Oceans cover more than 70 percent of the planet’s surface, yet only 5 percent of the world’s oceans have been explored. They are some of the most productive ecosystems on the planet, supporting human survival and quality of life for billions.

Fish are a main food source for one billion people in developing countries who depend on seafood for their primary source of protein. Mangroves act as a natural barrier against storms and flooding, a growing concern due to the impact of climate change. Seagrass beds help to regulate climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, up to twice as much as the world’s temperate and tropical forests.

According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), overall, coastal and oceanic environments are valued conservatively at US$2.5 trillion annually.

Our ever-expanding technological capabilities are opening up the oceans as a new next frontier for development and industry for fisheries and aquaculture; tourism and recreation; energy from offshore oil, wind and waves; pharmaceutical and other biotechnology products; and trade through shipping and ports; to name just a few industries. Consider that, already, 90 percent of global trade moves by marine transportation, over 30 percent of oil and gas production is from offshore sites, worldwide revenue from seafood amounts to more than US$190 billion and marine and coastal tourism generate US$161 billion annually.

In the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), our ocean and seas loom large, too, for our economies. As the 21-member economies tackle inclusive development, as its leaders are doing now as they meet here in Manila this week, the imperatives of sustainable development and environmental protection must be priorities for governments, private sectors, and local communities.

The seas of East Asia are particularly important.

Reefs and megacities

Covering an area of 7 million km² and spanning 235,000 km of coastline, these seas are home to 9 of the world’s megacities (with population more than 10 million), along with another dozen cities of more than 5 million residents. The region is home to over one third of all coral reefs and mangroves and the highest levels of biodiversity for coral reef fish, mollusks, mangroves and seagrass species. Marine and coastal industries including fishing, ports and shipping and coastal tourism comprise 15 to 20 percent of the GDP in some East Asian countries.

But global megatrends like population growth, migration to coastal cities, climate change and pressure from demands for land, water, food and energy are further complicating our already complex relationship with the sea. It’s clear that our current use of coastal and marine resources is outstripping their ability to sustainably support our needs, and we’re seeing an overall decline in ocean health at alarming rates.

According to the United Nations, 88 percent of coral reefs in Southeast Asia are under threat, while globally, 20 percent have already been lost. Mangrove forests have been reduced to 30 – 50 percent of their historical coverage. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reports that, as of 2011, 90 percent of global fish stocks were overfished or fully fished.

An estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean every year. Add to this list more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, chemical pollution, ocean acidification and the spread of marine invasive species, and it’s clear that coasts and oceans face an onslaught of interrelated threats.

These aren’t just environmental or social issues – companies are exposed to a number of operational, regulatory, reputational, market and financial risks related to proper management of these ecosystems.

Blue economy

According to research by McKinsey & Company, business value related to these risks could be as high as 25 to 70 percent of earnings. Unilever has said that climate change is already costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars every year. In early 2015, top insurance companies from around the world called on governments to step up efforts to build resilience against natural disasters, highlighting that average economic losses from disasters in the last decade amounted to around US$190 billion annually.

Good management of ecosystems, ocean or otherwise, isn’t just about avoiding risks, it is also about presenting opportunities. Research has shown that companies incorporating environmental and social sustainability considerations into their operations can realize a number of benefits, including lower costs, stronger relationships with communities and government, greater levels of innovation, enhanced reputation and access to new markets.

“Blue economy” has emerged as a popular term for this focus on coasts and oceans as a sustainable driver of economic growth in tandem with ecological health. The concept has struck a chord with a number of groups, including the United Nations Develoment Programme (UNDP), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and several governments in East Asia. The private sector is taking more of an interest in the potential for a blue economy, as evidenced by efforts by the Economist and others.

This week, a Manila-based international organization Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) launches a report exploring the concept of blue economy and examining important trends, risks and opportunities across 9 key blue economy industries in the region.

The success of blue economy is predicated on having proper coastal governance in place, and it relies on effective coordination across industry and government on issues that cut across sectors and geographies. Integrated coastal management (ICM) is one proven approach to successfully coordinate various coastal and marine management efforts, addressing the governance of human activities affecting the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources.

Climate change has been front and center in the sustainable development agenda, and rightfully so given the magnitude, complexity and urgency of the challenge. But policymakers are increasingly realizing the similar seriousness of ocean health, and it’s finding its place as a top issue in the global policy discussion.

National strategy

More countries are developing national ocean policies to protect their coastal and marine ecosystems – 255 ICM-related policies were found in a survey conducted by PEMSEA across 12 countries in the East Asia alone. These policies seek to achieve a wide range of objectives including establishment of institutional mechanisms, promotion of science and technology and advocacy for new development paradigms such as coastal use zoning.

The Philippines, for instance, has adopted ICM as its national strategy to ensure the sustainable development of the country’s coastal and marine environment, and an ICM law was submitted for review by the Philippines Senate in early 2015.

With the launch of the new United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September, which include a  goal focused on conserving and sustainably using oceans, seas and marine resources, countries are plotting a course for sustainable development over the next 15 years.

At the Climate Change Conference in Paris later this month, our world leaders will come together to determine our collective fate on climate – and oceans figure to play a role. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC-UNESCO) organized a full day dedicated to the ocean’s role in the climate system in the lead up to the climate negotiations. This week, PEMSEA launches an updated Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), a regional marine strategy between 14 countries that considers the SDGs and includes a call for increased investments in coastal and marine sustainable development.

A significant need exists for private sector capital and expertise to scale up blue economy investments for the benefit of both communities and companies. While investors may not yet use the term “blue economy,” they are becoming increasingly interested in investment opportunities that build the long-term ecological, social and economic health of coastal and marine ecosystems and communities.

Overall, available funds for protecting and sustaining ecosystems and biodiversity remain small in comparison to the cost of protecting, restoring and sustaining these vital resources. By some estimates, the financing gap exceeds at least US$ 300 billion per year and may reach into the US$ trillions.

The track record for investment in coastal and marine conservation remains almost exclusively with development finance institutions. However, a handful of investment-related initiatives are looking to develop viable models that can generate financial return from improved coastal and marine ecosystem services.

Scaling up investments

To better understand the current state of investment in ICM, PEMSEA partnered with Shujog, a social enterprise and impact investing advisory firm, to develop a report assessing the current financial funding flows of an estimated US$ 10 billion to ICM-related sectors across the grants and investment capital spectrum in 8 countries in East Asia. The study identifies regional and country-level trends in ICM funding from bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations, development finance institutions, corporations, impact investments and commercial investors across ten related coastal and marine sectors.

This week at the East Asian Seas Congress 2015, being held in Danang, Vietnam, the region’s largest event focused on coasts and oceans, impact investors, development finance institutions, companies, government officials and other stakeholders will explore actions for scaling up investments in sustainable development of coastal and marine areas.

In the end, a healthy ocean is vital to the region’s economy.

As the coastal resources that industries depend on continue to decline, so too will the health of these industries. Transition to a blue economy is the best path forward to ensure the long-term sustainability of both ecosystems and the economy.

For companies, it means a different mindset towards managing business risks, improving decision making and generating new opportunities. For investors, blue economy represents an emerging asset class – one that certainly needs to develop, but also one where new opportunities are available.

Blue economy has, until now, remained mostly an idea. We hope that out of the important intergovernmental discussions happening in the late part of 2015 – in New York City, in Paris, in Danang and elsewhere – will emerge a practical path forward for engaging the full strength of the business and investor communities towards building a sustainable ocean-based blue economy. – Rappler.com

Dean Tony La Viña is the Co-Chair of the Partnership Council of PEMSEA while Ryan Whisnant currently leads its Professional Services unit.

On Tuesday, November 17, an 11-year-old girl arrived at Bahay Tuluyan with shorts that had been ripped when she escaped “rescuers.” Another group of children on the street have taken to hiding in the crevice of a bridge 15 meters above the Pasig River. When attempts are made to “rescue” them, they jump into the river.

The removal of homeless people from the street leading up to international events is not new. The Pope’s visit, the 2012 gathering of officials from the Asian Development Bank, and now the APEC Summit are just the more recent examples.

In fact, today’s clearing operations have their beginnings in the first APEC Summit held in the Philippines in 1996 during which massive numbers of squats were demolished and street people "rounded up."

This makes Mayor Joseph Estrada’s admission that the motivation for removing people from the street is “to take care of our country’s image," almost refreshing. At least we are starting to get closer to the truth.

The DSWD has consistently claimed that removing children from the street is “rescue," or, more recently “reach-out,” a process of saving children from the harm and dangers of the street. (READ: Homeless won't be forced out of Manila streets during APEC – DSWD)

Yet if you ask a Filipino child on the street in Manila what "rescue" means they will translate it as only one thing – "huli." A study by Bahay Tuluyan released in 2008 has shown that the practice of “rescuing” street children, as carried out by the Philippine government is indiscriminate, involuntary, harmful, and ineffective.

Children’s rights are violated at almost every stage of the process. In the past few weeks, many street children have felt hunted by government officials crawling the streets looking for them. They are ready to haul them into trucks, take them to poorly resourced shelters, and then release them in a week or so, once the visitors have left.

Using "child protection" as a guise for arbitrarily arresting some of the Philippines’ most vulnerable people is completely unacceptable. Everybody would like to see every child growing up in a safe and caring family environment, accessing good educational opportunities and with child-friendly places to grow, play and develop.

However, simply snatching children off the street will not achieve this goal. Children with street connections in the Philippines are pushed and pulled onto the street for a variety of factors.

Children's rights

While poverty is an underlying theme, it is not the whole picture. The informal economy of the street attracts many children – it is a place where they can eke out a living for themselves and their families.

Other children are escaping abuse and violence at home. While others are simply looking for a place, in one of the world’s most densely populated cities, to play.

Policies that seek to address the issue of children on the street should be comprehensive and holistic and most importantly, long term. Children who have formed their identity on their street and find their support systems there will not simply leave that behind because of APEC.

Depriving children and families of livelihood because the powers-that-be find street vending unattractive causes severe hardship. Chasing children who have escaped violence and abuse back home can be devastating.

Forcibly detaining children against their will, with no questions asked, to impress foreign visitors, is not “rescue” and does not help. Moreover, it increases the distrust that children have of authorities, making it harder to provide interventions in the long term.

Pride over rights?

When Bahay Tuluyan released its study in 2008, the DSWD responded proactively by introducing new minimum standards for taking children into protective custody.

By closing the Reception and Action Center (RAC) in January 2015 for serious violations of children’s rights, not least of those being against Frederico, they indicated that perhaps they were ready to implement their own standards. (READ: DSWD to shut down facility where Frederico was found)

The actions that have taken place on the streets of Manila this month, including allowing the re-opening of RAC Manila just in time for APEC, have suggested otherwise. Once again, guises of “child protection” are being used to arbitrarily detain children.

While many of the actions taking place on the street in Manila are being directly and strategically carried out by officials of the City of Manila, the national government cannot deny its complicity.

Hundreds of “rescued” street people are being held in the nationally-run Jose Fabella Center in Mandaluyong while personnel of the national MCCT program are actively involved in patrolling the streets. Moreover, surely the national government has responsibility for monitoring the implementation of its own standards?

Taking pride in the Philippines and in Manila is a good thing. Using this pride as a reason to commit mass unlawful arrests is not. Perhaps, it is also time to question our assumptions about foreign visitors and what they think of the Philippines.

Firstly, let’s acknowledge that they also read the papers and see the photos. They are not conned by this cover-up. But secondly, like me, perhaps it is the beautiful resilience and vibrancy of the Philippine people, rich and poor, that attracts them to the Philippines.

Next time the Philippines hosts an international event about inclusive growth, why don’t we take the lead from Australian street artist Kaff-Eine, who has stunningly captured this resilience, in her recent Phoenix project with residences from Happyland in Tondo.

She, and her Filipino collaborators Geloy Concepcion and Geric Cruz, do not see something that shames the country, but see beauty rising from the ashes of some of Manila’s most marginalised (and least visible) communities.

Manila’s street children are complex, unique, beautiful people that deserve the best we can give them – sagip, not huli (save, not catch). – Rappler.com

Catherine Scerri is the Deputy Director of Bahay Tuluyan, an NGO promoting children's rights. To learn more or to participate in this movement, you may contact Bahay Tuluyan at +63 2 254 0213 and info@bahaytuluyan.org. 

I was a 1-year-old boy in Tawi-Tawi when the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was established 26 years ago, ending the Moro struggle waged by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) through the signing of a peace agreement with the Philippine government.

I could no longer remember how people in the island celebrated the news but as I grew older, it became apparent how important the establishment of the region was for the Moro in Mindanao. 

My father, a Tausug from Sulu, spoke of the Moro independence as if it were part of the family values he and my mother taught us to live with, making us feel its importance, while making us proud of our color, our language, our food, our faith, and our beginnings.

We were told of the bravery of the Moro fighters who took up arms till the end in the name of independence, of freedom.

However, the world is not perfect. ARMM, as has been repeatedly said, was an experiment that failed. It was a costly failure that resulted in the suffering of the Moro people, the same people who dreamed big when the peace agreement between the MNLF and the Philippine government was signed.

The symbol of freedom was devoured by greed, corruption, and hunger for power. Almost nothing was left of ARMM but the dignity and resolve of a few who, luckily, continued the revolution for change and freedom. Because of this, I believe we deserve a grand parade.

Reasons to celebrate

We can count down a hundred and one reasons why the people of ARMM deserve one lavish party to celebrate the founding anniversary of the region. Things are far better now for us. The region is now more stable compared to years before.

It has, yes, prepared the table for the Bangsamoro. But we are not throwing a party. There will be no grand celebration – and it's just right.

Why? Because we deserve to have far better things as we celebrate the 26th anniversary of the ARMM, things and values that will make us prouder as a nation.

Decency, one of these values, dictates us to mark our commemoration with muted celebration - because, as we celebrate, we cannot turn a blind eye to what is confronting the world: the violence of terrorism.

As sons and daughters of the Moro revolution, as children of Islam, it is more fitting for us to direct our attention to expressing solidarity with the rest of the world that mourns over the countless deaths resulting from indiscriminate attacks against humanity. (READ: Muslim leaders to ISIS: Return to 'religion of mercy')

This is the time when we do not need stars to shine down on us. Instead, we can celebrate the stars within us as we put the spotlight on the uniqueness of our culture, the beauty of our history, and the hopes and aspirations of our people.

We can still celebrate the gains of the reforms instituted by the regional government - the reforms that crushed opportunities of corruption that, as a result, allowed the government to spend for the needs of communities. 

We can still celebrate the return of thousands of displaced individuals from the evacuation centers to their communities, and how they start to rebuild and start a new life. We can still celebrate peace.

In fact, peace is the highlight this year.

Work to be done

The regional government feels that we should all continue our engagement in the ongoing peace process and seek a deeper understanding of the Muslim community, instead of letting the national discourse be swayed in favor of prejudice and hate. 

This is important because Muslims continue to suffer the effects of bigotry and ignorance not only in the Philippines, but also around the world. (READ: Breaking barriers: More than just Muslims)

Minus the fireworks, we can still celebrate.

Looking back, the admiration I have for the Moro martyrs is converted to pride. They are the reason why we are a free nation, a free people. 

These are the reasons why, today, I am a proud Moro and a happy son of Mindanao. – Rappler.com 

Amir Mawallil, 27, is the executive director of the ARMM's Bureau of Public Information.

Chris Crisostomo, a Filipino-American karate teacher from Diamond Bar, California, recently bested martial arts athletes worldwide by winning five medals for Team USA.

Held in Benidorm, Spain, the WKA WTKA World Unified Championships on November 5 to 8 brought together 3,000 competitors from around the world. Chris won in five performance divisions: Traditional Weapon (gold), Musical Weapon (gold), Musical Form (gold), Creative Form (gold) and Creative Weapon (silver).

Chris has won the following awards in these recent tournaments as well:

• 1st place traditional forms - Irish Open 2015 (Dublin, Ireland)
• 1st place creative weapons - Diamond Nationals 2015 (Minnesota, MN)
• 1st place creative weapons - Compete Nationals 2015 (Ontario, CA)
• 1st place traditional weapon - Battle of Atlanta 2015 (Atlanta, GA)
• 1st place traditional weapon - U.S. Open 2015 (Orlando, FL)
• 1st place creative forms - AKA Grand Nationals (Chicago, IL)
• Grand Champion traditional weapon - Orange County Open 2015 (Huntington Beach, CA)
• Grand Champion weapon - Hollywood Nationals 2015 (Ontario, CA)

In 2014, Sensei Chris was rated North American Sport Karate Association’s (NASKA's) World Top Ten in 2014. It's been his lifelong dream to represent Team USA at the WKTA WKA World Championships, and he was able to do so this year with the help of funds raised by friends and family.

I spent some time with Chris after his victory in Spain to talk about his journey.

A childhood passion

As a child, Chris used to imitate the moves he saw in Bruce Lee movies. This prompted his father to enroll him in karate classes in Red Dragon Karate in Diamond Bar, California.

Chris admits that becoming a professional martial arts teacher and athlete wasn't in his life plans but as he got older he saw the excitement in his students when they earned their next belt or won a trophy at a tournament. In 2005, his fellow black belt Dustin Lenaburg brought up the idea of opening a school of their own. They've since developed a strong competitive school called Champions Karate Dojo in West Covina, California.At age nine, Chris then started training with instructor Shihan Mohamad Jahanvash, who has been his mentor, guiding him through martial arts training and competitions for the past 26 years.

For many years Chris had put competing on hold to focus on his karate school, but when his students started competing, he thought it would be a good idea to compete alongside them, acting as a role model. He also uses local and national tournaments as a venue to promote his handmade martial arts weapons business he shares with partner Mike Goodwin, 10th Degree Weaponry.

Benefits of martial arts 

Chris credits teaching and being active in his classes in maintaining skill and fitness as a martial arts athlete. Aside from being a great way to maintain physical activity and relieve stress, he believes karate and martial arts also help individuals to be more focused and goal-oriented.

Based on his experience with kids, Chris has also observed that martial arts give youth a sense of integrity, respect for others and for themselves, and a sense of self-confidence. Chris believes that one's success only comes with the support he or she has around him. In his case, he gives credit to his family and friends who stood by him and provided the resources he needed to succeed.

As a karate instructor, Chris enjoys his job so it doesn't feel like work to him. He enjoys watching his students succeed and reach their goals, but his chosen career also comes with challenges.

Early this year Chris dislocated his toe during a misstep in training, earning him a trip to the ER and several weeks in rehab. Aside from the physical toll of being in an active profession, Chris also struggles to maintain a balance between his passion and being a businessman in order to support himself.

I asked Chris what advice he can give to the martial arts community in the Philippines. He said, "Let practicing be fun for you. At times you'll have to train very hard but if you surround yourself with the right people, it will never get old and boring."

What does it take to become a champion?

In order to become a champion, Sensei Chris says that the hard work must be put in during training so that when it comes to competition time, you'll be able to trust in your abilities. He follows a motto in his dojo: "You either accept your limitations or you become a champion."

Chris says that his 26 years of being a student, teacher, and competitor in karate have taught him many lessons. As a competitor, he has learned that one only needs to strive to be the best person he can be and that patience will reward him in time with his moment to shine.

As an instructor and a student, he believes that the learning process should be constant and that he will always be learning no matter how old he gets, transferring his knowledge and wisdom to his students the way his mentors have done for him.

Chris Crisostomo's parents both hail from Sariaya, Quezon and migrated to the US in the 1970s.He credits his parents' Filipino work ethic and his late father's sportsmanship for his success in both his professional and personal life. He accepts students of all ages in his karate school, CK Dojo. – Rappler.com

WATCH: Chris Crisostomo during his Gold Medal performance at the WKA WTKA Unified World

It has been nearly 20 years since the APEC Summit that was held in Subic in 1996. APEC then was one of the spearheads of globalization. It was one of the fountainheads of neoliberal ideology. The Subic Summit took place amidst triumphalist rhetoric about how corporate-driven globalization would sweep everything before it. The Ramos administration boasted of the neoliberal transformation that would make the Philippines a “Newly Industrializing Country” by the year 2000.

Against this triumphalism, the Manila People’s Forum on APEC, which united many civil society organizations across the country, had a different message. It said that neoliberal globalization would drag our economy into even greater crisis, that the promise of prosperity was a mirage.

Nearly 20 years after Subic, the promise of corporate-driven globalization has withered throughout the globe.

In 1997, just one year after the Subic Summit, the Asian economies, including the Philippines, were devastated by the Asian Financial Crisis. In December 1998, the resistance of developing country governments and global civil society brought about the collapse of the third ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, the so-called crown jewel of globalization, in Seattle.  In 2007-08, the global financial crisis broke out, bringing about the near collapse of the global financial system and recession and stagnation in the US, Europe, and throughout the world.  Today, the global economy remains mired in crisis.

Two decades of neoliberalism have crippled the Philippine economy. The elimination of import quotas led to the severe destabilization of vast sectors of our agriculture, including the corn, meat and poultry, and vegetable sectors. Bringing down tariffs to 5% and below severely deindustrialized the economy, with our garment, textile, footwear, and other once vibrant industries now a shadow of their former selves. Only 20 of the 200 textile and garment firms we had 40 years ago are still in existence. One needs only go to Marikina to see how our once dynamic world-class shoe industry has been nearly destroyed by free trade.

Growth's fragile base

Neoliberalism promised prosperity. In other growing economies, growth in inequality has been mitigated by a reduction in poverty. This has not happened in the Philippines.

The percentage of people living in poverty is 28%, the same proportion as 20 years ago, and the rate inequality also remains unchanged, with the country’s gini coefficient of 44 being one of the worst in East Asia. Yes, there has been growth, but that growth has a fragile base.  It has been cornered by a few and thus led to greater inequality. It has not been felt at all by the vast majority of the Filipino people.  

Much like 20 years ago, close to 35% of the national budget goes into the pockets of the banks as interest payments on a debt load that is, for all intents and purposes, unpayable, while education, health, and other public services deteriorate owing to lack of funds.  

Not surprisingly, many of our people have departed as economic refugees, leading to a situation where 10 million Filipinos, some 10% of the population, are either migrants or residents of other countries. 

This is the grim reality that surrounds this glitzy summit of leaders that's taking place in Manila. 

Its time has passed

Once trumpeted as ushering in a new world, APEC is an organization whose time has passed, whose neoliberal premises have been left behind by reality. What we are witnessing in Manila is a time warp, the enactment of the diplomatic rituals that mask the fact that APEC now simply lurches from one summit to the next, with no clear direction.

Likewise, the economics of the Aquino administration belongs to the past. Nobody seriously believes anymore that the rate of growth of GDP and the increase in foreign investments are serious measures of the well-being of the people. As was the case with the Ramos administration two decades ago, the discredited doctrine of trickle down economics remains the policy paradigm of the Aquino presidency.

What the people demand, what they are waiting for are not empty boasts and false promises but an economic program that places the elimination of poverty and inequality and the resurrection of our agriculture and industry at the center of things. What the Philippines needs is a program of economic resurrection from the devastation of 35 years of neoliberal economics. 

Over these last three decades, there has been much collective work done globally to articulate an alternative to neoliberal economics. The time of this new paradigm has arrived. The principles and prescriptions of this alternative economics provide the pillars for the economic resurrection of countries like the Philippines. 

What are the principles of what one might call the New Economics? There are 11 of them:

1. Production for the domestic market must again become the center of gravity of the economy rather than production for export markets.
2. The principle of subsidiarity should be enshrined in economic life by encouraging production of goods at the level of the community and at the national level if this can be done at reasonable cost in order to preserve community.
3. Trade policy – that is, quotas and tariffs – should be used to protect the local economy from destruction by corporate-subsidized commodities with artificially low prices.
4. Industrial policy – including subsidies, tariffs, and trade – should be used to revitalize and strengthen the manufacturing sector.
5. Long-postponed measures of equitable income redistribution and land redistribution (including urban land reform) can create a vibrant internal market that would serve as the anchor of the economy and produce local financial resources for investment.
6. Deemphasizing growth, emphasizing upgrading the quality of life, and maximizing equity will reduce environmental disequilibrium.
7. The development and diffusion of environmentally congenial technology in both agriculture and industry should be encouraged.
8. Strategic economic decisions cannot be left to the market or to technocrats. Instead, the scope of democratic decision-making in the economy should be expanded so that all vital questions — such as which industries to develop or phase out, what proportion of the government budget to devote to agriculture, etc. — become subject to democratic discussion and choice.
9. Civil society must constantly monitor and supervise the private sector and the state, a process that should be institutionalized.
10. The property complex should be transformed into a “mixed economy” that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises, and state enterprises, and excludes transnational corporations.
11. Centralized global institutions like the IMF and the World Bank should be replaced with regional institutions built not on free trade and capital mobility but on principles of cooperation. 

This is a paradigm that is very different from that of corporate-driven globalization promoted by the APEC elites.

Unlike the neoliberal economy, the New Economy is not driven by market forces and profits but is strategically geared to realize fundamental social values, those of cooperation, justice, solidarity, and democracy.  To borrow Karl Polanyi’s words, the New Economy is a system where the market is not disembedded from society but is embedded in society.

The neoliberal economy promoted by APEC is driven by the pursuit of narrow efficiency, that is, the motive force is the drive to attain the lowest unit cost for a product, even at the cost of disrupting society. The New Economics is driven not by narrow efficiency but sees the aim of economic strategy and policy as the strengthening of social solidarity.

Today, nearly 20 years after the first APEC Summit hosted by the Philippines, it is time to end our subordination to APEC’s neoliberal paradigm. It is time to embark on a new path, that of the New Economics. – Rappler.com

Walden Bello is a former member of the House of Representatives whose latest book is Capitalism’s Last Stand: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity (London: Zed, 2013)

We hugged each other when he walked into the room. 

Twenty years ago when I was CNN’s Jakarta bureau chief, Tom Lembong was a constant companion who helped me understand his complex and fascinating nation, the lynchpin of Southeast Asia.

We spent hours discussing why events played out as they did. Tom’s insights helped give depth to my reporting during some of Indonesia’s most turbulent years, including the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the forest fires which spread haze across the region that year, and the protests and riots which heralded the end of President Suharto’s 32-year rule of the country with the world’s largest Muslim population.

When President Suharto resigned on May 21, 1998, the deep bass voice with measured tones that did a crisp, simultaneous translation on CNN belonged to a 20-something Tom Lembong. On succeeding marathon coverages, he also became the voice of succeeding presidents: BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He was perfect for the job, bridging cultures, simultaneously translating the formality of Bahasa Indonesia into American idioms. 

A man whose beliefs were formed by at least 3 different cultures, Tom spent his elementary school years in Germany, where his father, a medical doctor, was based.  That’s why he speaks fluent German. Then he went to high school in the United States, even as his parents instilled in him a deep love and yearning for his homeland.

Fresh from a Harvard University education, he became an investment banker at Morgan Stanley in Singapore. Then he decided he wanted to come home to spend time with his aging parents. He joined Deutsche Bank in Jakarta, and then the Asian financial crisis hit, essentially wiping out more than 90% of Indonesia’s private companies.

That’s when he announced to his friends that he would quit his high-paying job to help the government restructure Indonesia’s banks.  He looked at it as his chance "to pay it forward."

“I remember telling you, you were crazy,” I said.

“Well, that probably hasn’t changed,” he said, both of us laughing as we reminisced. “I think to make life fulfilling, to make life fun, you have to be a little bit crazy, right? You can’t always opt for the safe and steady. You have to go out on a limb once in a while.”

Tom served for two years as a Division Head and Senior Vice-President of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA).  In 2006, he became a Founding Partner of Quvat Capital, helping raise more than $500 million to invest in Indonesia.

In Manila this week for the APEC summit as Indonesia’s Trade Minister, the 44-year-old technocrat explained the lessons he has learned as a leader.

Failure and humility

“I’ve had some challenging times, and I think even some pretty devastating failures, to be honest,” he said. “But it was great because it taught me humility, you know?”

I remembered debates that would last hours. The end of the Suharto era surprised most Indonesians, and it unleashed a Pandora’s box of conflicts, from sectarian to ethnic to political.  Some of the questions we tackled: Why did Indonesians love Suharto? How can a country change? Why were more Indonesian women wearing the jilbab? What’s the right balance between individual rights & the needs of the society? How can you get rid of corruption? How can you live your ideals? Revolution or change from within?

“Before maybe, I was always more keen to talk and show off how smart I am,” he said.  “Afterwards, I realized that actually the most important thing in life is to be a good listener, right? I think over time, one learns to put aside one’s ego, right?  And so even criticism doesn’t really faze me.  It’s funny, I’ve had situations where some of my fiercest critics ultimately became very good friends because of just one thing – and that is a willingness to listen.”

One of our favorite topics decades back was defining identity, especially for people like us who come from more than one culture. It surprised me to see the once logical Tom forge ahead and embrace emotions.

“I believe that national and ethnic differences are often so exaggerated,” Tom said when I asked him how he integrates his worlds today. “At bottom, even across vast, different cultures, all people appreciate sincerity. All people appreciate kindness and respect. People may have different ways of showing it: some cultures tend to be more gregarious; some cultures tend to be more subdued.  I think there’s something strangely human underneath all of us. And real sincerity, real respect … dare I say … love – I think people are able to detect that across cultural divides.”

“You moved away from Mr. Spock, and you’re now moving towards embracing things that are not rational?” I asked, bringing up our Star Trek symbol for logical decision-making.

“True, true,” he answered. “That used to be another infatuation. I used to think that everything should just be rational.”

“Over time, I’ve become even more appreciative of the things that make Indonesian culture so unique.  I’ve come to more greatly appreciate our strength, which is our diversity, our tolerance for differences, our openness to new things,” Tom added.  “And I think our national strategy should be rooted very deeply in our centuries-long culture.”

“What’s your reaction to the terror attacks in Paris,” I asked.

“I do worry that one of our top enemies ought to be cynicism, right? And I think a lot of times we, technocratic, bureaucratic leaders, take a cynical approach to leading or to policy-making, and I think it has done more than its fair share to cause disillusionment. I worry that if we globally, as leaders, perpetuate cynicism in the way we lead, in the way we make policy, in the way we address issues, people can tell, and it causes them to become disaffected and turn towards other potential sources of genuine truth, right?”

Changing the conversation

I asked him why he believes in Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo, known more commonly as Jokowi, who was elected last year on a wave of optimism and change, but whose performance the past year has disappointed many. His cabinet revamp to address that last August brought Tom into his cabinet.

“What’s quite revolutionary with President Jokowi is how he’s changing the conversation, how he’s changing the tone,” Tom answered. “He’s becoming more well known around the world, and I expect he will become more well-known around the world. The people will notice his sincerity, his humility. In light of the tragic events in Paris a few days ago, again the importance of that sincerity, of that authenticity, to me becomes amplified because I think cynicism breeds disillusionment.”

What he said next is refreshing honesty that’s rare from a sitting public official.

“The antidote is very simple,” he added. “Let’s move away from the cynicism. Let’s move away from playing games, right? On the trade front, let’s be honest. We all talk about free and even fair trade, but what do we do in practice? The truth is since the global financial crisis in 2008, most countries, including Indonesia, have been quietly rolling out protectionist measures.”

“Correct. I’m so glad you said this,” I responded.

“Well, I think the cynical approach would be to deny it or to cover it up. Or engage in a bunch of rhetoric,” he continued. “Let’s start by telling the facts, by admitting the truth. And let’s look at something else very factually, very honestly. Have these measures been helpful? For the last 3 years, global economic growth has been very weak. Emerging markets, which would have been probably most active in rolling out these protectionist measures, have seen their currencies collapse.”

“Are we going to see this change?” I asked.

“I think so,” he answered. “Personally, I believe we’re just going back to what the Indonesian culture is actually anyway. We’re not a defensive culture. We’re not a closed culture. We’re not a culture of losers. You know, we’re a culture of winners. We’re a very diverse society full of tolerance for each other so our economic policy should be like that.  Our trade policy should be like that. I mean, there should be other countries that have a culture of being very closed, very defensive, but I just don’t see where that applies to us.”

That, he added, is part of the reason Indonesia’s President Jokowi told US President Obama Southeast Asia’s largest nation is joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. (READ: Jakarta can meet TPP standards)

I asked him how he would find the balance between being open and trusting versus being cynical to protect his ministry and country. He laughed.

Keeping one's heart

“Well, you know, one still has to be savvy.  One still has to be realistic and a good manager. You have to know sound management principles. You have to be astute, and often times paranoid even. Because, you know, you’re up against a lot of cynical people. Or people with ill intentions. I mean honestly, good sources of that balance is family. Your family reminds you of what’s actually important in life. Again that’s another difference 15 years ago versus now.  I think when you start having a family, it just changes you completely. You should allow it to change you completely.” (Tom now has two kids).

“I think for societies and for many in the world, religion is another excellent source of sincerity, genuineness, and you know from our former President Wahid, who is a phenomenal Muslim cleric …”

“But not a very good president,” I interrupted. Abdurrahman Wahid, affectionately known as Gus Dur, was pushed out by Indonesia’s parliament, the People’s Consultative Assembly, in a no-confidence vote after less than a year in office.

“Yes, but that’s why sound management still applies,” he retorted. “So you’re right, you have to balance: one that is scientific and logical and rational and astute and a good manager. But one also has to keep one’s heart. President Wahid was a great spiritual leader in the Islamic community, and now Pope Francis. I mean, look at the mental revolution that he’s brought!”

Among the ideas Tom brought up in the 40 minutes we spent together: shifting the global monetary architecture away from an overdependence on the US dollar as the medium exchange rate during a time of shrinking dollar liquidity towards China’s renminbi. I asked him whether that would be politically sensitive.

“I don’t think so,” he quickly retorted saying the idea is supported by the UK, Germany, Korea, and the US after President Jokowi’s recent state visit. “Look, the more the renminbi gets out into the global economy, the more China has a stake of the global economy. And China will take its rightful place as one of the stewards of the global economy, which is appropriate given that they are in nominal terms second largest and in real terms potentially already the largest economy in the world.”

He parried questions about recent controversies like this year’s corruption scandal involving the police chief and Jokowi: “These are outward manifestations of change that is happening, regeneration, rotation. What you can’t do is status quo;” and the haze, the forest fires which spread through Southeast Asia this year, something we discussed incessantly in 1997. Although I knew his ministry wasn’t involved in solving this long-standing problem, I asked him about its economic impact.

“It’s more a social and humanitarian issue,” he said. “Yes, it does have economic impact. Turns out, surprisingly to me, that’s been manageable to me. Economic numbers are showing moderate impact, but the humanitarian cost was unacceptable, and the environmental cost is unacceptable. Again, we have to change attitudes, mindsets, instead of thinking about the short term or the quick hit. You have to foster a system that appreciates the longevity, the intergenerational aspect of society and economic policy.”

There’s no doubt Tom has the intellectual capacity as well as the self-awareness to make a difference. To do what he set out: to beat cynicism, to be sincerely honest, these entail risk and great courage.

I know his values as he knows mine. We’ll keep a watchful eye, and he knows that if he were to do anything wrong, that despite our past, Rappler Indonesia would be at the frontlines to tell the world about it.

Those are the values we live, something the young Tom helped me crystallize.

Good luck in changing the world, Minister Lembong! - Rappler.com

Covering the Lumad's plight for the past two weeks has been a daunting task to say the least. The complexity of their situation and its deep political and historical roots made it difficult to fully capture their story. 

Even while on the way to cover "Walk with the Lumad," the task of getting the issues right weighed heavily.

However, arriving at the camp and finally meeting the people reminded me that – when we remove the needless politicking and deceiving propaganda – there are people behind the reports who have had to live through these events.

Talking to the Lumad

Seeing the Lumad camped out at Liwasang Bonifacio, it became clear that their experiences had been taking their toll. (READ: TIMELINE: Attacks on the Lumad of Mindanao)

For example, Maricris Pagaran of the Alternative Learning Center for Agricultural and Livelihood Development (ALCADEV) related the recent torching of an ALCADEV satellite school and the fear residents felt despite living a kilometer away from the incident.

Before talking to Pagaran, members of the Lumad community told me she was feeling unwell because of the stress and fatigue caused by the protests. While speaking with her, however, her exhaustion extended beyond the demonstrations – she was tired of the violence whose increasing numbers and intensity have become a part of day-to-day life.

As with many disasters, children had not been spared. Aside from the closure of their schools, they have also had to cope with forceful removal. Today, they form a large part of the bakwit (evacuees) who have had to leave their land because of the militarization of the area. (READ: Voice of a Lumad widow: Our land, our blood) 

During the Manilakbayan protests, Kharlo Manano of SALINLAHI, a group advocating for the safety of Lumad schools, reported that the were children feeling dejected and angry during their day of games at Luneta.

“They are still sad na hindi sila makabalik sa kanilang komunidad at habang hindi nila ito makamtan, makakaramdam sila ng lungkot,” (They are sad that they can’t go back to their community, and as long as they can’t, they will feel sadness) Manano said.

These are the stories that are frequently forgotten in favor of the politics surrounding it. Military officials said they were tasked to protect the communities from the New People's Army, but the deployment of military and paramilitary forces in the area were seen as troops supporting the mining and logging operations threatening the Lumad's ancestral land.

Hidden away

Adding to their suffering is a lack of action on their cases, which they say shows that they simply are not a priority for the government.

The United Nations rapporteurs, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz and Michael Forst, called the Lumad's situation "deplorable" and the UN delegation in the country began an investigation on the matter; and although the Aquino administration expressed their support for the probe, there has been little progress.

During my time covering their protests, I asked members of the Lumad and their advocates if any steps have been taken to get the government moving. With voices laced with weariness that came from frequent disappointment, they answered, "We have, but the government has done nothing."

Instead, they told me, they had been brushed under the rug and more so during the APEC week. Kerlan Fanagel, a Lumad spokesperson, said they were being treated like "trash" that had to be hidden away for the visitors.

It is no wonder then that Jomorito Goaynon, another Lumad spokesperson, said he was not hopeful that their problems would be resolved in the near future.

A lack of empathy

Rather than just being a political case, the Lumad’s story is essentially a human one and the response to this should be to feel some degree of empathy. However, in what is perhaps a greater tragedy, many have labelled the Lumad as rabble-rousers and some even claim that their situation is the result of a “tribal war."

It is frustrating and dispiriting to read or hear these comments because it betrays a lack of unity in feeling for our fellow Filipinos. The Lumad’s case seems to be one of many wherein we have become our own worst enemies by turning our backs on the country’s marginalized communities.

Maybe this is because many have not had the opportunity to hear the Lumad’s accounts firsthand. News reports and social media are rarely ever enough to get a full understanding of the human aspect of the issue. 

This is why I hope to reach those who still think the Lumad's suffering is merely for show or a tool to incite an armed struggle: I am inviting you to walk with the Lumad to see and hear their stories, because their pain is a real and human one, and they deserve your empathy and action. – Rappler.com

Bea Orante is a writer at MovePH, Rappler's civic engagement arm.

It was one of the most anticipated arrivals at the recently concluded APEC summit in Manila. For the first time in 10 years, a Chinese president was stepping on Philippine soil. 

While waiting for Chinese President Xi Jinping to appear on the live feed at the APEC media center on November 17, I remembered another Chinese leader who I saw up close, just after the first Philippine hosting of APEC in 1996.

Chinese President Jiang Zemin went on a state visit to the Philippines in November 1996 amid strained bilateral ties caused by the two countries' respective claims and actions in the South China Sea.

The year before the Philippines assumed its first APEC chairmanship, the government organized a media sortie to Mischief Reef (Panganiban Reef) in the disputed Spratlys. A group of 38 local and foreign journalists rode the World War II vintage BRP Benguet, accompanied by then Major General Carlos Tañega, chief of the Western Command.

The trip was prompted by the discovery of Chinese structures on Mischief Reef, which is 135 miles southwest of Palawan, well within the Philippines' 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Faced with protests from the Philippines, China insisted these were just storm "shelters" for its fishermen.

Beijing went through diplomatic channels to stop the media trip but Manila was resolute; it wanted to show the world what Beijing was doing, using press freedom as its alibi. 

In that May 1995 trip, journalists witnessed how Chinese vessels cut into the path of their Mischief Reef-bound ship. After a 70-minute standoff, the Philippine ship retreated. Meanwhile, a pooled media chopper emanating from the vintage naval ship flew over Mischief Reef and saw China’s claimed “fishermen’s shelters” – clusters of octagonal steel structures, with Chinese flags, fitted with equipment typical of military installations.

While the group didn’t reach its destination, the mission achieved its goal. It internationalized the issue, which China frowned upon.

Surprise number

The Mischief Reef issue continued to be an irritant in bilateral relations between the Philippines and China when Jiang arrived in the Philippines for the APEC summit in Subic, followed by his state visit.

During their bilateral meeting in Malacañang, President Fidel Ramos welcomed China's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a few months before – apparently in the hope that this would would keep its actions in check in the South China Sea.

Jiang told Ramos that China attached great importance to its relations with the Philippines, and looked forward to stepping up this relationship based on “mutual trust” and “oriented towards the 21st century.” Both presidents agreed to “find ways to make it happen.”

Mischief Reef was “touched upon” by the two leaders, but Foreign Undersecretary Rodolfo Severino, who briefed the media, did not give details. He said both leaders would have another opportunity to discuss bilateral matters on their scheduled cruise around Manila Bay the following day.

It seemed like a routine coverage until we learned about the remarkable event that unfolded at the dinner reception for Jiang.

When the string quartet began to play One Day When We Were Young, Jiang suddenly stood up, got the mic, and sang the US standard by heart, like a pro. He sang a few more songs, including Swanee River, a Hawaiian wedding song, and an excerpt from a Chinese opera.

The guests, who were expecting just another night of celebratory toasts and cultural performances, loved it. Where else could they see the leader of a communist country belting out Western classics?

“Tumugtog lang ‘yung string band ko, kumanta na [siya] (When my band started playing, he began to sing),” the late General Jose Calimlim, Presidential Security Group (PSG) chief, told us then.

“It was the first time in history na may state guest na kumanta (that a state guest sang),” another surprised official said. “He (Jiang) likes Broadway songs.”

Sailing together to the 21st century: Love me tender

Jiang continued to show his charming, fun-loving side at the Manila Bay cruise hosted by Ramos, which a small media pool, including myself, covered. Malacañang called the program, “Sailing together to the 21st Century.” 

Jiang and his official delegation arrived at the BRP Ang Pangulo in coats; some wore ties. Ramos wore his trademark yellow and blue Philippines 2000 vest over a shirt with folded sleeves, and a white cap.  

Ramos handed out the same vests and caps to the Chinese officials who included Trade Minister Wu Yi, Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, and Tang Jiaxuan, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs. They obliged and shed their jackets to wear the vests. Ramos autographed the cap and vest of Jiang, and asked his guest to do the same on his set.

“You look like a sailor now,” a smiling Ramos told Jiang, as he gingerly adjusted the Chinese leader’s cap. Jiang ate papayas, mangoes, congee, a cold plate, and drank tea from a personal flask carried by an aide.

As the band played I Got You Under My Skin – the first of 21 songs chosen by Ramos himself – the Philippine leader showed the bay area to Jiang and the other guests. Motioning to the horizon, Ramos said, “Over there is the Philippines and China, into the 21st century, through cooperation in education and IT.” He had asked for expanded cooperation with China on these two areas when he met with Jiang the day before.

At Ramos’ prodding, the two leaders stood up and joined the band. They sang Elvis Presley’s Love Me Tender. After the well-applauded performance, Ramos told Jiang: “That’s the favorite song of Bill Clinton. So you have to prepare when he visits you. You will surprise him.” 

They sang another duet, Let Me Call You Sweetheart. Ramos was with First Lady Ming Ramos, but he clearly only had eyes for his state guest that day, we, reporters, joked at our table.  

Ramos then invited Jiang to dance the waltz. The Philippine president danced with the Chinese leader’s interpreter; Jiang, with Mrs Ramos. Ramos also danced with the Chinese trade minister and gave her a twirl; the Chinese Foreign Minister partnered with Tourism Secretary Mina Gabor. 

Then the two leaders sang Top of the World, which Ramos knew better than Jiang. The Chinese leader reprised his previous evening’s performance of Swanee River, again showing off his powerful singing voice. Jiang asked his trade minister to sing a Chinese duet with him – Kang Ding Love Song – but Wu declined, saying the notes were too high for her.

Ramos and Jiang seemed like old friends – one official described them as "very chummy" – not the leaders of nations mired in territorial disputes. Jiang even affectionately touched Ramos’ arm in front of the other guests, after his first song.

When somebody announced that the yacht would dock in 10 minutes, Ramos taught his guest something the Philippine leader excelled in: the cha-cha.

As the yacht began to berth, Ramos showed Jiang some cha-cha moves. The student easily got the hang of it, and did his own variety of the dance. A member of the Chinese delegation remarked that it was the Chinese leader’s first time to try it, as he only danced the waltz.

As the chain of the yacht was hauled closer to shore, the band played its final number, Auld Lang Syne. The Philippine and Chinese officials, as directed by Ramos, held hands together in a half-circle while singing in unison.

Some Philippine officials who joined the tour couldn’t help but like the Chinese president. "He’s so taong-tao (real)," Apolinario "Jun" Lozada Jr, presidential adviser on foreign affairs, told us before we disembarked from the yacht.

The naked truth

Even with such memories of that Philippines-China “friendship cruise," it's easy to understand why President Benigno Aquino III and Xi had no scheduled bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Manila.

Between the first and second APEC chairmanship of the Philippines, the two countries had dropped diplomatic niceties in reference to each other’s claims and actions in the South China Sea.

Aquino had likened China’s expansion in disputed territory to that of Nazi Germany, while China had repeatedly played the reprisal card and warned the Philippines to  prepare for the consequences of standing up to the economic giant.

Under the watchful eye of other claimant countries and the international community, and despite repeated protests, China executed massive reclamation activities in the disputed area, built airstrips on some artificial islands it had created, and even announced a plan to set up an air defense zone over disputed waters.

Last year, the Philippines submitted a memorial, a 4,000-page document, to a UN-backed arbitral tribunal in The Hague, to start proceedings that China has refused to recognize. It won the first round last month after the tribunal unanimously decided that it has the right to hear the Philippines' case against China.

The US, the Philippines' staunchest supporter in the fight, has not only issued increasingly bolder statements of support for the Philippines, but has matched them with action as well. Weeks before the APEC summit in Manila, a US naval ship sailed by an artificial island being built by China in the South China Sea, said to be the first of a regular run.

It was against this backdrop that the Chinese president was visiting the Philippines, where many Filipinos regarded his country as a bully. 

Sampaguita welcome

The live feed at the APEC media center finally revealed the Air China plane bearing Xi at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.  (WATCH: APEC 2015: Arrival of Xi Jinping, China President)

Minutes later, a smiling Xi appeared at the doorway of the plane, and briefly raised his hand in greeting before descending the aircraft. Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima was designated to welcome him at the airport, a choice that mirrored the economic dimension of Philippines-China relations that Manila wanted to highlight.

Xi, who had no interpreter by his side, smiled and nodded politely at the chatty Purisima. Like most other newly-arrived guests, a garland of the Philippine national flower, the sampaguita, was hung around his neck. It was the symbol of the Philippines’ warm welcome and hospitality. 

Purisima, the Philippine president's alter-ego for that occasion, escorted Xi to his car to see him off. Before he got into his vehicle, the Chinese leader had a final task to perform. He took off the sampaguita lei, which dangled around his neck for about a minute, and handed it to an aide. – Rappler.com

When President Xi Jinping left Manila after participating in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, he took home a message: the Philippines is strengthening security ties with its allies and getting more material support amid a contentious maritime dispute with China.

President Benigno Aquino III and some of his counterparts inked agreements to boost the Philippines’ defense capability as the long-simmering trouble over the South China Sea cast its shadow at the world leaders’ meeting. It is no secret that China has ridden roughshod over countries with competing claims by building permanent structures in the maritime area, treating it as its own.

The timing of this bevy of bilateral agreements couldn’t be better. They come soon after the country’s initial victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which ruled that it has jurisdiction over a case the government filed against China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) . (China has refused to participate in this international legal process.)

Here are the significant agreements:

• The Philippines and Vietnam, both claimants to the South China Sea and among the most vocal against China, entered into a “strategic partnership.” This means an upgrade in bilateral relations to make it more wide-ranging, especially “when instruments or mechanisms relating to the promotion of maritime conflict-prevention are becoming ineffective in the face of China’s unilateral actions.”
• Japan is preparing to give the Philippine Coast Guard“large patrol vessels” to beef up patrol of the country’s long coastline. This is part of Japan’s move to transfer military assets to the Philippines.
• President Barack Obama upped the rhetoric against China and announced that the United States Coast Guard was giving the Philippine Navy a warship that will elevate the country’s “ability to maintain greater maritime presence and patrols throughout its Exclusive Economic Zone.”
• Australia and the Philippines emphasized deepening bilateral relations in a “Joint Declaration on Comprehensive Partnership” as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced more defense and disaster-response equipment for the country.

Of course, all these will not make the Philippines match China’s massive defense resources. Far from it.

What is clear is the support given by these various allies to a country that has stood up against China. The strong undertow of all these declarations and agreements is that China should play by the rule of law, an international norm that binds nations and prevents aggression.

China may have already gotten the message thus the series of diplomatic overtures. Xi Jinping attended the APEC meeting despite a legal wrangling with the host country.

The Chinese president recently traveled to Vietnam, a rare state visit, in the midst of the tension over South China Sea.

Then he and Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou held a historic meeting in Singapore, a first in more than 6 decades.

And, for the first time in 2 years, China and the Philippines held high-level talks when the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Manila during the prelude to the APEC summit.

China could just be making nice. Or as The Economist put it, putting forward its “offensive charm.” – Rappler.com

I have been living in a world of disconnect over the APEC holidays when 22 world leaders, one of them an observer, met to continue a 26-year-old conversation. I surmise, given the multi-billion-peso expense and the fact that social, print and broadcast media were quite concerned with hotties and menus, that the main point of the APEC summit is that it has become one of those junkets that travel-weary heads of state actually attend.

Add to that, the inevitable failures (acceptable since such events cannot but have some missteps) that meant genuine hardships for the ordinary citizen (unacceptable that planners generally fail when it comes to respect for the ordinary citizen), and I was feeling a bit grouchy.

However, the criticisms by the anti-Aquino traditional politicians and their broadsheet mouthpieces who would like nothing better than to see APEC fail, did not impress me too. I suspect they think very poorly of  their readers who they think aren’t smart enough to question their self-serving analysis.

The traditional left me unmoved also because I expected they would protest and that they would condemn APEC wholesale as a neoliberal imperialist plot. I could have predicted that one in my sleep. They complained heartily of the inconvenience caused by the traffic and proved their sincerity by adding to the congestion with their rallies. They then called anyone who disagreed with their analysis coopted with special opprobrium reserved for other progressive forces for whom they hold a particular disgust, no matter their claim that these left forces are small, ineffectual and generally not deserving of any attention.

Good work on the culture stuff

Government of course highlighted it all – the glamor, the glitz, the dress and the cuisine. And it pushed some form of discussion around the benefits of trade liberalization and even managed to talk about inclusive growth through SMEs.

I liked the highlighting of our culture and hospitality. Government leaders past and present from Mao to Obama, understand that a lot of international relations is theater. That, in the era of nation-states, swagger and brag are really important tools for a nation without any real army to prove itself worthy on the international stage. Given that a certain amount of sindak (awe) achieved by pasikat (showing off) will help to increase respect for the Philippine passports carried by our OFWs, I have no objection to the extravaganza.

Ordinary people seemed to understand this too. As I already mentioned fashion, cuisine, design and dance were some of the few tropes about the APEC that united new and old media. It was also why calls for haters to stop their rallies and their criticisms while we were entertaining our VIP guests, went viral on social media alongside denunciations of government’s callousness for the public’s inconvenience.

Where’s the profound stuff?

I did not, however, agree with government’s unbalanced picture of the good of neoliberal economics that is the driving force behind APEC. Those statements were as simplistic and self-serving as those of the critics.

This is why I remained calm and unconcerned with the big APEC bash when I normally take it as my sacred citizen’s duty to be involved in whatever big national event is going on.

I suppose if fashion and design and dancing were my passion I might have been sufficiently engaged and patriotically fulfilled. But I am one of those irritating sorts who likes deep economic discussions.

I say we should not let the economists keep all the economic discussions to themselves because these things, like trade liberalization, are complicated. It’s a bit like letting your doctor make decisions for you because physiology is a complicated topic. Much of the advances in patient education and care has resulted from medical malpractice such that a growing number of doctors have now some inkling that they aren’t God.

Given the failure of many economic policies, economists should begin to explain themselves to ordinary folk whose lives they have blighted by these policies.

And since the Philippines remains mired in poverty and much of the world remains in recession, ordinary citizens need to begin to understand the ideas of economists.

For example, studies are less definitive about whether trade liberalization is good or bad.

Despite government’s glowing account, critics are correct in questioning the hard sell. As Rob Vos notes: “Strong opinions about the impact of globalization on poverty are not always backed by robust  factual evidence. As argued in this paper, however, it is not all that easy to lay our hands on ‘robust’  facts. Quantitative analyses of trade liberalization appear highly sensitive to basic modeling and parameter assumptions. Altering these could turn the expectation that, for instance, Africa’s poor stand to gain from further trade opening under the Doha Round into one in which they would stand to  lose. Most studies agree though that trade opening probably adds to aggregate welfare, but gains are small and unevenly distributed.”

But the data does not support the full scale condemnation of the critics either. According to Eddy Lee, “What the preceding discussion has tried to suggest is that there is no basis for a blanket prescription of “big bang” trade liberalization that is applicable to all countries. The relationship between trade liberalization and growth and employment is likely to be “a contingent one, dependent on a host of countries and external characteristics” (Rodriguez and Rodrik, 1999). Differences in country circumstances (such as the level of development or whether a country has comparative advantage in primary commodities or manufactures) are likely to warrant different strategies of trade liberalization.”

It is these strategies that should have been the subject of our national debate about APEC.

In truth, the only time I felt any engagement at all in the APEC issue was when a group of friends who are from the fields of women and development, history and law had a robust discussion about how the Philippines might deal with trade liberalization.

We discussed, for example, whether import substitution (a form of protectionism) was a good strategy and how this might be applied so that it protected only those sectors of our economy that needed to be nurtured while not allowing the rise of inefficient monopolies that are uncompetitive. We talked about ensuring mechanisms of distribution (such as ending the rice cartels) so that price reductions could be passed on to the consumers. We talked about achieving rising employment and stable wages (two factors in the literature shown to take advantage of trade liberalization) by applying correct wage policy and macroeconomic policies like targeted inflation rates.

The reader should note that we were not all economists, of which I am inordinately proud and which, I contend, makes our analysis of great value. I share this to give an indication of the kind of national debate that APEC should have inspired if we are to have a democratic and progressive nation where a well-informed and economically-literate citizenry participates in prescribing economic policy. I wager that had the world seen such spirited exchanges among our citizenry, it could well have added to the pasikat and consequent sindak.

In short, the APEC through various efforts, should have been a period of intense discussions about our nation’s economic development. It wasn’t. And that is why I was disaffected. – Rappler.com

This coming election, politicians will again promise to create jobs, fight poverty, improve education and health care, help OFWs, help small and medium enterprises, fight corruption, improve delivery of services, and pass the freedom of information (FOI) act, among others. That is the bad news.

The good news is that politicians can keep their promises if they can make the Internet and Wi-Fi faster, cheaper, secure and reliable. The benefits are immense and obvious, yet politicians and the government have done very little about it. One reason is ignorance and the lack of political will to take on vested interests. (READ: Average Philippine Internet speed 155th in the world)

Politicians, the media, and our bureaucrats have their smartphones but they are not “techno smart.” They all know the Philippines has the most expensive and slowest internet connection in Asia - “OMG!! Ang mahal na, ang bagal pa!” (It’s expensive and slow!) But do they know why and, more importantly, do they have any clue how to fix the problem?

For example, do they know that TV White Space technology can help connect remote schools, clinics, town halls in rural villages and remote islands and do so affordably? Do they know that the TV White Space experiment of Microsoft and DoST among fishing villages in Bohol won a prestigious international award? Do they know that the use of TV White Space can help make the government’s 100-billion-peso conditional cash transfer program more effective and accountable?

Do our politicians know that e-payment and mobile wallets can help improve the livelihoods of millions of farmers and small businessmen, as they have done in Kenya? Do they know that cloud computing, coupled with a reliable and true high speed internet connection, can help reduce the traffic gridlock in Manila by allowing workers to work at home instead of reporting to the office? Do they know that block-chains and distributed ledgers can help make our land registries more secure and thus foil syndicates? Do they know that OFWs will be forever grateful to politicians who can fix their Skype connections and make mobile transfers secure? Do they know that the Bangsamoro Bill can be made more meaningful if the Bangsamoro people have access to affordable, reliable, faster and secure connectivity? Do they know that FOI is more meaningful with Wi-Fi?

Do they know that a new generation of OFWs – the million-strong online Filipino workers - freelance architects, accountants, lawyers, graphic designers, digital animators, transcription and translation workers, online retailers, ukay-ukay entrepreneurs and many others - and another million BPO workers - would have a more secure livelihood if connectivity is made more affordable? Do they know that OFW remittances plus BPO earnings bring in USD46 billion annually, keeping our economy strong? Do they know that BPO investors are complaining about the costs of connectivity in the country?

In short, do they know that we can realize our demographic dividend and the immense creative talent of our young population if our Internet is made more affordable and reliable?

In this election season, there should be a public debate on the embarrassingly poor quality of our connectivity. The media, netizens, OFWs and students should flag this as an important election issue – not just issues of mental health, corruption, citizenship, and laglag bala, important as they are.

In this coming election, we call on all candidates to make a statement in their campaign manifestos on how they will make our Internet faster, more reliable, affordable and secure. We call on Mar, Jojo, Grace and Miriam (and most importantly MVP) to tweet their response to our call.

Finally, we call on OFWs, the media (especially Teddy Locsin), BPO workers, students and netizens and their families to share this manifesto and to vote for a faster, more reliable, affordable and secure connectivity. –Rappler.com     

Ed Araral is Associate Professor and Vice-Dean for Research at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy-National University of Singapore.

Lourdes Montenegro is a PhD candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy-National University of Singapore. She works on economics and policy issues in technology and telecommunications.  

MANILA, Philippines – With Charlie Sheen going on TV to disclose his HIV status, HIV has become a topic of discussion again.

Let me contextualize that: in the last 30 years since HIV was first detected, there has been significant progress in preventing the spread of the virus.

Globally, the rate of new infections and deaths due to AIDS-related complications has dropped. Through advancements in anti-retroviral therapy, those who have HIV can live longer productive lives. HIV is no longer the death sentence it was when it was first detected.

At the 2014 AIDS Conference in Melbourne, fast track strategies were laid out to end HIV by 2030. In just 30 years – one lifetime – scientific advancements and discoveries have brought us to a point where we can talking about ending HIV.

That’s one side of the story.

The other side is that HIV is no longer the public health emergency it once was. In terms of media focus, HIV has given way to more urgent and pressing issues like climate change and urban terrorism.

HIV infects over 22 Filipinos everyday

But in the Philippines, our HIV outbreak is just starting. The Philippines is one of the 9 remaining countries in the world where HIV continues to rise. Here are some things we should know about the state of HIV in the Philippines:

In the Philippines, there are 22 new HIV infections reported every day. In 2010, there were only 4 new HIV infections reported daily.

In just the last 5 years, the rate of HIV infection in the Philippines has increased by over 200%. The World Health Organization has described the Philippines as having the fastest growing epidemic in the world.

Misconceptions

The 2013 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Survey showed that over 43% of young people think that HIV can be transmitted by sharing food with someone who is HIV+. Only 17% of Filipino youth surveyed had correct information about HIV.

HIV cannot be transmitted by sharing utensils or by kissing – no matter how intense.

HIV is a virus that needs a carrier to transfer from one person to another. These carriers are body fluids like blood, breast milk, semen, and vaginal fluids. Without these carriers, HIV cannot live outside the body.

However, the case of blood is slightly different. Blood that is infected with HIV may be stored inside a needle or a syringe and transferred, making it one of the most efficient ways of transmitting the virus.

The rapid spread of HIV in Cebu is attributed to injecting drugs and sharing of needles. Before 2010, less than 1% of persons who inject drugs (PWID) in Cebu were HIV+. Now, that number is estimated to be more than 50%.

A combination of factors: criminalization of possession and distribution of syringes and prohibiting needle exchange programs have contributed to a dramatic increase of PWID who are HIV+.

HIV is not the same as AIDS

HIV is human immunodeficiency virus. It is a virus that weakens the immune system by attacking T-cells that fight off disease. HIV is not curable, but it is manageable. If you are infected you will have HIV for life, but it can be controlled by maintaining a healthy lifestyle and through anti-retroviral therapy.

AIDS is the final stage of the HIV infection. The immune system is weakened and becomes vulnerable to opportunistic infections like pneumonia or tuberculosis. Not everyone who has HIV advances to the AIDS stage.

Anyone can have HIV

It is a common misconception that you can tell if someone has HIV just by looking at them. A related misconception is that someone who is pretty or gwapo (handsome) cannot be infected with HIV.

That is not true.

Anyone can be infected with HIV. A middle-aged Hollywood actor who is also a father – someone like Charlie Sheen – can be infected with HIV. Young people can be infected with HIV and even women who are in long-term monogamous relationships can be positive for HIV.

The number of young people in the Philippines infected with HIV is increasing. According to the Department of Health (DOH), the proportion of people living with HIV (PLHIV) between the ages of 15-24 increased from 20% (2005-2009) to 28% (2010-2015). 

A person can live with HIV

The correct term for someone with HIV is person living with HIV. They are not called “AIDS victim” or “AIDS patients.” If you think about it, the choice of words is very deliberate – person living with HIV.

“Person” because anyone can be infected and “living with HIV” because those who are positive for HIV can live long, productive and normal lives. Words empower people, but they can also alienate, exclude and stigmatize. Let’s choose our words well.

Because we know what causes HIV, we can know how to protect ourselves. There is a acronym that is often used in HIV 101 classes called ABCD.

A: Abstain from sex.

B: Be faithful. Limit sexual partners.

C: Condomize. Use condoms correctly and consistently.

D: Don’t use or inject drugs.

We can also add E: Educate yourself.

Know as much as you can about HIV, how to protect yourself, how to take care of and be considerate of those living with HIV. Knowledge is power. And understanding leads to acceptance. It is not hate that discriminates – it’s ignorance. – Rappler.com

Ana P. Santos is a former banker turned public health journalist focusing on women’s issues and sexual health rights. It’s a mouthful and for the most part, she’s simply referred to as a “sex columnist.” She blogs (and rants) at www.sexandsensibilities.com and tweets @iamAnaSantos.

HIV/AIDS is a problem in many communities – both rural and urban - across the Philippines. Responding to our communities' concern about the issue, Rappler’s MovePH is launching a campaign to promote awareness on the issue. Follow our stories through the hashtags #StayNegatHIVe#LivePositive

Resilience will occupy a special place in the final text of the agreement in next month’s Conference of Parties (CoP21) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris.

It is highly anticipated that the concept of resilience will gain prominent attention in the COP21 as it has emerged in the discourse in almost all international processes that deal with disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation (DRR-CCA), Dr Kristoffer Berse of the National College of Public Administration and Governance in University of the Philippines-Diliman (UP-NCPAG) asserted.

The concept of resilience hangs prominent among international discussions for it is “an idea of good currency," Berse emphasized as he borrowed the concept popularized by American philosopher and urban planning professor Donald Alan Schön to describe an idea whose time has come.

Resilience, being an idea of good currency, can shift the language of debate by establishing a new vocabulary and influences the way organizations do things, explained Berse in his presentation: “Unpacking Resilience: Global Trends, Local Implications” during the annual conference of the Center for West Visayan Studies of the University of the Philippines-Visayas in Iloilo City. 

Community resiliency

Filipinos are widely recognized for their resilient character following the numerous natural disasters that hit the country in the last 10 years. Super Typhoon Yolanda two years ago further magnified this innate quality among Filipinos. International humanitarian workers were amazed of the Filipinos’ ability to afford a smile, share laughter or even crack jokes in the midst of dire situations or loss of lives and properties after disasters.

A family in the far-flung island of Higantes located in Northern Iloilo’s last municipality of Carles recounted how they shared laughter and later tears of joy after coming out of the cave where they sought shelter from Typhoon Yolanda. (READ: Gigantes, a call for small islands resiliency)

"There were numerous families from our community that rushed to the cave to sought shelter at the height of Typhoon Yolanda," shared Remrod Magallanes during the peer-to-peer session initiated by UP-Visayas Foundation under the Scaling-Up Resilience in Governance (SURGE) Project in the island in October 2015.

Marina Arnado, on the other hand, also a resident of the island community, decided to direct her family in the nearby building for protection against the storm surge as she narrated how they feared for their lives having been face-to-face with the killer typhoon.

They all came out after the storm surge and saw the vast area destroyed including their house and with their belongings and clothes scattered all over the place. Unimaginable as it may seem, but the affected family’s first reaction was to laugh upon the thought that they had survived the strongest typhoon even recorded in history.

They started calling each other’s names to check if other members of the community were fine and begun picking up things around them in the midst of doubts that hover over their minds, thinking of how they can rebuild their home again.

Manang Marina, as she is popularly called in the island, further shared how happy they were to have survived. "We cannot explain our laughter, but for sure it released all the fear and uncertainty in our hearts and offered us the needed energy to move and collect ourselves again in order to move forward," she said.

Defining resiliency

What the affected families experienced and how they responded to the circumstances was, unbeknownst to them, something described as resiliency, or the ability to absorb, successfully adapt or recover from adverse events like typhoons or disasters.

Stories like these are aplenty in the Philippines as impacts from typhoons had become a permanent feature, especially for communities residing along coastal communities and within small islands along the typhoon corridor.

These community resiliency actions - from planning, preparations, and recovery - especially in typhoons, are gradually and formally institutionalized in DRR-CCA practices.

Berse recognized that the concept of resilience is not new. In the academia, he explained by citing different studies from experts, that resilience emerged as a fusion of ideas from multiple disciplinary traditions including ecosystems stability, engineering infrastructure, psychology, behavioral science and disaster risk reduction.

Resilience renaissance

Today, resilience is a widely-used term to describe the concept from its definition especially among practitioners and scholars of DRRM-CCA. In 2010, the Institute for Development Studies called resilience as a practice that undergoes “renaissance” noting the use of the term in the context of discussion, policies and programming around DRR-CCA.

According to Berse, it is also acknowledged that resilience is also evolving from theory into policy and practice as demonstrated by the appropriation of support by bilateral and multilateral donor organizations into resilience initiatives worldwide.

The development of resilience as a concept and practice are likewise increasing and becoming widely accepted. The concept is becoming more mainstreamed, observed Berse. This is best illustrated by the appropriation of resilience in the international disaster regime which started in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. It is the first and only document where the term itself is part of the longer document title, explained Berse.

Substantially, the Hyogo Framework catapulted resilience as a priority for action and makes resilience as an outcome by stating the use of knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels, especially in developing countries. 

Resilience in the international arena

For scientists and observers of the development of DRR and CCA in international discussions, resilience is an emerging rock star, said Berse, for it has occupied centerstage in being repeatedly mentioned not only in the Hyogo Framework, but also in the Sendai Framework which was adopted in March 2015. (READ: In Sendai, Philippines shows lessons from Yolanda)

It can also be seen in the Addis Ababa Action Plan for Financing Development, the outcome document of the Third International Conference on Financing Development held in Ethiopia in July 2015. Resilience also became integral in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as embodied in the Sustainable Development Goals, a set of targets that succeeded the Millennium Development Goals.

These developments on resilience are anticipated to gather significance in the upcoming C0P21 in Paris and will for sure be carried beyond this year’s events especially in the World Humanitarian Summit on May 2016. - Rappler.com

Ted Aldwin Ong is the Lead Rappler Mover in Iloilo. 

For the nearly 9 years that I have been Secretary-General, I have travelled the world to the frontlines of climate change, and I have spoken repeatedly with world leaders, business people and citizens about the need for an urgent global response.

Why do I care so much about this issue?

First, like any grandfather, I want my grandchildren to enjoy the beauty and bounty of a healthy planet. And like any human being, it grieves me to see that floods, droughts and fires are getting worse, that island nations will disappear and uncounted species will become extinct.

As His Holiness Pope Francis and other faith leaders have reminded us, we have a moral responsibility to act in solidarity with the poor and most vulnerable who have done least to cause climate change and will suffer first and worst from its effects. (READ: Pope Francis' encyclical stands up for climate change – groups)

Second, as the head of the United Nations, I have prioritized climate change because no country can meet this challenge alone. Climate change carries no passport; emissions released anywhere contribute to the problem everywhere. It is a threat to lives and livelihoods everywhere.

Economic stability and the security of nations are under threat. Only through the United Nations can we respond collectively to this quintessentially global issue.

The negotiation process has been slow and cumbersome. But we are seeing results. In response to the UN’s call, more than 166 countries, which collectively account for more than 90 per cent of emissions, have now submitted national climate plans with targets. If successfully implemented, these national plans bend the emissions curve down to a projected global temperature rise of approximately 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. (READ: Philippines commits to reduce carbon emissions by 70%)

This is significant progress. But it is still not enough. The challenge now is to move much further and faster to reduce global emissions so we can keep global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. At the same time, we must support countries to adapt to the inevitable consequences that are already upon us.

The sooner we act, the greater the benefits for all: increased stability and security; stronger, more sustainable economic growth; enhanced resilience to shocks; cleaner air and water; improved health.

We will not get there overnight. The climate change conference in Paris is not the end point. It must mark the floor, not the ceiling of our ambition. It must be the turning point towards a low-emission, climate-resilient future.

Around the world, momentum is building. Cities, businesses and investors, faith leaders and citizens are acting to reduce emissions and build resilience. The responsibility now rests with governments to conclude a meaningful, binding agreement in Paris that provides clear rules of the road for strengthening global ambition. For this, negotiators need clear guidance from the top.

I believe this is forthcoming. The leaders of the G20, who met earlier this month in Antalya, Turkey, showed strong commitment to climate action. And more than 120 Heads of State and Government have confirmed their participation in Paris, despite heightened security concerns in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

I see four essential elements for Paris to be a success: durability, flexibility, solidarity and credibility.

First, durability. Paris must provide a long-term vision consistent with a below 2 degrees trajectory, and send a clear signal to markets that the low-carbon transformation of the global economy is inevitable, beneficial and already under way.

Second, the agreement must provide flexibility so it does not need to be continually renegotiated. It must be able to accommodate changes in the global economy and strike a balance between the leadership role of developed countries and the increasing responsibilities of developing countries.

Third, the agreement must demonstrate solidarity, including through financing and technology transfer for developing countries. Developed countries must keep their pledge to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 for adaptation and mitigation alike.

Fourth, an agreement must demonstrate credibility in responding to rapidly escalating climate impacts. It must include regular five year cycles for governments to assess and strengthen their national climate plans in line with what science demands. Paris must also include transparent and robust mechanisms for measuring, monitoring and reporting progress.

The UN stands fully ready to support countries in implementing such an agreement. A meaningful climate agreement in Paris will build a better today – and tomorrow. It will help us end poverty. Clean our air and protect our oceans. Improve public health. Create new jobs and catalyze green innovations. It will accelerate progress towards all of the Sustainable Development Goals. That is why I care so deeply about climate change.

My message to world leaders is clear: success in Paris depends on you. Now is the time for common sense, compromise and consensus. It is time to look beyond national horizons and to put the common interest first. The people of the world – and generations to come – count on you to have the vision and courage to seize this historic moment. – Rappler.com

Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I saw it immediately in my social media feeds when the news of the Paris terrorist attacks broke out. Photos of Paris. Songs about Paris. Selfies in Paris. Everyone in my feed composed primarily of Filipinos was suddenly French. Je suis Paris. Prier pour Paris. Paris, je t'aime. 

It's understandable. Paris is a beautiful city where it seems that the only appropriate activities would be to sip coffee in a cafe or to fall in love. I've been there. I've fallen in love with it and within it. The shock of the recent tragedy is reminiscent of the absurdity of 9/11 in New York. It is definitely heartbreaking and deserving of the world's support. 

I'm not taking that away from the nation, its hundreds of victims, and those who are still fighting for their lives. That lovely city has been shaken, a bloody gaping hole left in its portrait that may never be healed by time.

Universal response

What I am taking away from Paris is the heartfelt universal response to the senseless deaths from their terrorist attack - painting profile pictures red, white, and blue, expressing horror, posting blow-by-blow news, the faces of those broken by the attacks, shattered windows, flowers and candles on sidewalks, testaments from victims and those who survived them.

The outpouring of support has come from all over the world. It was loud enough that the victims of the Beirut attacks that happened just the day before felt they were forgotten. A week after the Paris attacks, a hotel in Mali was attacked in the same fashion as Paris. There was limited media coverage. No one's status said "#PrayForMali." Secretly they might have said, "Where's Mali?" (It’s in Africa.)

Speaking of Africa, in the beginning of the year, armed men attacked a Kenyan university and killed 147 students. 6,347 civilians were killed by the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram in 2014. 200 schoolgirls were also abducted by Boko Haram  last year, but none of that deserved any fervent prayers the way Paris did, and the #BringBackOurGirls movement was short-lived.

Taking it locally, 6 years after the Maguindanao massacre, there is dwindling hope that the ones responsible for the murder of 57 people (including 34 journalists) will ever be brought to justice. There is hardly any mention of the SAF 44 less than a year after the Mamasapano incident, never mind that it is considered the biggest loss of government elite force in Philippine history. After the song and dance of finger pointing, no one has been held accountable for the tragedy.

Many of us still ask, "What is the Lumad?" and seem to be fine not knowing about the displacement and death happening to our indigenous citizens in the south.

Two years after Yolanda, we no longer discuss the disaster but many of the affected people have yet to be relocated. It's understandable to want to forget the images of devastation and the rows of body bags, but at what point do our old tragedies become just ordinary things of the past?

The empathy divide

I'm guilty of it myself - shrugging off news of typhoons, local disasters, mass killings, sunken ships, and exploded bombs. Whenever I am asked about deaths in areas with armed conflict, I often shrug it off and say, "Ganon talaga dun, magulo dun. (It's really just crazy there. Just don't go there.)" When I am asked about the news of storms hitting the Philippines, I'm quick to say I don't know anybody in those areas or that it will be fine, as if I were a mind reader and that getting hit by 20 typhoons a year makes the latest one insignificant.

When does a nation or a city become branded as violent or war torn, where deaths due to terrorism or mass murder are somehow commonplace? Even here in the US we have the audacity to say, "Pray for Paris" and the lives lost in that terrorist attack, but not for the 84,000 gun-related injuries and 11,000 gun deaths every year in our own country. The consensus seems to be that nothing can be done about US mass killings like Newtown (20 children, 6 adults), Virginia Tech (32 dead, 17 injured), and Aurora (12 dead, 70 injured). Massacres have become so routine yet lawmakers still seem to believe that their relation to gun control does not exist.

Where do we get the license to call one country's deaths senseless and another's set of deaths typical?

When we can't change a situation, we accept it as how it is so it absolves us from trying to do anything about it. Just like in conflicted areas in our country, dangerous neighborhoods, and in countries where violent deaths have become the norm. It desensitizes us. It allows us to wash our hands and say that it is someone else's problem and to leave us to enjoy our relatively peaceful lives.

Psychology refers to it as dissociation and desensitization. We can't deal with painful events so we distance ourselves from them. We can't change the forces behind them so we remove ourselves from the equation and instead believe that tragedies happen because they are part of life or are somehow expected.

The element of surprise

Paris had a great impact because it was unexpected. No one walks into a restaurant expecting to be shot at. No one attends a soccer match knowing they will be bombed. The probability of going to work in an office building and commercial airplanes crashing into it on purpose was zero until 9/11. 

When we think of these tragedies, they all begin like ordinary days and especially in a city as picturesque as Paris, one never imagines masked men or suicide bombers or AK-47s interrupting one's espresso. Not in our wildest dreams do we conceive that our attendance of a rock concert will end in front of a barrel of a gun.

But we expect it from parts of the country with private armies. We expect it the parts of the Philippines with armed conflict and militarization. When foreign friends ask how safe Mindanao is, I cringe and ask them which part, and then just tell them to simply avoid the south.

There is a certain point when we believe that someone is "asking for it," like when they travel to the Middle East, or when they stand up against a violent politician, or get on the bad side of the government. Suddenly, enforced disappearances become okay, massacres and unprepared attacks are shrug-worthy because - well, because what does one expect?

Why do we label some deaths more senseless than others when all victims have mourning families and futures cut short, voids that their siblings, parents and children can't fill? The pain around it is the same regardless of location or circumstance. I doubt a person who has lost a loved one to violence will ever tell you they've gotten used to it or that they expected it because they are where they are. 

It's Thanksgiving in the US today - a commercialized celebration of the whitewashed version of what was originally a slaughter. It is the same kind of empathy gap that relegates the death of Native Americans as necessary in order for European settlers to grab their land. As a nation the US has dissociated itself from the truth of the occasion's origins in order to move on and believe it was a happy time. Well, except for the remaining Native Americans. 

Maybe if we take the time to recognize each person who has lost something, if we spend time with them and even consider their pain, we can accept that we are one and the same. The reality is that death or serious injury can now happen to each one of us, regardless of our circumstance and location. We are all united when a life is lost by another's hands. Race, color, creed, and country do not divide and exempt us from this fact. Nor should our sense of compassion ever draw lines. - Rappler.com

Recently, tricycle drivers complained about a new requirement by the LTO to submit an NBI and police clearance in order to acquire a driver’s license.

The national tricycle drivers’ federation said that this is costly especially for applicants who live far from the centers where the NBI clearances are available. Moreover, it was not clear if convicted felons who have “paid their dues” will now be deprived of earning a living. The LTO has countered that this move only applies to new applicants for professional licenses and does not cover non-professional licenses. The LTO also said that they want to ensure some level of “quality” among professional drivers. 

I fully understand the public purpose behind the requirement of LTO, but the question should be asked: Should this information (criminal records) be a burden on the public, or should it be a burden of government? Should we continue to require the public to produce all these “requirements” or can government offices share this information among themselves in order to lessen the burden on the transacting public? 

To their credit, government has become better and better at providing information and documentation to the public.

Think about the current system of procuring your birth certificate online with the National Statistics Office with home delivery to boot. The NBI has also become much better in delivering clearances, setting up computer-linked stations in malls all over Metro Manila. In the judiciary, the concept of electronic courts, where the litigating public can be informed of their hearings through SMS, or look up the status of their cases in public kiosks, and be issued orders right after the hearings, will soon become the new normal. 

However, these are stand-alone systems set up by individual government offices to serve the general public. Fine and quite laudable.

Collaboration among departments

I believe we are now in the cusp of the next generation of information sharing among government offices. Consider the case of the LTO under the DOTC and the NBI under the DOJ and the police under the DILG. We can imagine a scenario where the criminal records database of the NBI and the PNP can be shared with the DOTC-LTO in order to ferret out the “bad eggs” but also, to ensure that those who do not have any criminal record at all will get their licenses pronto. There would be no need for an applicant from Sanchez Mira to travel all the way to Tuguegarao to get an NBI clearance. 

But this would require collaboration and data sharing across departments, with the necessary security protocols, inter-connectivity issues, and file sharing arrangements. Difficult? Yes. Doable? Very. If there is one positive outcome that the Internet age has given to us, it is the beauty of information sharing.

If we can search and look up and connect with our friends from graduate school scattered all over the globe through Facebook, there is absolutely no reason why the LTO should not be able to determine whether an applicant has a criminal record even without even asking him or her. 

Another area where inter-departmental sharing of information is crucial is the processing of retirement benefits. I have a client from Pangasinan whose husband has retired as a police officer in 1982 and has already died, but has not yet secured his retirement benefits. In the checklist provided to me by my client, two items stood out: service record and death certificate. Fine, these are needed to process retirement claims. The service record could be found in the Personnel Department of the PNP. The death certificate could be found in the files of the NSO. Is there a way where these files could be digitized, consolidated in a Retirement Dossier per employee, and shared in a database to which the GSIS or the SSS can have access to? Difficult? Yes. Impossible? I say, Hell No. Desirable? Absolutely. 

Imagine a judge who is trying a case for illegal possession of firearms. If s/he can determine online whether the firearm in question is registered or not, then such fact can be admitted by the parties and thus shorten the case. If an immigration officer has access to court records, s/he can determine at port of departure whether a Hold Departure Order issued in 2010 has already been invalidated by the dismissal of the case and the acquittal of the passenger in 2012, without going through the embarrassment of denying boarding to the passenger, offloading his bag, and asking him to come back and get a dismissal order from the Sandiganbayan (by the way, this case happened to me personally). 

Another interesting snippet. Did you know that the Australian Embassy routinely issues visas through email? No going back, no courier fees, no sequestration of passport for a week. You can pick up your email anywhere in the world…now THAT is customer service. – Rappler.com

Hector D. Soliman is a public interest lawyer and a judicial reform advocate. He is a member of UP Law 1980 and Harvard Kennedy School MPA 1998. Feedback can be sent to solimanhector@gmail.com. 

Climate change is one of the core issues of our generation, cutting across demographics, cultures, gender, and religion. This weekend, thousands of people from all walks of life will be marching to the streets, in cities across the globe to urge world leaders to take serious action on climate change.

These climate marches will take place a few days before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change begins in Paris.

From Manila to Madrid, from Sao Paulo to San Francisco, thousands will be mobilized to demand from their own governments a transition to renewable energy (RE).

Saturday, November 28, will see thousands of Filipinos taking part in the March for Climate Justice Pilipinas with members from different civil society organizations, NGOs, the academe, religious and indigenous groups.

Replacing fossil fuels

The burning truth – about how dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil remain as the top sources of climate-destructive greenhouse gas emissions, despite the undeniable fact that there is vast potential in RE sources like solar and wind – is causing an uproar.

At this point, not doing anything about climate change means not doing anything about our own survival. Citizens demanding climate action is just the beginning. People know that leaving the fate of their future in the hands of a few during the Paris talks is not the only solution.

Calling for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement at the climate conference is just a step in the right direction – to reclaim power from the fossil fuel industry giants that have continuously denied the scientific truth about climate change, even lobbied with politicians and funded organizations to mislead the public by saying that climate change is a hoax.

One thing they can’t deny is the fact that their dirty business has been exposed and that their time is running out. People have now seen how clean renewable energy can power the world, saving us from further effects of climate change. 

In September, Greenpeace International published its latest Energy [R]evolution scenario. The report shows how we can already transform our energy supply by switching to renewables, which would mean a stabilization of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. In effect, this could mean bringing down emissions to near zero by 2050.

The report also states that a 100% renewable energy scenario will not only create jobs in the energy industry – nearly 20 million over the next 15 years – but the investment required is more than paid for by savings on future fuel costs.

People know that a just transition to 100% renewable energy will be able to power every community, every city, and every country around the world— just what is needed to stop the onslaught of climate change impacts.

The transition to 100% renewable energy has started. Almost everywhere, you’ll find solar and wind installations – from household solar rooftops to large-scale integrated wind and solar farms – all starting to deliver clean and sustainable electricity to thousands of homes and businesses.

Making the transition

In the same Energy [R]evolution scenario cited above, it is reported that in 2014, renewables contributed to 60% of new power generation worldwide. This is proof that the renewable energy sector is transforming power generation. This expansion also means that solar PV and wind power is now cost-competitive with coal in most regions around the world.

There is also growing support for 100% renewables. More scientists, engineers, and development workers support the view that a 100% renewable energy future is not only achievable, but essential.

In varying levels, 164 countries have targets for renewable electricity, with some cities and communities going for a 100% renewable energy target, from Fukushima, Japan to Maui County in Hawaii.

TIME magazine and The Guardian reported in April that Costa Rica was powered by 100% renewable energy for the first 75 days of 2015. Thanks to the country’s abundant hydropower and geothermal resources and its government’s commitment to curb carbon emissions, it is expected to rely on renewable energy for around 95% of its total electricity consumption this year.

Whether it’s a Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution report, images on social media about a solar-powered airport in India, or news reports about the Philippines building the largest solar and wind farms in Southeast Asia, there are renewable energy champions that carry this message of a clean and green future.

Now is the time for a just transition to 100% renewable energy. The March for Climate Justice Pilipinas happening this weekend, and other simultaneous marches elsewhere, hopes to highlight this point to every country and city where the sun shines and the wind blows.

There are no major economic or technical barriers for the world to move towards 100% renewable energy by 2050. It only requires political will to make the change. – Rappler.com

Reuben Muni is the Climate and Energy Campaigner for Greenpeace Philippines.

How does coal fit into the country’s energy and development equation? Our policy brief “Striking a Balance: Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Philippines Energy Future,” launched in a forum at the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) last Tuesday, November 24, is aimed at jumpstarting a robust discussion on the viability of coal fired-power plants (CFPPs) in meeting the country’s energy needs and development goals by exploring its economic, environmental, health, social and technological dynamics.

The Ateneo School of Government developed this policy brief with an aim to unpack the issues surrounding the controversial subject with the objective of also sparking further dialogue on the matter. An interdisciplinary group of technical, legal and policy experts  (Jennifer Ramos, Cecilia Guiao, Jethro Hipe, James Esguerra and Mike Guiguio) co-authored the policy brief with us and wrote its complementary supplemental papers. Complementing our efforts, a high level group of reviewers from government, NGOs, and academe reviewed the draft brief and gave suggestions on how to improve it. As far we know, this is the first time that such a holistic study has been attempted on this issue.

The study came amid an already heated debate on the relevance and benefits of sourcing energy from CFPPs especially as some European countries pledged to have them phased out in the next decade to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. There are those from the energy industry, however, who said that it will not be sensible to dismiss CFPPs as a practicable energy of source altogether for the country especially as it targets an increase in investments and a decrease in poverty.  An unstable energy situation could affect the operations of all income-generating sectors and have a pronounced impact on the economy of a country that is targeting a gross domestic product growth rate of 7% annually.

What we intended to do with this policy brief is to explore the salience of each perspective. By conducting primary and secondary research, using both international and local studies for reference as well as gathering information and perspectives through focus group discussions, we were able to come up with key findings that help provide a multifaceted appreciation of the issue.    

These are the study’s touch points:

Coal-fired power plants have a significant role in meeting the country’s baseload energy requirements. However, given the current listing of the Department of Energy on committed and indicative coal-fired power plants – assuming they are all completed and built – the Philippines would already exceed the baseload requirement for 2030

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), the Philippines would need 13,167 megawatts (MW) of additional power capacity by 2030, 8, 548 (MW) of which are to be generated from baseload power plants. Coal, which is both indigenous and could be imported, appears to be a reliable source of baseload power because aside from its availability, CFPPs could also be built anywhere in the country as long as there is available water supply. Natural gas is only available in Luzon while nuclear energy is not considered an option given the disasters that have happened in nuclear power plants in Fukushima, Japan and in Chernobyl.  Geothermal energy is also one of the main sources of baseload energy particularly in Luzon and Visayas, but its supply is limited as it cannot be imported, unlike coal, which is also available in Australia, Indonesia and Russia to name a few.

Data from DOE would show, however, that committed and indicative CFPPs could already provide 11,992 MW, if all plants become operational. This is more than enough to meet the country’s baseload energy requirements of 8,400 MW as specified in the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) and has even already exceeded the 11,400 MW – out of the required 13, 167 MW – that is open for private investment. 

Coal is only economically feasible for the baseload, however and is not poised to meet mid-merit and peaking energy needs. It is therefore important to highlight that since coal’s role is confined to the baseload and that the projections even point to having a potential oversupply, there should be bigger and better efforts for creating mechanisms and investing on technologies that would minimize the health, environmental and social costs of coal.

Given its host of by-products (solid wastes, emissions and discharges) and taking into account the effectiveness and availability of pollution control technologies, CFPPs are not the best option based on a strict environmental perspective

CFPPs produce considerable amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. It also uses lots of water to turn turbines and cool thermoelectric plants, emit air pollutants, produces leachate and generates ash.

CFPPs could be retrofitted, however, to increase efficiency. There are also “clean coal” technologies that could be adopted such as such as supercritical and ultra-supercritical integrated gasification combined cycle combined cycle fluidized bed combustion, which could lower emissions. The Sual Power Station in Lingayen, Pangasinan, reportedly uses similar technologies in compliance with standards of World Bank and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

The question is, are these technologies enough to suppress coal’s damaging impacts on the environment? What could be expected is a reduction in the stressors and byproducts, but as compared with other sources of energy such as natural gas and geothermal, coal stands out as a massive pollutant.

Based on scientific literature, there is evidence that CFPPs have health and social impacts; however, there is a lack of peer-reviewed local studies to systematically guide industry practice and policy decisions.

CFPPs produce a host of hazardous air pollutants particularly in the combustion stage.  The effects of these pollutants on health could be short-term and long-term and affect respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological systems. The US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association has identified these pollutants and their specific impacts on health. Examples include uranium and radium, which are both carcinogenic and could impair the lungs.

There is a lack of local studies and documented cases of the health impacts of CFPPs, however.  Local health workers in host communities also do not have the capacity to trace and monitor illnesses that could have been caused by pollutants from CFPPs.

Another significant concern that has not been documented well includes the credibility of the consultations done by CFPP operators with host communities. There have been allegations of companies deceiving people about the nature of the power plants and local government officials getting bribed in exchange of their approval of the CFPP operations. These are again, anecdotal and it would necessitate a thorough, independent investigation to assess if host communities have sincerely given their consent to the operation of CFPPs in their areas.

Access and disclosure of information on the payment and use of compensation funds from the companies such as electricity, development and livelihood funds as well as reforestation, watershed management, health or environment funds must also be improved.

The current policy approach for energy in the Philippines is geared solely towards available, reliable and affordable supply rather than genuine energy security consistent with sustainable development – in spite of the fact that our body of energy laws are among the most progressive in the developed world.

Policies on energy security in the country are more skewed in favor of energy supply and distribution and only consider the sector’s health and social impacts as externalities.  The main concern is to meet the demand, but there is no conscientious assessment of how a certain energy option could affect the other aspects of development. This shows the need for further interagency coordination between DOE, DENR, Department of Health and the National Economic Development Authority.

The Electric Power Industry Regulation Act (check) has called for “environment-friendly, indigenous and low-cost sources of energy” but the preference has been geared towards the “low-cost” consideration because the consequences on health and social aspects have not been thoroughly determined and measured for the longest time.

The government has to address this especially as it has submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change where it said that it would reduce its GHG emissions by 70 percent given international assistance and has also committed to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  

Continue the conversation

The next batch of leaders and lawmakers should map a policy direction that pushes for the compatibility of energy objectives with those of our commitments to improve also the health and environmental sectors – and this necessitates moving away from the predominant bias of Philippine energy policy towards “technology neutrality.” Furthermore, the new generation of leaders should meaningfully engage industry as partners in the shift towards a truly competitive energy sector that is not only driven by cost alone but by clear priorities towards facilitating energy security in service of sustainable development.

We also recommend that a gold standard be adopted in the assessment, approval and evaluation of CFPP proposals and operations.  A life cycle assessment of the coal value chain is essential to informing this gold standard as well as the conduct of cost and benefit analysis and scientific validation of health and environmental impacts.

There are alternatives to coal and this is evidenced by the pace in which new technologies are being developed to be more “flexible” to serve as baseload energy sources including renewables, but their utilization would require leveling the playing field of energy planning in the immediate future. The role of coal must be capped in the energy mix and an enabling environment must be provided to electrify the private sector in exploring other cleaner and greener energy sources for the mid-merit and peaking needs, while also potentially supporting baseload power needs.

The energy – no pun intended - from the stakeholders that attended our policy forum on coal on Nov. 24 showed a need to continue the conversation on coal.  Some government and nongovernment actors shared their current efforts on developing a more strategic and comprehensive assessment of the environmental, health and social costs of coal. There is also a resounding call to internalize these costs so that the private sector and the government will be more guided on its energy planning and investment decisions.

Let's have a rigorous dialogue on coal and let’s keep it going so that we could finally strike the balance we are aiming for in achieving sustainable development. – Rappler.com

Dean Antonio G.M. La Vina has served as the dean of the Ateneo School of Government since 2006. He has previously served as an undersecretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and also worked at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C. He has published numerous local and international studies on climate change and the environment.

Lawrence Ang is a public-private partnership specialist focused on facilitating cross-sector collaborations towards developing and accelerating sustainability solutions in emerging economies.

The hoopla over Digong Duterte’s stridulous announcement that he has finally decided to use his macho-ness to challenge Grace Poe for the presidency has also marginalized the story of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front’s effort to achieve peace and stability in Muslim Mindanao.

Understandably so, as the resolution of all the major issues affecting (and afflicting) the nation has been postponed until the next president assumes office. This means Congress is now on virtual recess (and its lazy habitués continued to be paid by our tax money), and the executive agencies whose heads have decided to quit the office to become candidates could not move forward, are ran by OICs who do not want to rock the boat. Even the public debate on issues is temporarily set aside: the continuing slow death of Metro Manila, the environmental problems caused by gold mining in northeastern Mindanao, the pursuit of the Abu Sayaff kidnap group in Basilan, and renewing pursuit of the Marcos billions now that a series of court decisions went against this parasite of a family’s favor.

Moreover, so does peace in Muslim Mindanao.

I nearly got inured to this circus until I chanced on an open letter by MILF spokesman Mohagher Iqbal just as I was starting to read Datu Michael O. Mastura’s new book Bangsamoro Quest: The Birth of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Bangsamoro Quest was published in Malaysia in 2012, and there is no Philippine nor a Mindanao edition. This made me wonder if the respected Datu Mastura is more concerned about what his Malaysian readers would think of the book – but Malaysia has practically ceased giving military support to the Mindanao separatists! So why not write for Mindanawans and Filipinos?

If you are patient enough to plod through the 244 pages, you will gradually realize that embedded in the text’s grandiose incoherence are a few gems that include a decent comprehensive history of the MILF from its cadres’ perspective, as well as a glimpse of its prominent personalities. The last time we read about the organization and its leaders are in the snippets found in Tom McKenna’s excellent Muslim Rulers and Rebels (Anvil distributes the book) and Marites Vitug and Glenda Gloria’s singular Under the Crescent Sun (this book needs to be reprinted!).

This time, we have more information, thanks to a member of the MILF’s negotiating panel.

Mastura’s propensity to be verbose makes it hard to follow step-by-step the armed movement’s history. It is easier to read about the leadership because the author sets aside blocks of paragraphs about them.

Naturally, the first main actor whose life you want to know a bit is the MILF’s late founding chairman and “spiritual head” Salamat Hashim. His split from Misuari on religious grounds  is well known, but that is all. Now we have Mastura to thank for for adding more information.

From earlier accounts, we learn that Ustadz Hashim and his allies broke away from Nur Misuari in 1977 to form the “New MNLF,” the MILF’s forerunner. Authors have speculated on the reasons for the split: that Salamat represented the Maguindanaoans who felt the MNLF was dominated by Misuari’s Tausog; that Salamat was unhappy about Misuari’s increasingly autocratic style of leadership and his hardline stance vis-à-vis the Marcos dictatorship; that Salamat’s patrons in the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Saudis and the Egyptians, were unhappy with the MNLF’s closeness to the Libyans; and Salamat’s worry over Misuari’s secularism and tightness with Filipino communists and socialists.

What Mastura’s book confirms include the following:

• Khadafy and Sadat hated each other, with the former calling Salamat “an agent of…Sadat." The rift worsened after Sadat signed a peace agreement with Israel
• Salamat’s split from Misuari arose from his suspicion that the MNLF leader’s political goal for the Bangsamoro was secular and Marxist, but worsened after Misuari seemed to have turned his back on Salamat after the latter “struggled hard…until the [MNLF] won recognition from the OIC as the ‘sole legitimate representative of the Moro people’ back in 1974"

What new information Mastura brings to the table is an answer as to why the MILF had repeatedly failed to convince the OIC to pass the mantle of “representative of the Moro people” from the MNLF to its rival. And this may just be the result of a simple mistake – Salamat arrived late.

According to Mastura: “The Arab League summit of early December [1977]  in Tripoli proposed to ‘freeze’ (tajwid?) in protest against Sadat’s détente diplomacy; thus the rift between Sadat and the Steadfast states had its downside impact on the Polisario Front and the Eritrean front as with the Moro front, too. When Salamat failed to turn up at the Islamic Conference at Dakar in Senegal that year, Misuari regained its support!”

Interestingly, Mastura writes that the MILF was more open to negotiating with the Marcos dictatorship than the MNLF. He notes that the “Misuari loyalists argued that armed struggle was declared to be one route toward the liberation of the Muslim South, but not the only one. The Salamat-led Islamists were positioning themselves for a gradual approach without conceding any of the fundamental rights of the Muslims.” 

Here then lies the possible reason why Salamat saw no problem writing to US President George W. Bush (remember that fellow who declared a War on Terror against Iraq?) to ask him to be one of the two mediators to speed up the peace talks between the MILF and the government. (More on this later.)

And it is also this pragmatism that probably explains why it took the MILF 21 years before it launched an all-out but defensive war against the government. Salamat was a good organizer, building the MILF army with care and quietly (suddenly in the late 1990s, there were Camp Busra in Sharif Aguak and Camp Abu Bakar), and continuously lobbying the OIC to change its mind.

And this is how we should see its negotiating position vis-à-vis the government today.

Salamat was thus an odd combination of the pragmatic and the naive, the militant and the moderate, the careful organizer and the failed supplicant – a fascinating fellow who wrote his dissertation, The Rise of Islam in Southeast Asia, in Egypt’s Al Anzhar University.

Unfortunately, he passed away too early. He would have probably made a good philosophy or theology professor after peace comes to Moro Mindanao, finally. – Rappler.com

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW.

“This changes everything,” said journalist Naomi Klein of the global crisis of climate change, as the catastrophes it creates “changes what we can do, what we can hope for, what we can demand from ourselves and our leaders.”

In the upcoming COP 21 climate talks, world leaders are scrambling to come up with a new international agreement that will enable countries to come up with lasting solutions to the climate crisis, but the dominance of corporate lobbyists are making the chances slim. (READ: What's happening in Paris in December? 10 things to know)

People everywhere are now stepping up to take action. Last year, the world’s single biggest march for climate justice drew together 400,000 people in New York to demand bold actions on climate change.

WATCH: Survivors of Super Typhoon Yolanda hold a march to demand climate justice

In the Philippines, around 20,000 organized survivors of Super Typhoon Yolanda (international name Haiyan) under the People Surge movement once again marched across Yolanda ground zero in Tacloban to protest persisting injustices they confront. (READ: Survivors occupy Yolanda ground zero to protest slow recovery)

This was followed by a daring protest by 10,000 marchers led by indigenous people against the globalization policies that they believed were the root of the climate crisis. Their demonstration was a mere kilometer away from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ meeting.

That day, the people’s voices were truly heard.

#NowPH: A call for action

The Filipino youth are now testing the waters of climate action through the #NowPH campaign, driven by young athletes and celebrities to raise awareness and draw pledges to address climate change. Its launch drew a total of 47 million impressions on Twitter.

There are many simple acts #NowPH prescribes to young people everywhere, from using reusable containers to unplugging unused electronic devices; but the urgency of the climate crisis challenges the youth to take bigger and bolder actions. What can we, the youth in particular, do to take the #NowPH pledge a step further?

Dedicate your social media to climate information and action.

#NowPH encourages youth to trend climate relevant information on social media. Populating the social networks with climate news, memes, and infographics will help raise the consciousness of your fellow tweeps, Facebook friends and other netizens.

Always spare a minute to spread online campaigns like the Dear Pope open letter campaign by Yolanda survivors appealing to Pope Francis. As proven by the massive online campaign that helped stay the execution of migrant worker Mary Jane Veloso in Indonesia, every online signature or share counts.

Organize a study circle on climate change with your friends.

Bring your online efforts offline by bringing your information drive from website URLs to your IRL (in-real-life) peers. Discuss basic climate science and the politics surrounding the issue. Learning about climate change is half the battle – taking action is the other.

Demand a people’s climate platform in the coming elections.

With the majority of the voter population composed of youth, the election season is an opportune moment to raise climate consciousness among young voters.

On November 5, 200 environmental advocates across the country launched the Philippine People’s Climate Platform, a comprehensive 12-point program that outlines much-needed changes in our economic and political systems to address the climate crisis. You can help in challenging electoral aspirants to help realize this platform.

Join a climate activist group near you.

Transforming the "Ako mismo (I myself)" mantra into "Tayo mismo (We ourselves)" is one big step that every youth should take. As the rallying cry of the Global People’s Climate March goes, “to change everything, it takes everyone.”

Change comes from the collective action of people, from hundreds of indigenous people barricading big mines out of their villages, to millions who powered the ouster of a corrupt government out of Malacañang Palace. Huge waves of transformational change always start from well-organized groups of people that started the ripples.

Join climate-active groups such as Kalikasan and 350.org. You can also be part of the recently re-launched national environmental youth coalition, the Youth for Earth Alliance.

Be part of the People’s Climate March on November 29

If you want to try and take the leap into a world of bigger and bolder climate actions, you should join the upcoming Global People’s Climate March on November 29 right before the start of COP 21.

The march in Manila, which will coincide with hundreds of marches across the globe, starts 6:30 am at Plaza Ferguson to the Rajah Sulayman Park led by the Roman Catholic Church alongside Kalikasan, the Stewards of Creation, 350.org Pilipinas, and other environmental groups.

The first 4 actions, you can and should do anytime. Now is the best time for action number five. Let’s take the leap into the world of climate activism! – Rappler.com

Leon Dulce is the campaign coordinator of the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) and a volunteer campaigner for the Philippine counterpart of international youth-led climate network 350.org. Contact him through leon@kalikasan.net.