for," she said.
 
Enrile, however, said he was not afraid of what she may do.
 
"I'm ready for any remedy that the gentle lady would like to take if you want to put into a vote [or] that I be censured or be kicked out as Senate president or I be outvoted so be it," he said.

 

 

My Comments on Senator Tito Sotto's alleged plagiarism? I recommend that he apologize with sincerety and without any additional unnecessary side comments. Please set leadership by example, especially to the youth of the Philippines and the world. Don't think of real life as a hilarious farce like his old Iskul Bukol TV comedy show!

Share your personal comments down below in the Comments section? or tweet me at @WilsonLeeFlores

Here are opinions of people in Philippine entertainment industry, who seem more sensible than our politicians:


Mo Twister ‏@djmotwister

tweeted this today:

Enrile said that Sotto's speech is protected by the Constitution. I wish I could use that excuse in a thesis paper defense. #Idiots

Paolo Paraiso ‏@PaoloParaiso tweeted this today

"Copying or imitation is the highest form of flattery but if it upsets the Kennedy family, well then I'm sorry..." - tito sotto ----wow....

Deo Angelo Valeroso ‏@RaileyValeroso

That Tito Sotto speech is an insult to our intelligence and it hurts us as a nation to have arrogantly ignorant politicians.

What is the real truth about China & Japan dispute on Diaoyu or Senkaku Isles?

My Comments:

I have been asked regarding the controversy over the Diaoyu or Senkaku isles which have caused renewed conflicts between China, Taiwan on one side and Japan on the orther side.

I came across informations from the blog of Harvard and Oxford alumnus, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, and would like to share with you.

Nicholas Kristof laments the position of his country USA for apparently siding with Japan, when he said the preponderance of evidences point to China being correct in its sovereignty claim over the Diaoyu Islands.

Hopefully, both Asian countries can come to a peaceful settlement of this historic problem as soon as possible based on the historical truth, fairness and justice.




Here is the September 19, 2012 article by Nicholas Kristof and scholar Han-Yi Shaw :

---

September 19, 2012, 7:38 pm454 Comments

The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

By HAN-YI SHAW

Han-yi ShawDiaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).

I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute  between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose.

Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China:  the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position.

I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling.

The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war.

This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan's purchase of the islands could spark an "extremely grave crisis" between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.

Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.

The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.

Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.

Japan Diplomatic Records Office.Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.”

The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.

In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”

Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.

Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.

Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source:  Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.

The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.

Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.

The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.

The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.

Update: The author would like to include an updated image of the Qing era documents that recorded, “Diaoyutai Island accommodates ten or more large ships”, as mentioned in his blog post.

National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan.Record of Missions to Taiwan Waters (1722), Gazetteer of Kavalan County (1852), and Pictorial Treatise of Taiwan Proper (1872).

Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.

Like talented Gibo Teodoro or visionary Manny Villar of the Philippines in 2010, America's losing presidential candidate the brilliant Mitt Romney shouldn't totally retreat or fade away from public life....

Here's an article which also shares my views:

Mitt Romney’s Fast Fade After Losing the 2012 Presidential Race

by Lauren Ashburn Nov 8, 2012 4:45 AM EST (The Daily Beast)

The entourage is gone and the press corps has decamped. Lauren Ashburn on why Romney is ready to shun the spotlight—and why he shouldn’t.

Willard Mitt Romney stood on the verge of ultimate power as leader of the free world. Now, just moments later, he is about to vanish from the political stage. Perhaps forever.

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney waves to supporters during his election night rally, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, in Boston. (Mary Altaffer / AP Photo)

So what’s a guy to do when booted from the national spotlight without a job? Well, if you’re Romney, you don’t have to do a whole hell of a lot. His millions spare him from worrying about putting food on the table.

In six months, will he be relegated to a mere historical footnote?

Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the bestselling book Cronkite, argues that life in politics is over for the man who could have been president. “There is no such thing as a Romney Republican,” Brinkley says. The former Massachusetts governor’s move to the center and his flip-flopping on such issues as abortion, health care, and tax cuts during the campaign left many wondering just exactly what he stands for. “He’s not going to be beloved by the conservative movement. Not when you lose when unemployment is 7.9 percent.”

The obvious place for Romney to hang his hat, says Brinkley, is back in the world of business, where the Republican made a fortune as an aggressive dealmaker at Bain Capital. “The only thing he seems proficient at is making himself money,” he says.

The former governor never seemed like a natural politician and may welcome the chance to retreat to the shadows. In his brief concession speech, he did not offer the usual bromides about fighting for his principles or staying involved in the political debate. He has spent the last six years running for president, only to have his hopes crushed just when he and his team were convinced he might win.

Watch Mitt Romney deliver the concession speech he said he wouldn't prepare.

“What gets you there is the kind of slobbering attention that is hard to turn off,” says Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University. “For two-plus years, to be in the center of an international feast of attention … I think there would be real withdrawal.”

Chris Lehane, a longtime Democratic strategist and top spokesman for Al Gore’s presidential campaign, calls this the “cricket dynamic.” “Everyone in the world is kissing the ring and essentially bowing down,” he says. When the billion-dollar business of running for president disappears virtually overnight, “suddenly the only ones around are the crickets.”

The loss of the Secret Service detail, the plane, the entourage, all add up to a big letdown. The candidate, says Lehane, is left thinking: “Where are the people who were my best friends just hours ago?” Romney no longer exerts an appeal on people who were seeking influence in his administration or perhaps land a plum ambassador’s job.

In his brief concession speech, Romney did not offer the usual bromides about fighting for his principles or staying involved in the political debate.

“It’s like a sports gig,” says Thompson. “After it’s over, we forget about the team that lost.”

Not to mention that the press corps was voracious until Tuesday about details of his family, his Mormonism, and his potential Cabinet appointees. But interest fades quickly in someone who most likely won’t be a future political player.

What’s more, Romney’s refusal to grant many interviews during the final weeks of his campaign strained relations with the fourth estate. “The media developed a low-simmering disdain for him,” says Brinkley.

Given the size of his bank account, Romney could start a foundation or launch a crusade if he wants to reclaim part of the spotlight. But doing so would require a thirst for issue advocacy that he has never displayed.

When Gore won the popular vote and lost the presidency, he delved into his passions for climate change and technology, ultimately winning a Nobel Prize. Former presidential candidates John Kerry and John McCain still their had jobs as senators to serve as platforms.

Many politicians who had taken a shellacking would retreat to their home base and start rebuilding a career. But Romney lost Massachusetts in a landslide, garnering only 38 percent of the vote. Of course, if he wants to return to his religious roots, there’s always Utah.

But by simply withdrawing from the public square, as George W. Bush has done, Romney would be squandering a prime opportunity. He could use his household-name status, personal wealth, and political experience to make a mark in any realm he chooses.

A man who sold himself to voters as an American success story owes the public more than a wave goodbye.

USA role in the World in this 21st Century, American views & My Personal Assessments

My Comments:

I believe it's wrong for not a few Western pundits to say that the United States of America (U.S.A.) will no longer be important in the world of this 21st century.

The U.S. still has a key role to play as global peacekkeper (in contrast to its old role seemingly as global "policeman"), as a catalyst of global economic growth and entrepreneurial creativity (the free enterprise system is still alive in America, somehow, but needs to be rekindled), and as a superpower (but no longer the only world superpower like before).

The Washington Post - February 25, 2010

Assessing the U.S. role in a 21st-century world

Americans broadly expect the country to have less influence in both world affairs and the world's economy in the 21st century, and they have a mixed take on what that shift could mean for the nation. Many say the century is likely to belong to China, though sizable numbers say it may yet turn out to be an "American Century."

 

Foreign direct investments plunge 83% in August

My Comments?

We in the Philippines need to urgently reform our anti-investor and quite xenophobic constitution, especially its antiquated economic provisions.

Marketing efforts and political reforms are not enough, we need to boldly push progressive and globally-competitive structural reforms in the Philippine economy to catch up with our Asean and Asian neighbors.

Wake up, our Philippine politicians and leaders! Even our historic strategic ally and former colonizer USA is pouring more foreign direct investments to their former war enemy and still officially Communist Vietnam than here to us in the most pro-American nation of the Philippines!

Here's the latest news report from Rappler.com:

(Photo of skyline of Makati financial center, Metro Manila, the Philippines)

by Rappler.com Posted on 11/12/2012 7:06 PM  | Updated 11/12/2012 7:06 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The global economic slowdown has dampened August foreign direct investments, an indicator of investor confidence and traditional sources of jobs.

Data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas showed that the net inflow of foreign direct investments (FDI) plunged 83% to $13 million in August from from $76 million a year ago.

"This reflected investors’ relatively cautious stance due to weak global economic prospects and financial strains in the advanced economies," the BSP said in a statement on Monday, November 12.

Key sources of FDI in August were the United States, Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Japan and Bermuda.

This brought the cumulative FDI in the first 9 months of 2012 to $1.038 billion, 61% higher than $644 million a year ago.

FDI, hot money that go to the capital markets, and remittances from Filipinos working abroad have kept the Philippines' balance of payments in surplus. - Rappler.com

Can the Philippines be a pivot state, instead of a shadow state, with a truly independent foreign policy?

Here's a thought-provoking essay by American scholar, strategic & global political risk analyst, Stanford-educated Columbia University professor, Eurasia Group (a top global political risk analyst & consulting firm) President  Dr. Ian Bremmer in the Harvard Business Review:

Which Countries Will Rise to the Top in a Leaderless World?

by Ian Bremmer  |  11:21 AM May 30, 2012 Harvard Business Review

Over the years, the phrase "emerging market" has become all but meaningless. No group that includes China, Argentina, Kenya, the Philippines, and Romania can possibly qualify as a single coherent class.



To pick the likeliest winners in this vast category, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs has given us the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and now South Africa), the "Next 11" (Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam) and, more recently, MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey). Robert Ward of the Economist Intelligence Unit has added the CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa.)

(Photo below: Jim O"Neill of Goldman Sachs coined "BRICS")



But all these constructions include a dizzyingly diverse set of economies that don't have much in common, and in any case the market conditions inside these countries tell only part of the story. In order to understand which nations are likeliest to emerge, we also need to look at changes underway across the global landscape.

We live in a crisis-prone age. In the past 44 months, we've endured the dips and gyrations of an international financial crisis, the worst economic slowdown since the 1930s, a wave of turmoil across North Africa and the Middle East, and Europe's worst crisis of confidence since the Second World War. Unfortunately, we can't expect smoother sailing in years to come because, for the first time in seven decades, we now live in a world without global leadership.






In the United States, a war-weary public is focused on jobs and debt, and taxpayers tell pollsters that America should focus on problems at home and mind its own business. Across the Atlantic, Europeans' fears for their economic future diminish their interest in the world beyond the region. America and Europe have overcome adversity before and are well equipped over the long run to do it again, but that won't happen this year or next.



Nor are China or other emerging powers ready to fill the leadership vacuum. Each of them faces too many complex development challenges at home to accept more costs and risks abroad.

So we've entered a period of transition. The old order, call it a U.S.-led G7 world, no longer reflects the true international balance of power. But there is not yet a new order to take its place. That's why global markets are in for an extended (and tumultuous) period of transition, one that's especially vulnerable to crises that appear suddenly and from unexpected directions. It's a G-Zero world.

Investors and business decision makers must understand this problem if they are to spot the era's winners, losers, opportunities, and risks.

The countries that are best positioned to prosper are those that are resilient as well as strong. Over the past 30 years, the winners were those states that adapted to profit from Western-led globalization. But in a world where no country is willing and able to play the consistent global leader, governments have to create more of their own opportunities. Bet on states that have good options.

That's why pivot states, those able to build profitable relationships with multiple partners without becoming overly reliant on any of them, are the likeliest winners in the G-Zero era.

Brazil will continue to enjoy excellent trade ties with the United States. But China is now its largest trade partner, helping Brazil's economy ride out the U.S. slowdown with minimal damage. NATO membership gives Turkey lasting influence in Brussels and Washington, and many in the Arab world look to Turkey as a dynamic, modern Muslim state. Add its position at the crossroads of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union, and Turkey has a range of political and commercial options. As in Brazil, this advantage helps absorb the sorts of shocks that are now all too commonplace.







Asia is home to several pivot states. Indonesia, with nearly 240 million people, enjoys a well-diversified economy with trade ties balanced among China, the United States, Japan, and Singapore. Vietnam receives most of its aid from Japan, its arms from Russia, and its tourists from China; its biggest export market is the United States.









Not all pivot states are developing countries. Far-sighted policy ensures that Canada is now less vulnerable to a slowdown in the United States. The percentage of Canada's exports to countries other than the U.S. jumped from 18% in 2005 to more than 25% just four years later, and Canada now draws nearly 40% of its imports from countries other than the United States. British Columbia exports more to Asia than to the U.S.




The likeliest losers in this more volatile world are shadow states, the opposite of pivots, those whose political and commercial possibilities are determined almost entirely by a single powerful partner. Mexico's largest sources of foreign currency are oil sales, tourism, and remittances from nationals working abroad. In all three cases, the vast majority of that currency comes from the United States, and there's no evidence that will change anytime soon. The fates of its economy and standard of living are linked tightly with the health of its giant neighbor.

Shadow states aren't like Cold War-era satellites, countries where government was thoroughly dominated by a foreign power. Mexico's domestic- and foreign-policy choices are determined by its political process, not the demands of a domineering sponsor. But when compared with Canada, Mexico's commercial opportunities and the speed of its development are largely defined by conditions inside one foreign country.



Ukraine, another shadow state, wants to escape Russia's gravitational pull and become a pivot state, preserving relations with Moscow while building new ties with Europe. In fact, Kyiv wants to ink a free-trade deal with the European Union. But Russia has threatened to sharply increase the price of natural gas shipments to Ukraine and throw up new trade barriers if Kyiv moves forward with Europe. The EU, for its part, will end trade talks with Ukraine if it joins a customs union with Russia. Ukraine can't win because it can't pivot. It lacks the strength and independence to improve its bargaining position with either side.






In years to come, the BRICS will go their separate ways, and half the N11 is as likely to implode as to expand. Instead, it's the G-Zero order that will determine the next generation of winners and losers, and resilient pivot states are the countries best positioned to prosper.

Ian Bremmer

Ian Bremmer is the president of Eurasia Group and author of Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.