Six months ago, Rodrigo Duterte and his faction of the ruling class won the elections by riding on the wave of revulsion against then President Benigno Aquino, his faction of the ruling class, and the social order they defended.


Hoping to advance their own narrow interests, Duterte tapped the widespread dissatisfaction and feeling of insecurity fueled by the liberals’ elitist, neoliberal policies: their rejection of workers’ demands for regular jobs and better pay; their failure to provide dignified social services for all; and their indifference to the lower classes’ yearning for security.


Like so many populists before him, Duterte capitalized on people’s hopes and aspirations by vowing to advance the interests of the oppressed – while also simultaneously vowing to advance the interests of their oppressors. He promised to end “contractualization,” expand social services, and stamp out criminality – while also promising businesses cheap labor, lower taxes, and continued growth.


He even installed progressives in Cabinet and voiced support for a number of progressive ideas.


But, as so many Caesars and Bonapartes before him have realized, no ruler could give to one class without taking from the other: Ending contractualization means making labor less cheap for capital. Expanding social services requires compelling the rich to pay more taxes. Stamping out criminality requires pursuing social reforms which, in turn, entails challenging the prerogatives of the mighty.


Like so many populists before him, Duterte was forced to choose sides, and today it is clear whose side he has chosen.


Instead of improving the lives of workers, he has put his foot down on wage increases, and he is set to issue a so-called “win-win” solution to contractualization that actually sells workers down the river.


Rather than increasing taxes on the rich to expand social services, he is pushing for “tax reforms” that have been lauded by the market fundamentalist think-tank Foundation for Economic Freedom for seeking to reduce the tax obligations of those in the upper brackets without significantly increasing social spending.


And instead of challenging the prerogatives of the wealthy to enact the redistributive measures needed to strike at the root of the drug problem, he has chosen to take a short-cut and wage a ‘war on drugs’ that has so far resulted in the death of over 5,000 people – nearly all of them from the ranks of the poor and unemployed. 

In addition, he is pushing for constitutional revisions and other measures that are likely to make it even harder to undertake redistribution.

In short: instead of choosing the side of the people, Duterte has predictably chosen the side of capital. With his own actions and omissions, he has exposed himself for what he was from the beginning: an enemy – rather than an ally – of the oppressed. Far from being the first “socialist” President, he has proven himself to be yet another ruthless reactionary.


This in large part explains why the spectre of fascist rule now hangs over us like a dark cloud: Having chosen to side with the oppressors, Duterte can now only fall back on brute force to contain the discontent and resistance that is likely to grow in the face of his treachery. Hence, his threat to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; his push for the death penalty; his attempt to condition the minds of the people into thinking that dictatorship is “heroic” by giving Marcos a hero’s burial; his “Kilusan para sa Pagbabago” project to organize a fascistic grassroots movement to defend his regime; and his efforts to cultivate the loyalty of state forces by coddling them and shielding them from prosecution.


Faced with these developments, the ruling-class faction represented by the Aquinos are now also trying to ride on the wave of the growing opposition to Duterte in the hope of returning to power. They too are now also tapping the growing dissatisfaction and feeling of insecurity fueled by Duterte’s elitist, anti-poor, and increasingly draconian policies. And they too are now trying to capitalize on the frustrated hopes and dreams of the people in order to advance their own factional, oligarchic interests.


Mobilizing all the resources and advantages they command as displaced elites, they are now moving to position themselves again as the only “democratic” and “realistic” alternative to fascist rule.


To do this, they are portraying Leni Robredo as a reformist champion of the poor despite her refusal to break with cacique elitists like Aquino/Roxas and despite her own support for the same neoliberal anti-poor policies that Aquino championed and Duterte continues to pursue.


Harking back to the Aquino years as a kind of mythical “golden age” in the Philippines, they are now trying to limit our horizons and narrow our imaginations by trying to persuade us that a return to the yellow past and a restoration of yellow rule is the best we can possibly hope for.

In short, they are now moving to hijack our burgeoning movement for democracy again – just as elites displaced by Marcos did in 1986 and just as elites displaced by Estrada did in 2001.

But we do not have to allow them to steal our dreams again.

We must say no to both Duterte/Marcos and Robredo/Aquino because, though they clash in their styles, both camps are actually united behind a common goal: perpetuating elite rule. We must refuse to march behind either the bloodied banner of the fascist incumbents and the jaundiced yellow flag of the (il)liberal trapo opposition because, though they disagree over the means, both ultimately share the same aims: to keep us in chains. Though we must of course march alongside Robredo in her opposition to Duterte’s fascist measures, we must refuse to march behind her unless she breaks decisively with both the pro-Duterte and anti-Duterte elites and denounces neoliberalism and elite rule.


Instead of remaining imprisoned in their false choices, we need to fight for a different–because truly democratic–society. Instead of remaining chained to our masters and marching behind their tattered flags, we must declare our independence and march behind an alternative banner: the red flag of socialism. Instead of returning to the past and remaining trapped in this vicious cycle, we can break free and create a different, more hopeful future. 



We have nothing to lose but our chains. – Rappler.com


Herbie Docena is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley who is now back in the Philippines. He was involved in mobilizing students as editor in chief of the Philippine Collegian during the EDSA Dos uprising in 2001 and he is currently helping organize the Socialist Circle, a newly-formed anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and anti-fascist group committed to creating spaces for exploring and advancing socialist, feminist, and radically democratic alternatives to the present order.

We commemorated Human Rights Day last December 10 with nothing to show for it except shame.

Some of us went to the streets, raised clenched fists, waved red flags, denounced extrajudicial killings, and even burned the effigy of a "fascist monster." How could we allow all these killings to happen, asked others in their statements and posts on social media. We demand a stop to these senseless deaths, various groups declared.

Really, is this all we can muster? 

Nearly 6,000 poor Filipinos have been killed in 6 months in the Duterte administration's war on drugs.  That's an average of a little less than 1,000 people killed a month since July 1, or a little less than 250 a week, or a little less than 35 a day.

On June 30, 1991, a mother and her two daughters were killed in their home in Parañaque in what has since been known as the Vizconde massacre. The sensational murders gripped an entire nation, and the public outrage jailed 3 batches of suspects, with the final batch – boys at the prime of their lives – eventually sent to the New Bilibid Prison.

In 2004, farmers demanding land reform at Hacienda Luisita, the estate of the family of ex-President Benigno Aquino III, were dispersed violently, killing 7 of them in what is now infamously called the Hacienda Luisita massacre. Government agencies were forced to investigate what happened, as the Left staged decade-long protests. 

In 2011, when 19 young soldiers were slaughtered in the rebel stronghold of Al-Barka in Basilan, we called for blood, forcing officialdom to court-martial military commanders and demote them.

The list of deaths is endless, along with the dire consequences for those linked to them.

The current state of killings in the Philippines only has lists, without consequences for those behind them. 

Yet, the facts are clear: this is the biggest number of Filipinos killed in any campaign – be it by the military or the police or rebels or criminals – since the Marcos dictatorship. This is also the worst in terms of public response to it: not enough anger, not enough rage.

The situation makes a mockery of human rights – and our history of human rights advocacy and organization.

Human rights is not only in our 1987 Constitution. We take pride in the way this concept took shape even before it was enshrined in our charter – courtesy of the men and women who first set up the Presidential Committee on Human Rights, the precursor to the Commission on Human Rights. We had the likes of the late nationalist Jose W. Diokno, the fierce Haydee Yorac, the tireless Sister Mariani Dimaranan – they who led countless fact-finding missions, gathered evidence despite obstacles, dug up mass graves, braved military camps, filed numerous cases, confronted authorities, questioned the rules, and most of all laid down the foundation for courage and methodology in human rights advocacy.

Theirs isn't just an example. Theirs is a challenge to people who ought to know better today: lawyers, researchers, academics, activists, sectoral groups, advocates, public servants, non-governmental organizations, and global networks.

If there's no national rage, so be it. Let's drop our lamentations and make one step forward by taking concrete legal steps to hold the guilty to account.

The numbers, people, and facts litter our bloody streets. The experts need only to look at them, and take action.

Otherwise, human rights will remain to be a joke in this country, the slogans and hashtags notwithstanding. – Rappler.com

Despite nearly four years living in the Philippines, my palate never quite grew accustomed to what seemed to me to be sugar-filled spaghetti sauce. But my taste buds' passion for halo-halo and whatever else might be on my merienda menu is another matter.

These and other daily food choices have consequences, and came to mind during a recent trip to New York. There, as in Manila, fast food restaurants were easy to find, offering up relatively inexpensive, calorie-filled meals.

Health, however, was on the agenda at the annual Faster Cures conference that brought me to Manhattan. 

More than 10,000 known diseases affect our world, and yet there are viable treatments for only 500 of them. With that sobering fact, hundreds of patient advocates, researchers, investors, and policymakers had gathered in New York with a clear focus. They were working to save lives by speeding up and improving the U.S. medical research system.

The shared purpose of the conference attendees is critical also to the Philippines and the rest of Asia – to foster the collaboration needed to speed medical progress and improve health outcomes.  The non-profit organization Faster Cures is a center of the Milken Institute, where I serve as the non-partisan think tank’s first Asia Fellow. Our newest senior fellow focusing on Asia is former Philippine Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima.

Across Asia, including in the Philippines, governments remain vigilant in their focus on infectious diseases such as dengue fever, cholera and malaria as well as emerging threats like the Zika virus. Yet, collaboration and commitment are also necessary in the face of a growing, “non-infectious” threat to the region’s health and well-being.

'Lifestyle diseases'

That is the rise of so-called “lifestyle diseases.” Diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease impact the health of citizens of both developed and developing nations in ever larger numbers. Changing diets and increasingly urbanized and sedentary lives, as in the West, are driving an increase in the prevalence of such non-communicable diseases in Asia. 

Asia’s developing nations have reduced mortality rates over the last 30 years as public health experts have focused on infectious disease. Child mortality rates are down. Mothers are surviving childbirth. People are living longer in India and China, representing the vast majority of Asia's population.

These and other nations, however, must focus too on lifestyle-related health worries. World Health Organization data show dramatic increases in diabetes and heart disease as Asia has grown richer.  Even Asia’s poorest nations such as Cambodia, Laos and Bhutan are seeing lifestyle diseases take their toll.

A recent Milken Institute Asia Center report makes clear that poor nutrition and obesity pose a severe public health challenge across large parts of Asia, taxing public health systems and posing significant risks for future generations.

WHO data underscore the challenge. According to a March 2016 report, the number of adults living with diabetes globally has increased to 422 million from 108 million in 1980. The western Pacific region, including China and Japan, now accounts for 131 million of that number.

Diabetes is expected to be the world’s 7th largest killer by 2030 if present trends continue without interventions.

While 60 percent of US, British and even Australian adults are now classified as overweight, developing Asia has some fairly heavy-weight concerns of its own. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia leads with some 37% deemed overweight. Thailand follows with some 31.6%, according to the WHO. Some 24.4 percent of Indonesians are deemed overweight. Japan, Malaysia and Thailand have also now surpassed the United States when it comes to the percentage suffering from diabetes. 

In the Philippines, 22.3% are overweight, and 5.8% suffer from diabetes, according to the WHO. These numbers are likely to increase over time as the nation follows the path of the rest of Southeast Asia.

Challenge to businesses

Governments, business, aid agencies and development banks – including the Manila-headquartered Asian Development Bank – have helped reduce the spread of infectious diseases by addressing Asia’s infrastructure shortcomings.  Now, all sectors also must partner to address the growing lifestyle disease challenge.

Public health education will play a critical role in helping Asian consumers understand the consequences on their health of changing eating habits and reduced exercise and physical activity. Good nutrition must be made both accessible and understandable.

Businesses in Asia also must take more responsibility for the health consequences of their products and services. Restaurants and food providers voluntarily offering calorie information and smaller portion options will also be to the benefit of responsible businesses, possibly forestalling costly government mandates and labeling requirements.

And where there are new challenges, there are also new opportunities for business including Southeast Asian companies, from fitness centers to producers of diet foods. I know this well through my own work with Equator Pure Nature, a Thailand-based company that has capitalized on Asia's growing demand for healthier products, such as its Pipper Standard-branded natural detergents, amidst rising allergy and asthma rates and growing concerns about air pollution.  Consumers are responding to the message that a healthier environment starts at home.

Among the United Nations’ 17 new “Sustainable Development Goals” is a target of ensuring healthy lives and promoting the well-being for all at all ages.  Ultimately, meeting this healthy lifestyle goal of the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development must include cutting through the roadblocks that slow medical progress and improved healthcare results. 

As underscored by the most recent Faster Cures conference, impacting health outcomes will require the spurring of cross-sector collaboration, cultivating a culture of innovation and engaging patients as partners in their own care.

Medical research as well as the delivery of healthcare can be complex, inefficient, and underfunded even in the most developed of nations such as the United States or Japan.

Philippine leaders in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors must adopt a more effective response to both infectious and lifestyle diseases. Doing so will contribute to a healthier, and ultimately wealthier, nation. As the Philippines develops, it too must address the lifestyle challenges to growth. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. 

If you’re a parent of a teenager like me, you probably want to have “The Drug Talk” with your kid. 

Except you don’t know what to say.

You’re not sure how to start such a conversation. You try different openers in your head and rehearse a few lines, fumbling over words but somehow always ending up with one message: “Just don’t do it!”

I know that’s what I did. I walked into my 15-year-old’s room one evening, looked earnestly into my child's eyes, held the hand and said, “Don’t do drugs, please. Promise me.”

Of course, my child nodded. 

For good measure, I made my child swear never do drugs. 

I didn’t realize it then but my message about drugs was an "abstinence-only" one. 

[I didn’t know what else to say!]

I should have known better, that as with the sex talk, when it comes to drugs, telling your children “just don’t do it” or “just say no” is not likely going to work. It doesn’t offer other options for the myriad of situations that they are likely to encounter.

The problem with that singular “abstinence-only” message is it does not leave room for the moments when your teens might say “yes”, “maybe” or “sometimes”. 

You’re going to need a back-up plan.

Safety First

I asked the help of No Box, an NGO that advocates for evidence-based drug policies and interventions for people who use drugs. My friends there sent me an info packet that shows how to get started on the drug talk, and I loved it.

The packet, which is entitled “Safety First: A Reality-based Approach to Teens and Drugs” was written by Dr Marsha Rosenbaum, a medical sociologist and a mom, who has done extensive work on substance abuse. It started out as a letter to her son who was about to enter high school and it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The letter generated a huge response from other parents who wanted to know more about how to have the drug talk with their children. Dr Rosenbaum expanded it into a book that is easy to read and understand, basically taking out all the intimidating parts. 

Let's break down the information into the following talking points: 

• It isn’t only drugs that we should look out for

The teenage years are years of experimentation. These are the years when they are likely to be exposed to alcohol, smoking, and drugs like marijuana and party drugs or other harder drugs. Each of these substances alters the way we feel or see things and in varying degrees. It gets you high, and when you are, judgment is impaired and comprehension is hampered.

• Differentiate between use and abuse

Any form substance use involves risk but it is important to distinguish between “use” and “abuse”.  For example, a social drinker does not make someone an alcoholic. In the case of drugs, a “drug user” is not to be equated to someone who is “drug dependent.” This distinction is especially important when considering interventions; not all forms of drug dependency require rehabilitation. 

Related to this, refrain from using the words “drug addict” or “addict”. 

Such terms are loaded with connotations and demonize drug use. Your child may have friends who use drugs, and calling them “addicts” may be seen as labeling and condemning them.

UNAIDS in their Terminology Guidelines suggests using “person who uses drugs” or “person who injects drugs.” These terms describe the behavior a person is engaged in rather than characterizing a person.

• Don’t scare, actively listen

Do your homework and present your children with science-based data when it comes to drugs. For example, know and understand that the likelihood of becoming dependent on marijuana is much less compared to cocaine or heroin.

Don’t scare them by distorting information. Present them with science-based information and trust them to decide for themselves. They appreciate that better. 

• Understand the legal implications of drug use 

Drug use and possession of drug paraphernalia (like needles and syringes) are punishable by law (Republic Act 9165).

Minors aged 15 and below are assumed to be exempt from criminal liability, however, those over 15 but below 18 are liable if they acted with discernment.

• Lastly, be open to the possibility that your child may experiment 

But remind them (and yourself) that they can always call you for help or for a ride at any time of night – no judgment or questions asked. 

As a journalist, my work schedule is erratic and often takes me out of the country, so my child and I established a "Call Tree," a list of people that she may call in my absence at any time to bail her out of a troublesome situation. Each person on the call tree is briefed about the no-judgment/no-questions asked policy and asked to uphold and respect it before they are assigned. Alternatively, we have set up Uber on her phone.

(As I write this, it has occurred to me that we should have a hard copy-no-batteries-required version of this "Call-Tree" set up on her wallet.)

It can be overwhelming, but the conversation on keeping safe from drugs need not happen all at once. Consider breaking up the discussion into smaller conversation topics:

• Think about the consequences of your actions. Apart from getting into trouble with the law, teens may face all sorts of school sanctions if caught intoxicated or with drug possession.
• Know what the risks are. This can range from the dangers of driving under the influence to overdosing on party drugs.
• Be safe and keep their friends safe, too. If they do decide to experiment, make sure they are with people they can truly trust will take care of them. Remind them not to ever get into a car with someone who has been drinking or using drugs.
• Lastly, as with sex and drugs, for young people, abstinence is always the better option. But again, we have to have contingency plans in place. It doesn’t mean we are encouraging our children to try drugs, but it does mean that we’ve got their back if ever they do.

The principles of Safety Firstare premised on having non-judgmental conversations based on science-based information rather than scare tactics or making moralistic pronouncements. 

In fact, a lot of principles that I apply to sex talk apply to drug talk.

I started talking to my child about sex and sexuality at the age of 3. I was playing catch up with the drug talk but it’s never too late. (READ: Dash of SAS: Talking sex to kids)

My favorite quote in the Safety First handbook reminds us that “prevention is fundamentally about caring, connected relationships and an open exchange of information. There are no simple, ready-made answers, just thoughtful conversations.” – Rappler.com

Ana P. Santos is Rappler’s sex and gender columnist and independent journalist. In 2014, she was awarded the Miel Fellowship by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in Washington, D.C.

Nothing gets in the way of a Filipino Christmas, not even the season's otherwise most provocative issues. And there are a number. 

The hero's burial for the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, which has sent protesters out on the streets in numbers and fervor unseen for some time, is shelved for the season. You’d have thought the issue would rankle, especially as insult has been added to injury with the firing of Leni Robredo from President Duterte's Cabinet as housing secretary.

The firing has been an all-too-unsubtle attempt to clear the way for Ferdinand Jr., who lost to Robredo in the vice-presidential race in May, but claims to have been cheated. He has filed an electoral protest, doubtless inspired by reassurances from Duterte, who idolizes Ferdinand Sr. and now says he would hand down power to Junior. As dreadful as such a prospect may be, it is raised without much of a credible basis, probably the precise reason it is set aside.

A longer-burning issue that has been sidelined for Christmas is a grave moral issue: Duterte's ruthless war on drugs. In just six months, it has more than 6,000 dealers and users dead – deaths clouded by suspicions of summary executions ("extrajudicial killings", or EJK, in the more popular usage). (READ: Duterte's war on drugs: The first 6 months)

Apparently forgotten even before Christmastime set in is the president's authoritarian tendency. The nation – if it needed any reminding – has been in a state of lawlessness since September 2, and is yet under threat of losing the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The first emergency gave the president the power to deploy both army and police anywhere in the country; the second allows for arrests without warrants, and comes to within a breath of full authoritarianism.

Anyway, for Christmas, that, too, can wait.

Federalism debate

An issue too abstract and complex for prosaic minds, thus avoided, Christmas or no Christmas, is the switch to a federal form of government that the president and his cabinet and the legislative majority advocate. In fact, it’s an issue pregnant with far-ranging political and economic implications.

If anything, the debate has been academic and theoretical, thus making the debate interminable and the issue even more ungraspable. To be sure, federalism at this stage remains a skeletal proposal, bereft of the flesh and blood that will give it a more or less distinguishable form: How many states will constitute the federal union? How will the dismemberment be determined? How will power, resources, and revenue be allocated?

In fact, the most basic question would seem, Is federalism suitable at all in a society that operates on a culture of patronage such as ours?

The debate may well begin and end on that point – a point premised on decentralization being achieved by devolving feudal, not populist, power, thus only further entrenching local poltical dynasties and oligarchies.

At any rate, with most of the usual countervailing forces co-opted into, or somewhat intimidated by, Duterte's regime, not to mention the high popular approval of his presidential performance, little open-minded discourse on the issue would seem possible. Duterte has put together the broadest-based and most unlikely coalition in perhaps all of the nation’s democratic history: he commands a strong majority in both houses of congress; he is backed, of course, by the Marcoses and their booty from the plundering regime of their patriarch; and he has, in a coup of coups, managed to enlist the Left.

Meanwhile, the Church, a swing force in past political crises, notably in the Marcos ouster, has been too timid to be able to provide the leadership and inspiration civil society looks to it for.

In any case, the nation saw the last earnest challenge to Duterte from the streets more than two weeks ago: on November 30 protesters coming individually or in various groups gathered in the thousands on streets around the shrine to the people-power revolt of 1986, against Marcos, to demand his exhumation from the heroes’ cemetery, thus invalidating the honors given him, and to denounce Duterte’s “lapdog” attitude toward the Marcoses. Pockets of protest were also mounted in some provincial cities.

On December 10, at Liwasang Bonifacio, another storied protest site in Manila, demonstrators converged, but on a more general occasion, one observed across the Free World: International Human Rights Day.

The streets have been quiet since – although Christmastime was yet to be ushered in officially by the first of nine dawn masses on the 16th – and should remain so until January 6, the Day of the Magi.

But then, again, time must be made for rest and re-energizing; Christmas, for all its fun, can be exhausting, such that, by the time our lives are cleared of it, it’s Valentine’s. – Rappler.com

When I think of childhood, I think of family picnics and pets. I think of early morning grocery runs and lazy afternoon walks. I remember playing with friends and learning my lessons in school. I remember Christmas morning magic and gorging  on fruits in the summer. I remember weekly catechism classes before mass. My childhood was idyllic; it was normal.

There is a sense of nostalgia when you think of your childhood and if you’re lucky, you can go back to your hometown every now and then and reminisce about everything. Unfortunately, I am not one of those people. I grew up in Aleppo, Syria, and right now, it is being obliterated.

My family moved there because of my dad’s work when I was a month old. He worked in finance for the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) for 9 years. Aleppo was a place filled with cultural wonder. It was a city with a historical heritage I couldn’t appreciate until decades later.

Family picnics involved driving out of the city and setting up a barbecue grill at any of the ancient ruins that peppered the country side. There were no tourist fees or ropes barring you from certain areas, only the occasional shepherd with his herd of sheep passing through. My siblings and I would climb over the rocks and play imaginary games until our parents shouted that the food was ready.

Grocery runs involved going to the market where my mom would haggle with the sellers in Arabic, and an elderly lady selling produce would give me candy with a wink whenever we’d pass by. Lazy afternoon walks would involve traipsing down cobbled roads of street markets and exploring alleyways filled with carpets and trinkets of gold, silver and brass. Shop owners would convene outside for their afternoon chitchat while smoking hookahs and sipping tea.

In school, aside from English, PE, Science, and Math, we also learned Arabic. While I can only speak a few words, I still remember how to pronounce the alphabet and write my name. High school graduation was a big event and the whole school community was invited to the ceremony, which took place in the amphitheatre of the great Citadel of Aleppo, a large medieval fortified castle right at the cit center.

My parents are devout Roman Catholics and while I took catechism classes, it was the early morning Islam prayers or adhan that I fondly remember waking up to as they resounded throughout the city at the break of dawn. 

Aleppo was the place where I learned how to swim, ride a bike, and play tennis. It was the place where I got my first lipstick after I begged my mother for days – much to the amusement of my father. It was where I grew fond of eating burgers with fries in them from the burger joint down the block. It was there where I discovered the world of books and would have my mother take me to the library during the summer as I devoured the different worlds of Harry Potter, The Baby Sitters Club, and Nancy Drew.

What many don’t know is Aleppo took me in and afforded me a kindness that permeated the span of my lifetime – from the gardener who swooped me in his arms and carried me to the nurse’s office when I broke my arm, to the dedicated college student who arrived at my violin lesson one day bandaged, bruised, and banged up from a car accident because he didn’t want me to miss a lesson, to the teachers who encouraged my inquisitive mind and developed my passion to read and grow. 

Watching the news lately, I felt helpless for the longest time until I could no longer take it. I had to do something. Writing about my childhood may not seem like a lot but if humanizing the place makes even one person want to help and donate, then at least I can say I’ve done something. What’s happening in Aleppo now is an ongoing humanitarian disaster and if the international audience is loud enough, something can be done about it.

Lives can be saved. Let us not stand by and allow these atrocities to continue. Donate, share, make noise. #SaveAleppo. – Rappler.com

Migel Estoque is a communications manager for the Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation and lived in Aleppo, Syria, for nearly a decade. You can find her in the social stratosphere at @mestoque. To donate, please proceed here.

What will you eat or drink during the holiday season?

Cola? Coffee? Cake? Chances are, it’s crammed full of sugar. The world annually produces about 9 million dump trucks worth of it, while the average person consumes 50 pounds of it. But is it a sweet deal for the sugarcane farmers who work the hardest to get it? 

Clutching a sickle, farmer John Godinez dons a battered orange helmet and enters a field of razor-sharp grass 6 feet high. 

It’s nearly Christmas, but he’ll spend the holidays alone. In the endless sprawls of sugarcane blanketing Negros Occidental, 300,000 farmers like him till the land for the sweetest crop of them all.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) recently joined him to experience the life of the sacada. 

Scything weeds under the sun is a stifling work. Sometimes the wind wheezes through the grass-blades, making them sing.

“We’ll each get about P500 for weeding a hectare of land. Life is tough. I’ve been doing this for 20 years, but I can’t still afford to raise a family. I’ll spend Christmas alone again,” Godinez said. 

Once dominated by elite landlords called hacienderos and held back by difficulty in securing farm loans, sugarcane farmers haven’t had a sweet deal – but some programs aim to change their situation in 2017. 

Agricultural sustainability 

Known by many Filipinos as tubo, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) isn’t far different from the wild talahib (Saccharum spontaneum) lining many fields across the country. It’s just grass but it changed the world. About 30 Philippine mills convert canes into raw sugar, while 12 refineries process raw sugar into the refined sugar we’re familiar with.

In 2012, the country produced 2.5 million metric tonnes of sugar, valued at P70 billion. Negros Occidental alone supplies half of this.

To improve the lives of smallholder sugarcane farmers, WWF and its allies are working to transforming the trade in sugarcane, plus coffee, pineapple, rice, and onion.

To ensure the sustainability of sugar production, we partnered with a wide host of entities including the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Department of Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Reform, the Multi-sectoral Alliance for Development, and many other groups.  

“Our goal is to produce more sugar using less resources,” according to MUAD Executive Director Reynic Alo.

“Whereas a typical sugarcane plot produces from 50 to 70 metric tonnes per hectare, new practices can double output. As opposed to the usual planting of sugarcane in ordered rows, we pilot-tested a new "hole system" using evenly-spaced 40-centimeter deep holes planted with 4 sugarcane tops," Alo said.

Through proper upkeep and plant nutrition, this new system might generate upwards of 100 tonnes per hectare. If we want to compete with sugar giants like Brazil and Thailand, we need to innovate, he added.

Farm assistance

Project partner Roxas Holdings Incorporated (RHI) is providing technical farm assistance to enlisted farm cooperatives, while pushing for sustainable farming practices. The company is also helping identify alternative crops and livestock to tide farmers through the dreaded tiempo muerto– the low-season from April to August, when farmers must patiently wait for the sugarcane to grow to harvestable sizes. 

Another partner, Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), has been teaching small-scale farmers to go organic.

“Organically-grown sugarcane is far more resilient to pests and disease, mainly because their stems grow thicker. We teach farmers to avoid chemical pesticides and to diversify their crops to tide them through the tiempo muerto– the period between planting in April and harvesting in August. Our farmers grow not just sugarcane, but also rice, vegetables, plus livestock like chickens and hogs,” MASIPAG Officer Genrelyn Jalico said.

“There’s also an ever-growing market for organic goods, which ironically can be sold at better prices than processed products. Organic muscovado sugar for example, can be sold for PHP60 per kilo, while processed white sugar sells for about PHP40 per kilo,” Jalico added.  

WWF-Philippines Project Manager Monci Hinay noted that despite the country’s ever-growing demand for food, most of our farmers remain poor.

"We’re working with many allies in both Negros Occidental and Batangas to gather and share best practices for growing and processing low-impact but high-yield sugarcane. We’re transforming lives through better farming solutions,” he said. 

Ovecoming challenges to sugar industry

The Philippine agriculture sector accounts for 40% of the economy but emits 30% of the country’s greenhouse gases, fueling dangerous climate change. Floods, droughts, diseases, and other climate change effects can cripple farmland.

“Water use, soil erosion, land conversion, pesticides and pollution must all be addressed to ensure agricultural sustainability. How can we feed ourselves if our natural systems can no longer support crops?” Hinay asked.

There are many challenges facing the country’s sugar industry, which has been on the decline since the 1970s and is now threatened by an avalanche of cheap imported sugar. With better financing, education and innovation, the Philippine sugar industry can again rise and offer better tidings to its farmers.  

Back in the blistering sugarcane field, our day’s work is done. We seek shade and break bread under a clump of swaying bamboo. I have a newfound respect for Negros Occidental’s sugarcane farmers, who stand tall and tough – just like the canes they harvest.

Yes, the Negros sugarcane industry has for 300 years been a bittersweet symphony, but if new ways of farming and financing take root, then next Christmas, John might finally enjoy holiday sweets with his new family. – Rappler.com

Gregg Yan, an award-winning communicator for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Philippines), writes about environmental and anthropological issues in Asia. Voted as the Asia-Pacific region’s top advocacy communicator for 2016, he spent days toiling with the sugarcane farmers of Negros Occidental for this report. 

I worked for almost a decade in the UN, focused on international development policy, including the governance of aid. And the international development assistance system can certainly be critiqued in many ways. 

I myself am a supporter of "trade AND aid" to boost development prospects of poor countries. I think you need both to truly accelerate a country's development prospects. (READ: Toward free and fair trade)

Does foreign aid work?

Notwithstanding the criticism, aid has also improved in some areas. For example, the Paris Declaration on Foreign Aid by donor countries is seen as weak, but it has triggered some improvements nonetheless. (SEE for example: Yes, the Paris declaration on aid has problems but it’s still the best we have)

Is aid wasted? It takes two to tango – the aid giver should ideally be motivated by the development of the recipient (and not merely use aid as a tool for foreign policy or boosting domestic interests); while the aid recipient should ideally have a clean government that seeks to maximize the benefits of aid. In some cases, we have neither, yet in others we have both, or just one. 

Aid can succeed; and there are many success stories. For instance, controlling the spread of onchocerciasis in Africa, and the campaign to eradicate polio are among the efforts that have certainly produced good results.

Aid in modern times, and for lower middle income recipient countries like the Philippines, has increasingly been targeted at "upstream reforms". They are less directly focused on relief programs (like vaccinations, food assistance, and the like). They are more optimally directed at reforming the policies and governance of the recipient country – so that resources far greater than the aid itself (and owned by the recipient country) could be better directed to produce stronger and country-owned development results. 

Does the Philippines need aid?

Aid for countries like ours that are actually awash with resources could still prompt structural reforms that otherwise would have been technically or politically difficult to push by reformists in aid recipient countries. 

Our study on political dynasties, for example, which few would touch with a 10-foot-pole in the Philippines (let alone fund), was supported through the help of German taxpayers. Hopefully, it will trigger the kind of soul-searching and reforms that will help strengthen our democratic institutions, from which future generations in our country will benefit from. 

Finally, I think the recent decision to defer the Philippines' access to the MCC funds is disappointing on two levels. First, the funds were directed heavily to help boost the development of Mindanao and promote structural reforms that would promote more inclusive development nationwide. These are areas that we could certainly use more help in strengthening, largely because of our difficult politics and governance.

Second, this sends a signal of our regression to the international community, throwing into question the strength of our rule of law once again. We are a country that values human rights. And I believe our security forces, our government, and our nation are capable of succeeding in the campaign against drugs, while also respecting the rights of all our citizens. The welfare and rights of our citizens and our youth are, after all, the main reason why this is worth embarking on in the first place. – Rappler.com

*The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ateneo de Manila University. Ronald U Mendoza is the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASOG).

President Duterte’s recent revelation that he used Fentanyl, a pain killer for cancer patients that is “50 to 100 more times more potent” than morphine, has raised concerns about the state of his mental and physical health.

This is the first time he made this public. During the campaign and in his speeches as president, he has talked about his illnesses, including bouts with migraine and pain caused by “spinal issues” as a result of a motorcycle accident.

All this must have been so unbearable that his doctor prescribed Fentanyl, which is addictive. It is unclear if Duterte continues to use it. All he said was that he has stopped using 2 patches. But he may still be into it, in much lesser dose.

Here’s his quote: “I was only given a fourth of that square thing. There was a time that I took two. But now no more because – of course, my doctor learned that I was using the whole patch because I felt better. When he knew it, he made me stop and he said, ‘Stop it. The first thing that you would lose is your cognitive ability.’”

That is why the Office of the President should release a detailed medical bulletin prepared by Duterte’s doctor to include the drugs he takes and his medical history. This will clear the air and set the record straight.

And whenever the President is sick and misses official events, Malacañang should make it standard practice to issue brief medical bulletins, also prepared by the President’s doctor. In addition, it would be helpful to release the results of his annual physical exam.

After all, one of Duterte’s first acts was to sign an executive order mandating all offices under the executive branch to fully disclose information to the public.

The President’s health is not exempt. The Constitution says: “In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health.”

Let’s look back at the public events he missed because of the state of his health:

• 2 summits in Laos: the ASEAN-US and ASEAN-India summits; 
• the photo-op of  ASEAN leaders with President Obama, also in Laos;
• the APEC family photo in Peru;
• the APEC economic leaders retreats “where heads of state divide themselves into smaller groups…opportunities for leaders to freely discuss among themselves”;
• the APEC gala dinner hosted by Peru President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski;
• the Go-Negosyo summit in Davao; and
• a campaign speech because he was rushed to the hospital where he stayed overnight because of migraine and chest cold. 

We can already hear the President’s rebuff: why should he issue medical bulletins when he’s telling us the truth? During the campaign, this was how he dismissed a call for presidential candidates to come clean with their state of health: "I will not do that as a matter of policy. Ano ako, buang (What am I, a fool)? It's like you’re forcing me to say I’m not a liar.”

But he has given us various reasons for not appearing in some of these events. In Peru, he said it was jet lag. Then he changed his story and said he had a bum stomach. The most recent version is: he said he did it on purpose to avoid an awkward moment with Obama.

And can we ever forget how he insulted a reporter who asked for his medical certificate? In a speech during his victory rally, Duterte recounted the incident and trashed the male journalist. He said he could have asked about the condition of his wife’s vagina. The President took the question as a personal offense, forgetting that he was already leader of a country, someone subject to intense scrutiny.

Now, there are no more excuses. By this time, he should know that a president’s health is as much a public issue as the national budget. – Rappler.com

This draft updates the analysis published on August 22, 2016, covering fatalities linked to the anti-illegal drugs campaign in the Philippines from June 30 to August 18, 2016. The analysis in this update covers 1,727 fatalities, as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer over the extended period up to December 8, 2016. 

We acknowledge that this dataset is only a partial one, since other unofficial estimates now place the total number of fatalities at over 6,000. Nevertheless, we try to leverage the details on fatalities reported by the Inquirer; and the disaggregated analysis herein does show some important patterns that could be useful for policymakers and stakeholders. 

As an initial screening device, for example, one can already identify jurisdictions with relatively more fatalities – and policymakers and advocates can prioritize these in their investigation and inquiry. And while some jurisdictions like Metro Manila, Cebu, Bulacan and Quezon are epicenters of fatalities, there are also places where there are barely any fatalities linked to the anti illegal drugs campaign like Aurora, Palawan and Siquijor notwithstanding large numbers of drugs surrenders in these areas. The analysis here emphasizes the widely varying patterns on these fatalities. 

Unidentified assailants

Once again, we begin by classifying the fatalities into three main contexts:

• fatalities linked to police operations;
• fatalities linked to assassins (including hitmen “riding in tandem”); and
• citizens found dead (or “salvage” victims).

Of those fatalities linked to police operations, we further disaggregate according to:

1. fatalities resulting from police buy-bust operations and shootouts;
2. fatalities resulting from serving arrest warrants;
3. fatalities resulting from attempting to escape arrest; and
4. fatalities resulting from serving a search warrant.

Among the 1,727 fatalities under analysis, 783 fatalities (53% of the total) were linked to police operations, 680 fatalities (39%) were linked to hitmen or by gunmen “riding in tandem”, 143 fatalities (8%) appeared to be salvage victims whose bodies were labeled with signage tags related to drugs.

Compared to our late August analysis, we note that fatalities due to unidentified assailants (i.e. not through police operations) have increased and now take a larger share of the total.

An analysis of the location of the fatalities points to some important patterns. Figure 2 shows the provinces/areas with at least 15 fatalities each.

Based on our analysis, mostly the same provinces and Metro Manila are still topping the list in terms of fatalities. On the other hand, figure 3 provides a biplot statistical analysis of which fatality type is most associated with each province/area/city. The intuition behind the biplot is that it tries to describe the patterns of associations among provinces vis-a-vis the specific context of the fatality (e.g. hitmen, police operation or found dead). Provinces near each other in the graph have similar profiles. 

Highest: Metro Manila, Cebu

A province is associated with a particular context if it is plotted near the point represented by a specific context (e.g. police operations, hitmen, found dead). Larger size of points in the graph reflects higher frequency (e.g. among the causes, highest count of fatality can be attributed to police operations). From figure 2, several additional patterns emerge:

1. Metro Manila has the highest number of fatalities, followed by Cebu, Bulacan, Quezon and Pangasinan. Zambales, Bulacan, North Cotabato, Camarines Sur, Laguna and parts of Metro Manila such as Quezon City, Manila and Navotas stand out due to the number of fatalities linked to police operations. 
2. Batangas, Pangasinan, Mandaluyong City, Marikina and Paranaque stand out due to the high number of fatalities linked to hitmen. 
3. Pasay City, Makati City and Nueva Ecija stand out in terms of salvage victims.

Caveat: Provinces/cities with less than 15 fatalities were excluded.

Compared to our late August analysis, Metro Manila again accounted for the vast majority of recorded fatalities. But its share of the total increased from 37% to over 52%. Given anecdotal evidence that the market for illegal drugs is strongest in the urban areas, perhaps many expected that the main frontlines would be in the country’s center. 

If one breaks down the Manila-located fatalities by police jurisdiction, the Quezon City Police District and the Southern Police District accounted for well over half of the fatalities under analysis. As we mentioned before, since some of the fatalities are dead bodies found, it is still not clear whether these murders were committed in the jurisdictions where they were actually found. Clearly, a large number of cases need to be investigated in these jurisdictions.

From the analysis herein, it is clear that the anti-illegal drugs campaign has generated widely varying results across police and local government jurisdictions. It is critically important not to generalize, and instead to recognize that in the country’s highly decentralized set-up it is possible that both islands of good governance and bad governance exist.

To illustrate, many are found dead in Makati City and Nueva Ecija. On the other hand, police operations result in a relatively large number of deaths in QCPD and MPD. (While we don’t have the figure for the total number of police operations, we suspect that a large share of this results in fatalities particularly in QCPD and MPD.) Moreover, there are relatively more deaths due to hitmen in Mandaluyong and Caloocan City. And yet in some other provinces there are barely any fatalities from the anti illegal drugs campaign.

Tracking these results and documenting them religiously could aid investigation and enhance accountability in our security forces – if not now, then years from now. It is also clear that the rising number of fatalities not linked to police operations signals a disturbing trend that needs to be more vigorously investigated and immediately stopped. 

In our earlier analysis, 26% of all fatalities were due to unidentified assailants, yet in this updated analysis, this category now accounts for 39% of all fatalities. There are troubling reports that police personnel are involved in these; and the PNP needs to shore-up its reputation by more vigorously investigating these allegations.

If the public loses trust in the capability of the Philippine National Police to maintain law and order, and if more and more citizens question the PNP’s adherence to the rule of law, then the anti-illegal drugs campaign risks weakening this institution, dramatically lowering its sustained effectiveness to combat drugs. – Rappler.com

(Authors' note: The views expressed in this article are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ateneo de Manila University. Ronald U Mendoza is the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASOG); and Miann Banaag is a statistician with ASOG.)

In a country that has been so vocal about protecting human rights and promoting social justice, silence means more deaths.  As of November, almost 5,000 people have been summarily executed, without due process, some of them while handcuffed, in police custody.  Other summary killings have been attributed to the drug lords or drug syndicates. Those killed could have been potential whistle-blowers or “assets.” There are many other unaccounted deaths.

Killing people – especially by police and paramilitary forces – has never stopped a drug problem anywhere.  Instead, it contributes to a climate of fear, instability, and distrust in law enforcement personnel.  It may result in a temporary decrease in supply, a change in the way drugs are obtained, a shift in the drug type being abused, or people fleeing, but lucrative as the illegal drugs market is, there will  always be other person who will surface.   

While the killings continue without letup, it is important to understand drug addiction.

What is a drug? What is an “illicit” or an “illegal” drug? A drug is a substance – natural, or man-made, that can affect a person’s mood and function. The effects can be harmful or benign, depending on the dose.  Many drugs are psychoactive – they can influence mental functions and cause dependence such that a person will crave for the sensations of pleasure, or power, that it may create.  Substances such as caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine are the most well known and used, and are legal (the last two are available everywhere, albeit with restrictions).

Substances that are “illicit” or “illegal” – generally considered contraband except for specific medical uses – can be highly addictive, have high abuse potential, and may result in aggressive, unpredictable, or “crazed” behavior. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) classifies these substances and their production and distribution as highly regulated. These include substances such as opium, heroin, cannabis (marijuana), cocaine, shabu or methamphetamine, and prescription drugs such as diazepam (Valium).

Most of these substances have proven medical uses – including narcotic painkillers, anti-anxiety agents, cough syrups, or agents used for anesthesia.  Safeguards to regulate supply and use exist, such as prescriptions by physicians or the use of “yellow pads” and “S2” prescriptions by professionals who can prescribe regulated drugs. Some of these drugs and other chemicals are used in the manufacture of more addictive ones.  Pseudoephedrine, found in many cough and cold preparations, is a precursor for the production of methamphetamine.  There are also substances that are thought to be “gateway” drugs – if you try them, they will lead you to use other illicit and more addictive drugs.

Why do people get addicted, or dependent on drugs? There is likely no single reason but some factors may be with the drug itself, personal and personality factors and social and peer pressure.  People take the psychoactive drugs for many reasons – primarily because it “feels good.” Others are encouraged by the supposed “rewards” for taking such type of drugs such as they can help “forget problems,” “think more clearly,” “make me excited, active, alert,” “makes me sleep and rest when I need it,” “makes  me enjoy sensations, music, sex, more.”  However, it is also likely that over time, tolerance to these effects develops, and some of these people need larger or more frequent doses, leading to habituation and dependence.  If they do not have their “fix,” they can exhibit withdrawal symptoms.  Think of what happens when you miss your morning coffee.

However, it should also be clear that majority of people who try drugs do not get addicted and can control their use; some will become dependent and chronically addicted. Some will commit crimes that may be violent and sensational, and may involve celebrities and make it to the headlines, thus fueling public perception relating the crimes to “drug users.” But committing crimes is not limited to the addicted, as this can be attributed to a relatively large dose, a new and inexperienced user, taking different drugs together (drug cocktails) or with alcohol and easy access to firearms and weapons.

Policy towards drugs can help regulate supply. For instance, sale of alcohol or cigarettes may be limited to those over 18, or may be taxed. Higher prices and warning displays can be a deterrent to use. This information may not change behavior overnight; how many people are aware that smoking causes lung cancer, yet still smoke? In truth, alcohol and nicotine are responsible for more deaths and illnesses worldwide than all the illicit drugs combined. 

What are the psychoactive drugs that are most abused in the Philippines and how big is the problem? According to the Dangerous Drugs Board, (DDB) website, the main drug of abuse reported is shabu, followed by marijuana and inhalants (rugby). There are also reports of addiction to cocaine, benzodiazepines (Valium), MDMA/Ecstasy, and Nalbuphine (Nubain), an injectable pain killer.  

The National Anti-Drug Plan of Action for 2015-2019 (NADPA), also from the DDB website, states that the numbers of drug users are decreasing.  DDB surveys estimate the numbers going down from 6.7 million (2004) to 1.7 million (2008) and to 1.3 million (2012).  The 2012 study was done in collaboration with the Philippine Normal University (PNU) and involved multistage sampling methods, with over 10,700 respondents in 256 sites nationwide. The main drugs of abuse reported from 2002 to 2010 have remained unchanged: shabu is the most common, followed by marijuana and rugby, cocaine, diazepam/Valium, and Nubain.

How extensive is the drug problem in the country? Barangays are classified according to their degree of “drug affectation.” In December 2013, the NADPA noted that 7,555 barangays or 17.98% of the total of 42,024 barangays nationwide were “drug affected.”  Roughly one in 5 to 6 barangays may be affected, with some more affected than others.

Who uses drugs? Where do the data come from, and who goes into rehab? Apart from the periodic surveys, the Department of Health (DOH) through the Integrated Drug Testing Operations Management System (IDTOMIS) monitors the numbers of drug (urine) tests and the results. Over 3.5 million tests are done each year. Drug tests may be required for a variety of reasons, mainly as requirement for getting licenses, permits, pre-employment requirements, and for law enforcers.

The last IDTOMIS report for the week of April 28 to May 4, 2014, reported 243 positive urine tests out of 53,863, a rate of 0.045% or one positive for every 220 samples. Urine testing also has limitations as it can measure only recent use of shabu and marijuana.

Rehabilitation centers are also a source of data. The DDB website provides a list of the centers and annual statistical reports up to 2014. There are 29 residential rehabilitation centers and two outpatient rehabilitation centers in the country. From 2012 to 2014, the profiles of the rehab center patients show the following:

• Median age 29 to 30 years; ages from 8 to 73 years
• 9 in 10 are males
• Half are single, most are unemployed
• Average monthly income of P15,000-P16,000
• 30%-32% have reached college level
• Poly drug use (different types of drugs at the same time) is common
• Admissions have increased, from 2,744 in 2012, 3,266 in 2013, and 4,392 in 2014

Only one in 300 Filipinos who use drugs have been to a rehabilitation center (4,392 out of 1.2 million estimated users). Drawing conclusions on the magnitude of the drug problem from data of people in rehabilitation would be analogous to writing about the overall health of Filipinos using data derived from hospital ICUs.  They only form a part of the picture.

How does one enter rehab, and what goes on in there? The requirements for admission to rehab are drug dependency examination result from an accredited physician and clearances from the barangay, police, and the Regional Trial Courts of no pending court cases. Getting these clearances may inhibit access to rehabilitation. Those involved in petty crimes may have problems in obtaining the necessary clearances.  

Drug dependents being treated by private doctors or who may go to hospitals or rehab centers abroad are not included in the statistics, but they are considered a minority and are generally more affluent than the typical rehabilitation center client.

Several treatment modalities may be used in the rehabilitation centers. These modalities and approaches are described in the DDB website:

• Multidisciplinary Team Approach
• Therapeutic Community Approach
• Hazelden-Minnesotta Model
• Spiritual Approach
• Eclectic Approach

Other rehabilitation centers also incorporate strenuous physical activity into their programs including manual labor, sports and aerobics; recall Cebu prison inmates “moonwalking” in their orange uniforms.

It is not clear which approaches have been the most effective in terms of preventing relapse. Theoretically, any rehab program should be intensive, coordinated, long lasting, individualized, sustained and run by experienced professionals.  An authoritative reference, Drugs and Drug Policy – What Everyone Needs to Know, states that treatment for stimulant addiction (such as methamphetamines and cocaine) does not usually work and the most common treatment outcome is relapse. There is no “perfect” approach, and all of them have high relapse rates, thus, there is really no “quick fix” or “magic bullet” to stop drug dependence. In some countries where heroin and narcotic addiction are common, use of drug substitutes is practiced. These substitutes enable users to reduce their dependence on heroin, allow them to be functional, and live a more controlled life.   

Not all drug users need treatment. A form of “recovery” is the most frequent form of exit from all types of behavioral problems including, but not limited to, addiction to pornography, computer games, sex, alcohol, smoking, gambling, and drugs.  A combination of factors may help – “growing up,” starting a job, fulfilling familial responsibilities and expectations, experiencing the burdens  of addiction. It does not help if one goes back to a situation where family, partners, and peers continue to abet and encourage use.

Where will all the recent surenderees go? The reported number of people who have  recently “surrendered” to authorities as “drug users” has been reported at 120,000 and still rising.  This sudden surge has led to long lines for admission for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, there are no rehabilitation facilities that can accommodate them, should they fit the criteria for admission. Even if the capacity of rehabilitation centers would magically double, merely 10,000 people could be accommodated – less than 10% of “surrenderees.”   For the majority, there is no rehabilitation program existing and alternatives have to be proposed.  (READ: Part 2: The Philippines as target market for illicit drugs) – Rappler.com

Vicente S. Salas, MD, MPH, FPAFP, is  an international consultant on HIV and AIDS, migration health and sexual and reproductive health who headed a team that wrote the first situation analysis of HIV and Injecting Drug use in the Philippines (2008), and authored a chapter, “HIV in Injecting Drug Users” in the book AIDS in the Philippines (2010). The recent spate of killings, a major focus of the new president, and the increasingly shrill discussions about drugs, drug addicts, drug lords and drug pushers prompted him to write this piece.

I know I shouldn’t, but in truth I quite often judge a book by its cover. It’s not just the cover art – I’m a sucker for a good title. I don’t have enough time to read as it is, so I have to be picky. A clever, creative title draws me in with the promise that I won’t be wading through another tedious tome. Gasoline, Guns, and Giveaways, a recent working paper by Chris Hoy and Andy Sumner of the Center for Global Development, does not disappoint.

The central question they ask is whether national resources are available but not being used to end poverty. Spoiler alert: the answer is yes! And you won’t need an advanced command of econometrics to follow their evidence-based arguments.

Hoy and Sumner find that most developing countries could dramatically speed up the end of poverty without waiting ages for economic growth alone to do the trick. Basically, three-quarters of global poverty could be eliminated by raising new taxes and reallocating public spending.

The reallocation should be away from regressive fossil fuel subsidies (because cheap gasoline mostly benefits richer groups) and toward cash transfers for the poor. Public spending should also avoid what they call “surplus” military spending (which they define as annual military spending above the country with the regional lowest per person) in favor of more cash transfers. This would reduce poverty by using nationally available resources.

Hoy and Sumner recognize this will be controversial, and that the political economy of redistribution is never easy, even when the numbers make sense. But the good news, they point out, is that more than 100 developing countries already have cash transfer schemes in place, which means the mechanisms exist to deliver cash directly to poor people. Their paper cites compelling recent evidence compiled by the Overseas Development Institute on the impact of cash transfers on monetary poverty.

I’ve seen this impact in my own work on social protection here in the Philippines. In 2008 the government launched the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, a targeted conditional cash transfer scheme for the poor. The program expanded rapidly and as of late 2016 covered about 4.4 million poor households nationwide. The cash transfer is not technically a giveaway, though, since the money comes with strings attached: kids have to go to school and get regular health check-ups, while parents must attend monthly family development sessions. We know from independent spot checks and impact evaluation that the program is keeping children healthy and in school, and has many other positive effects. Now, new data confirms that the program has also played a key role in the country’s recent episode of pro-poor growth.

According to the latest official poverty figures for the Philippines, poverty fell faster from 2012 to 2015 than at any time in recent memory, from 25.2% to 21.6% of the population. During this 3-year period, per capita income among the poorest 30% of the population grew by more than 24%. This is more than the 16% average growth in per capita income for all Filipinos. It’s also much more than the average for the richest 20% of the population, where per capita income grew by 12%. In other words: the rich got richer but so did the poor, and to a greater extent than the rich! This is fantastic news that mirrors the drop in self-rated poverty, which is now at a historic low in the survey’s 33-year history.

The National Economic and Development Authority attributes the recent episode of pro-poor growth to the significant increase in the budget for social assistance programs, and in particular conditional cash transfers.

Recent poverty reduction in the Philippines is certainly encouraging, but there is still a lot of work to do. Let’s not forget that the 2015 poverty rate of 21.6% means that nearly 22 million Filipinos still live below the poverty line. And that line was about P60 (about $1.20) per person per day. More than 40% of Filipinos still rate themselves as poor. Millions  of people living just above the official poverty line are technically not poor but live a precarious existence. The difference between poor and officially non-poor can be just a few pesos, and the slightest shock—getting sick, losing a job, having to pay for house repairs after a typhoon—can easily send a family right back into extreme deprivation. And that’s just income poverty—we know by now that poverty is multi-dimensional and income only tells part of the story, so cash transfers are only part of the solution. But that’s a topic for another blog post.

With the goal of bringing the poverty rate down to 14% over the next 6 years, the Department of Finance has put some interesting new ideas on the table. The proposed Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act addresses the issue of cheap gasoline, increases fiscal space for much-needed infrastructure, and is directly linked to an unconditional cash transfer for the poorest. And the government has allocated significant funds to a 2017 increase the grant amount for existing conditional cash transfer recipients. Given Hoy and Sumner’s persuasive arguments, plus the evidence we already have from the cash transfer program so far, this could very well be a breakthrough in the fight to end poverty in the Philippines. – Rappler.com

Karin Schelzig is a Senior Social Sector Specialist, Southeast Asia Department, at the Asian Development Bank. This post was first published in the ADB blog.

(READ: PART 1: Drugs 101: What you need to know about the PH drug situation)

The Philippines, as a target market for drug trafficking, is in urgent need of a drug control policy that deals with this problem.

A large number of Filipinos are in jail abroad for drug trafficking offenses – the most prominent has been Mary Jane Veloso, though hundreds more are in jails in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and even Cambodia.  

The National Anti-Drug Plan of Action for 2015-2019 (NADPA) of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) noted that:

• African drug syndicates are known to recruit Filipinos as drug mules
• Chinese or Filipino-Chinese drug syndicates control the drug trade in the country – smuggling, manufacture, and establishment of laboratories
• 66% of all arrested drug personalities involved in dismantled shabu (methampethamine) laboratories since 2002 are Chinese nationals
• the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel has been reported to have operations since 2012

Since 2003, some 89 clandestine laboratories have been dismantled. Drug manufacturing through these laboratories has changed. Production is split into different stages, making detection more difficult. Labs have been set up in warehouses, inside subdivisions and condominiums.

Drug arrests and seizures are only the tip of the iceberg. The NADPA reported that 80,593 pushers and 66,154 users were arrested from 2002 to 2013. Over 10,500 kilos of shabu in powder form and 713,800 liters of its liquid form have been seized in the same period. It is estimated that globally, less than 10% of the total amount of illicit drugs being trafficked is eventually seized.

The Philippines, with its long coastline, many ports of entry, and with innovations in the manufacture, packaging, and transport of illicit drugs, is not any different. This is akin to smuggling, only that the proportion of smuggled and non-taxed items confiscated is not immediately quantified. 

Laws and institutions

What are the laws and institutions responsible for responding to the problem of illegal drugs? Republic Act 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides that the government shall pursue an “intensive and unrelenting campaign against trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances” and upholds the concept of the DDB as the primary policy-making body in drug prevention and control.

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is the main implementing arm of the Board. The DDB is made up of 17 members– secretaries of various government departments, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and an NGO representative.

The NADPA 2015-2020 guides the implementation of the policies, plans and programs, and outlines the roles and responsibilities of all agencies and the partnerships with both regional and international organizations. Developed by the Dangerous Drugs Board, it visualizes a “Drug-Resistant, and eventually, Drug-Free Philippines.”  

The NADPA has 5 core strategies: drug supply reduction, drug demand reduction, alternative development, civic awareness and regional and international cooperation.

Not much seems to have changed in the NADPA over the years.  

In November 2002, the DDB launched a similar plan, with the goal of making the Philippines “drug free” by 2010 – then, as now, a futile goal.  The 5 pillars in 2002 are exactly the same as the 5 strategies listed above.

While the current NADPA devotes 3 paragraphs to people who inject drugs (PWID) and notes with concern the rise of HIV infections among PWID in Cebu, it is silent about known effective strategies for reducing HIV and Hepatitis among PWID.  

This approach, termed “harm reduction,” or “reducing drug-related harms” is a well known public health strategy, and comprises a set of activities that attempt to reduce the harm brought about by drug use, in the same way that, for example, seat belts and helmets are used to prevent needless deaths and injuries from traffic accidents. Harm reduction is controversial to drug control agencies, since it does not necessarily aim towards being “drug free.” 

Failure in Cebu

What the NADPA fails to address is the rapid spread of HIV in people who inject drugs in Cebu City which is a relatively recent phenomenon. Drug injecting has been known for decades in Cebu, and for 24 years from 1984 until the end of 2008, 8 people were reported in the Department of Health’s national HIV registry as having acquired HIV through injecting drug use, all from Cebu.

But in a mere 6 years, by 2014, out of 1,366 HIV infections in Cebu, 74% (or 1,010) were in PWID.  The number of HIV infections among PWID continues to rise; by March 2016, the DOH recorded 1,350 cases. Most, if not all, of these cases are in Cebu City and surrounding areas.

Apart from HIV, people who share needles are also prone to get Hepatitis. Both infections are entirely preventable by using clean needles and avoiding needle-sharing practices.  These interventions are prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Law, and the NADPA makes no mention these proven effective public health interventions.   

Neither does the NADPA mention the pleasure principle – acknowledging the pleasures that drugs might bring, addressing the threats of emergent “party drugs.”  The different sub-populations who might be more vulnerable to initiating drug use, such as out of school youth, those in poverty, youth who already smoke and drink, those working late shifts, or pockets of use in moderately and severely affected barangays are not sufficiently delineated.

Inadequate monitoring and evaluation strategy

There is also no strategy to reduce the harms caused by drug use – whether for example, advising partygoers about not mixing drugs, staying well hydrated, preventing overdose, or watching out for your friends, preventing date rape incidents, or using clean injecting equipment for prevention of Hepatitis and HIV in those who inject.

The NADPA is inadequate in terms of its monitoring and evaluation strategy.  Its stated impact measure of “a 2% reduction in estimated dangerous drugs users annually, 10% increase of program activities implemented by member agencies” lacks clarity and is not specific about how these will be measured.  It is hoped that these gaps will be addressed in its mid-term review in 2018.  

Perhaps that review should be brought forward, as it has been overtaken by events, the increased demands for rehabilitation and the chilling, new emergent strategy to “end” drug use – the issue of extrajudicial killings of suspected users and pushers, which has led to vigilante justice, with no respect for law and due process, and the emergence of death squads. The effects of this strategy, pushed by the current president and the police authorities, need to stop.  

This does not mean that drug trafficking, pushing, manufacturing, and crimes committed should not go unpunished – the country has sufficient laws and mechanisms for that, and only need more rigorous and timely implementation.  A public health approach, rather than a law enforcement one, should form the basis for a response to drug use and dependence.  

International NGOs working on drug policy, the UN secretary general and the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), issued a strongly worded statement against the killings on August 3, 2016. Part of the statement read:

"The UNODC remains greatly concerned by the reports of extrajudicial killing of suspected drug dealers and users in the Philippines. I join the United Nations Secretary-General in condemning the apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killing, which is illegal and a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms.

"Such responses contravene the provisions of the international drug control conventions, do not serve the cause of justice, and will not help to ensure that 'all people can live in health, dignity and peace, with security and prosperity,' as agreed by governments in the outcome document approved at the UN General Assembly special session on the world drug problem." – Rappler.com

Vicente S. Salas, MD, MPH, FPAFP, is  an international consultant on HIV and AIDS, migration health and sexual and reproductive health who headed a team that wrote the first situation analysis of HIV and Injecting Drug use in the Philippines (2008), and authored a chapter, “HIV in Injecting Drug Users” in the book AIDS in the Philippines (2010). The recent spate of killings, a major focus of the new president, and the increasingly shrill discussions about drugs, drug addicts, drug lords and drug pushers prompted him to write this piece.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has confirmed that he killed three men during his time as mayor of Davao city, despite officials trying to downplay an earlier admission. Duterte’s comments might yet hurt his popularity but that seems unlikely.

Duterte’s national crusade has resulted in an alarming daily average of 34 drug war-related murders. Despite this death toll and international condemnation, public satisfaction with his anti-drug war is at a significantly high rate of 78%.

How can this be explained in a country that a mere 30 years ago brought down a dictator without resorting to violence? How could a nation that inspired the world with its peaceful “People Power” revolution now welcome a return to the state-sanctioned murders of the martial-law era of 1972-1981?

Duterte’s rise is an evolving lesson in the vulnerability of democracies in the face of a neglected public. The democratic institutions of the Philippines have little power when faced with a populist president determined to channel frustrations into immediate actions.

Unfulfilled promise

In 1986, millions of Filipinos ended Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship through sustained civil resistance against government violence and electoral fraud. This culminated in a massive peaceful protest in the capital along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA). The event is now popularly known as the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.

Marcos was ousted after 21 years in power. He was democratically elected as president in 1965, but essentially ruled as a dictator from 1972 to 1986.

To the disappointment of many, an elite-dominated democracy replaced Marcos’ authoritarian rule. From 1987, a small number of families started to restore their control of the government and rotate the seats of power among themselves. They included members of the Marcos family who returned from exile in 1991 and were welcomed by their allies.

In the public imagination, the promises of the People Power Revolution went beyond restoring democratic institutions. The narrative went like this: a return to democracy would secure prosperity and security for everyone. The overall framework and various social justice provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly reflect this.

But 3 decades later, the post-EDSA pact is far from being fulfilled.

A neglected public

The post-EDSA leadership has failed to solve many of the problems that concern Filipinos. Despite promising national growth rates, the gains appear to have largely benefited the rich. More than 26 million Filipinos remain impoverished. And unemployment rates are said to be the worst in Asia.

This widening gap between the rich and the poor, recurrent domestic economic crises, epidemic levels of corruption and failed attempts to significantly reduce criminality, have left the public deeply frustrated. Surveys in recent decades have consistently shown that these are the most urgent national concerns for many Filipinos.

The 1986 revolution, once a symbol of the promise of democracy and prosperity, is now synonymous in the Filipino popular imagination with the dysfunctional transport system in Metro Manila.

National commemorations of the EDSA consensus have become officially important, but in the public consciousness they tell the tale of how promises are meant to be broken.

Democracy's discontent

Amid political and economic exclusion and malaise came Duterte. He offered empathy to the economic strugglers and protection from the violence of criminals and politicians. His was a twin campaign narrative of care and power. His supporters often highlighted how they felt that Duterte truly cared for them.

And he was not just all talk. Duterte is seen as a man of action: decisive and quick. His “authenticity” is manifest in his everyday language coupled with humor that comes from the streets.

Duterte articulated the public’s deep-seated feelings of precariousness and powerlessness using rhetoric they could relate to. His campaign rallies, which many proclaimed as a marvel to behold, showed the rapport between the candidate and his supporters.

Many felt that Duterte rose from the ranks of ordinary citizens despite coming from a traditional political family and holding various political offices for 30 years. This is especially evident in his overwhelming support in the southern Philippines, as the first president from a region long neglected by the capital.

How did it come to this?

When democracy doesn’t deliver, its legitimacy becomes difficult to defend. And when successive elite-dominated governments have used democracy for their own ends, the balance tilts towards authoritarianism.

Under post-EDSA democracy, the richest families amassed more wealth than ever while poverty, hunger, homelessness, and crime continued to afflict ordinary Filipinos. It’s not difficult to imagine why some are nostalgic for the authoritarian past. Although national statistics show otherwise, people felt those were the country’s golden years.

Extrajudicial killings are a regular feature of post-EDSA governments as they were of the martial law years. Examples include the 1987 Mendiola massacre, the 2004 Hacienda Luisita massacre and the 2009 Maguindanao massacre, to name a few.

Perpetrators have not been brought to justice. Even before Duterte, the Philippines was known as the country with the worst state of impunity. Government critics were the usual victims until Duterte took aim at alleged drug dealers and users.

In my fieldwork in a massive poor urban community in Quezon City, residents have welcomed Duterte’s war on drugs. They now feel more secure in what they call their “drug-infested community” even though drug use has substantially declined compared to previous decades, according to one village official.

Residents argue that their perceptions of community security are just as important as the numbers in government records. For people to feel safe in a city where 92% of villages face drug-related crimes and in a nation where crimes against persons and property are rising is no easy thing.

When Duterte’s campaign translates to perceived everyday safety, it is no wonder that drug-war murders have not met considerable resistance.

Anyone with experience of the country’s institutions of justice knows how elusive criminal justice is. Around 80% of drug cases end up being dismissed; and it may take a decade to achieve a conviction.

There are many reasons for this, but Duterte’s narrative that drug lords are so powerful that they can influence even the judiciary is not far-fetched. Most people do not trust the judiciary and many are convinced that power and money are needed to claim justice.

Previous administrations also made a mockery out of the national justice system; even convicted corrupt politicians enjoy their freedom while innocents languish in jail. A corruption whistleblower, Jun Lozada, was recently convicted, while ex-president Gloria Arroyo was acquitted and set free.

The legislature has been used to turn issues of justice into a public circus, such as in the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Corona and the hearings on allegations of graft and corruption against former vice president Jejomar Binay.

Is it surprising then that Dutarte’s supporters find calls to follow the rule of law and due process hypocritical? When institutions do not work, it becomes unreasonable to rely on them.

Duterte’s narrative plays on the temptations for a disgruntled public to claim swift justice. In the context of his rise to power, it’s no surprise that calls to respect human rights or the rule of law fall on deaf ears.

The election of Duterte may be seen as the nadir, but possibly also a turning point, in the long-standing democratic deficit in Asia’s oldest democracy. His rejection of the rule of law and liberal democracy represents a rupture in the post-EDSA consensus.

It’s not a stretch to say that the Philippines’ elite democracy had it coming. The failure to deliver on the promises of the People Power Revolution made the rise of Duterte politically possible. – Rappler.com

Cleve Kevin Robert Arguelles is an instructor and former chair of the Political Science Program at the University of the Philippines Manila. He is currently finishing his Masters in Political Science at the Central European University.

This story was originally published in The Conversation. See the link for the original story here.

Since 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in power in Turkey. He was prime minister for 11 years till 2013 and then in 2014 became president of Turkey. During this period, his ruling party could change the picture of Turkey to a modern Islamic country. Turkey GDP has grown from a lowly 200 billion USD in 1995 to over 800 billion USD in 2014. The direct investment in Turkey reached to 165 billion dollars in 2015. Turkey became the seventh largest economy in Europe. It had a high rate of economic growth in 2014 with 8% .

Erdogan recovered the economy from crisis in 2001 when he came to power in 2003. Erdogan had two successful constitutional referendums in 2007 and 2010. Everything was going in the right way – until he showed his ambition toward totalitarianism.

Five years ago, Turkey had a good position in Middle East and was a model for Islamic world as democratic and modern society. Erdogan showed that he has a moderate Islamic feature and has high tolerance for dissent. He tried to improve relationship with the Europe and then, negotiations for membership of Turkey to the EU went on properly till 2014. Friendly policies of Erdogan made western countries to put their money and invest in Turkey.

He began peace negotiations with Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in late 2012. Erdogan solved the problem with Kurds and then, he got the votes of Kurdish people. It was supposed that he has reached to a compromise with the army.

In November 2015 when again Erdogan and his party won the election, he saw it is time to carry out his ambitions. His agenda was revive a combination of Ottoman-Turkish identity. Erdogan, as a national hero, saw it is time to get more power and extend his power for long time by changing the constitution which opens his way to power until 2029 by creating executive presidency.

Neo-Ottomanism policy has led to Turkey being criticized by its neighbors like Syria, Iraq, Greece and even Egypt.

But employing this policy had made more enemies and obstacles inside and outside the country.

Beyond that, Erdogan has some mistakes which are dragging Turkey toward despotism and civil war.

First of all, Erdogan tried to cut off the hands of army which had traditionally political power. Fighting with the army by purging high commanders and officers made the army weaker and has caused integrity of Turkey vulnerable since 1924.

Second, he started to block the activities of Golenists (radical Islamists) who has root in the society. After failed coup on July 15, 2016, more than 100,000 people have been detained, dismissed, or suspended.

Third, a nationalism policy from Erdogan, by forming a coalition with far right party (Nationalist Movement Party), stopped the peace negotiations with the PKK, a party which has been fighting for Kurdish independence. Kurds are mostly living in southeast Turkey and are 25 million people strong. Fighting with Kurds had no result for Erdogan, and Turkish society now is extremely divided in the cities. Kurdish hardliner groups now are taking advantages of the current situation and attacks have increased against the army. Since July, 2,500 members of pro-Kurdish party (HDP) have been arrested.

Fifth, for the first time, the Turkish MIT (security services), with the green light of Erdogan’s party, made a connection with ISIS, supporting and arming them against the Syrian army and Kurds in northern Syria. It was a dangerous game that harmed the president's reputation.

Sixth, becoming involved in the war in Syria, through military intervention and supporting rebels against the Syrian regime, was another mistake of Erdogan, who thought he can have some benefits by entering Syria and Iraq.

Finally, Erdogan turned his back from the European Union, threating and taunting their leaders for criticizing him. The EU leaders are concerned about human rights and the future of democracy in Turkey.

It seems that if Erdogan continues employing his agenda, it would make the situation much worth than now in near future. – Rappler.com

The author is a veteran Middle East journalist who used to be based in London. He now lives in Manila.

It is not difficult to fall for the belief that harshness prevails. It cows the weak into submission, frightens people into compliance and whips them into line.  It is the more difficult thing to see how tenderness conquers harshness, but that is the story of Christmas.

The Census ordered by Caesar Augustus was harsh, but it was part of imperial panoply. Rulers want to know how many people grovel before them, like the miser enjoys counting each penny he keeps. It sent people great distances for no other purpose than to make themselves more available to tax collectors and to flatter the emperor who obviously took delight in the number and variety of peoples that recognized him not only as "imperator" but as "Divus Caesar"...divine, a god, in fact.

It was likewise a harsh circumstance that in the pangs of labor, Mary could get no place to rest, because Joseph was told that about every inch available to the weary traveler in Bethlehem that night had been taken.  And of course, it was harsh that they had to make do with an animal shed, with a manger for a crib and animals as the witnesses of the unfathomable magic of love: God so taking the human condition upon himself as to identify himself completely with us in a child!

But the choirs of angels, the tribute of the shepherds – the true "humiles Domini"...the humble of the Lord, the 'anawim Yahweh,' the blessed poor of God (for whom God was avenger because there was no on else to avenge them), and the wisdom of the Magi that brought them to their knees and brought forth as their gifts the treasures of the Orient, made it clear: Harshness was not going to define the narrative that commenced in Heaven, where Wisdom reigns Eternal. Tenderness and mercy were!

And thirty three years later, it was harshness once more that made them drag now the man before the religious authorities of the time, the guardians of peace, the guarantors of discipline and decency.  He did not meet their standards. He was a threat to national order.  He consorted with the denizens of the underworld, and was therefore also suspect.

It was utter harshness to scourge him for nothing more than Pilate's delectation and for the people who had hung on his every word to want him now hanged from the cross, they who longed for the bread that he multiplied for their satisfaction, rejoiced because he had raised their dead to life, healed their sick and cast out he demons from their afflicted, to choose Barrabas over him and to cry for his blood.

Tenderness

And the height of human harshness was the height of the cross on which they raised him, bloodied, bruised and beaten (or so they thought).  But he made the wood of his execution the throne of a king, for only a king can say with such grace and certainty: Today, you shall be with me in Paradise. Again, harshness was dealt a stunning blow, a shameful defeat, for instead of bitterness, or chastisement, the world heard the words of tenderness that made clear that his kingdom is not of this world: "Father, forgive them...".

Harshness has never won, and the harsh are not enshrined in memory.

The cruel Emperors of Rome may have commissioned busts and gigantic likenesses by which to flatter themselves, but even today, when she see these, we remember their cruelty. 

But the child born at Bethlehem who matured into the man who died on the cross left us the lesson we so badly need to learn in our times: Harshness never conquers. Tenderness does – not the tenderness that curries favor and courts votes, but the tenderness of a child born for only one purpose: To save his own, and who dies, amidst the hisses and the curses, with the words of tender conquest: Forgive them! I give you all my spirit! 

A Merry Christmas to all. –Rappler.com

The author is vice president of the Cagayan State University and Dean of the Graduate School of Law, San Beda College.

President Duterte's all-too-casual public admission that he himself, by his own hand, has killed three people takes impunity to an entirely new height. Killing is his regime’s first order of business, after all.

Indeed, nearly nothing is heard from him, say, about poverty or jobs or education or social welfare, only about crime and what to him is its primary root cause – drugs. His war on drugs has left more than 6,000 dead, with days left yet before he completes the first six months of his six-year term; and he has promised that his war would not slacken for Christmas.

"Our children must be protected from drugs," he says, again and again, sometimes brandishing a directory of drug dealers supposedly that rivals the phonebook in heft. Then, he gets back at his critics who warn him about going around the law with summary executions. "They just don't get it," he says, cursing their “whore-mothers” under his breath.

Among his most consistent and pressing critics are the American government and the United Nations. In its latest reprisal, the US withheld US$400 million in aid. And recently the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR), Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, has joined in, reacting to Duterte's own kills, all three notched up early in his more than two decades as mayor of his native Davao City, before he became president.

Duterte said he wanted "to show the guys," meaning his henchmen, that he was up to the task himself. Declaring that the killings “constitute murder,” Zeid has called on the Philippine judiciary to probe and prosecute.

But Duterte’s admission may be too general to be in itself actionable, and his belated addition of one piece of detail should prove only convenient for him: his targets chose to shoot it out – the local term, a standard citation in policemen’s accounts of their own kills, is nanlaban. Still, his admission lends credibility to a testimony given at a senate inquiry implicating him as the gunman himself in one case – not necessarily one of the three he admitted to.

And coming as it does from a confessed former hit man for him, the testimony should acquire added weight. (Edgar Matobato, the whistleblower, is a marked man in hiding, but he’s not going away.)

Hyperbole?

At any rate, Duterte's public-relations men are quick to rally around him with reflex rationalizations whenever he comes under siege: he has been "misunderstood", "taken out of context", “merely speaking in hyperbole".

I thought I understood Duterte well enough myself and that, if anyone did not understand him, it was he himself. Or else he did not need to be explained by his own men, who in fact tried to straighten me out at a television forum, where I found myself being lectured on hyperbole, a point lost on me, I did confess, as it applied to Duterte.

"Hyperbole," begins Pompee La Viña, commander of the cyberspace force for Duterte, as I understand his special role, "is a figure of speech... Example: a mother tells her son, 'I will kill you,' and the boy lives -- that's hyperbole."

"But then," I reply, following his hyperbolic logic, "Duterte says, 'I will kill you,' and two thousand die."

I still don't know where hyperbole begins and ends with Duterte, who, comparing himself with Hitler, the great Jew slaughterer himself, once declared he “will be happy to slaughter" all three million of the nation's drug dealers and addicts (he has since updated his count, which looks arbitrary in the absence of any independent bases, to four million – if he’s chasing Hitler’s record he has to find a couple of thousands more).

Anyway, whether he has killed three or three million or four, it doesn’t matter for now, his lawyers say: he is beyond the reach of the law while he’s president. If their word indeed ends all arguments, Duterte will continue to enjoy five and a half years more of immunity. 

In the meantime, his example lives, and people continue dying around him. – Rappler.com 

As the light of 2016 fades, we gather our thoughts and look back at a year that gave us sorrows. Never in our contemporary history have we seen these many deaths in so short a time.

Inevitably, sadness creeps into this season of joy as many mourn their loved ones, gunned down in the streets or their homes because they were suspected to be drug users or traffickers. They never had the chance to face a court of law.

As of December 20, 2016, more than 6,000 have been killed in almost 6 months of President Duterte’s war on drugs. For perspective, let’s remember that during 14 years of Martial Law, recorded extrajudicial killings were at 3,257.

The war on drugs is the centerpiece of the new government and it overshadows everything else. The message comes from the top: Duterte’s speeches are like a looped tape, an endless repeat of how drugs destroy the country and the solution is to kill, kill, kill. He has said this before the military, businessmen, civic groups, local governments, police, any audience he could reach.

We have been asking: where’s the outrage? Have we been so desensitized to the violence taking place around us? Are we losing our humanity?

We have an answer in a new Social Weather Stations survey which found that 78% of the respondents were worried they could be the next victims. There is fear rather than anger.

While it is understandable, the downside is fear makes us lose our courage. Fear weakens our reasoning and leads us to cocoons of silence. Rather than take a stand and let our voices be heard, we retreat.

This may be what Duterte wants, to instill fear in all of us so he can continue to rule with impunity. But, as Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reminds us,  “Fear has never created a single job or fed a single family.”

We turn to Ecclesiastes for solace. There is a time for everything. A time to plant and to uproot. A time to tear down and a time to build.

We go through the cycle of life. And meantime, in this season of hope set against times so savage, we seek shelter in the love of family and friends and comfort in our steadfast values.

But, as days pass, let’s remember Dylan Thomas’s wise counsel: do not go gentle, but rage, rage against the dying of the light. – Rappler.com

President Duterte’s election into office has singlehandedly caused several changes in the political and social landscape. In just his first 6 months, the President managed to initiate a bloody and controversial drug war, pivot the country toward China and Russia, and show his all-out support for the Marcoses amid numerous angry protests nationwide.

Abroad, the surprise vote on Brexit, the shocking win of US President-elect Donald Trump, and the slowdown of global trade all seem to herald the arrival of a new era of global populism, demagoguery, and protectionism.

But in this year-ender article we look back at 2016 through a very specific lens: the performance of the Philippine economy. How did our economy perform in the past year? How does that performance compare with previous years? And where is our economy headed?

In what follows, we explore 5 key aspects of the economy and explain in each what happened (as shown by the data), and what we should look out for in 2017.

Throughout, keep in mind that one should be cautious in attributing the economy’s recent changes to the different administrations. Many such changes may be due to policies or events that took place many months or years ago.

1) Output growth has remained robust

What happened: The country’s GDP – or the value of total output – recorded an impressive growth rate of 7.1% as of October 2016 (see Figure 1). This made the Philippines the fastest-growing emerging economy in Asia as of the third quarter of 2016 (even beating China’s 6.7%).

GDP growth has, in fact, been continuously rising since 2015, albeit at a decreasing rate. This sustained growth is impressive, given the general slowdown of global economic growth.

Moreover, much of recent growth is accounted for by our predominant services sector (which includes retail trade, banking, transportation, etc). But the data also show that the manufacturing sector has been explaining an increasing part of growth in recent quarters.

Where are we headed: High growth is meaningless if it only benefits some income classes and not others. Some argue that manufacturing remains one of the best ladders by which we can bring faster and more inclusive growth. But to sustain the growth of manufacturing investments, we need to further reduce the cost of doing business in the country and strengthen the inflows of high-tech foreign direct investments.

The President himself can significantly boost the attractiveness of doing business in the country by shunning a “zero-sum” view of global trade and reducing his tough talk with our key trading partners. (READ: Duterte’s tough talk and what it could mean for US, EU investments)

2) Prices have experienced a slight uptick

What happened: The inflation rate – which measures the general rise of prices – saw a record low of 0.4% in October 2015. But since then inflation has risen to 2.5% as of November 2016 (see Figure 2). Despite this uptick, this year’s inflation rate is still within the government’s target of 2 to 4%.

Where are we headed: In the coming months, higher oil prices threaten to accelerate prices further. Major oil companies have recently hiked gasoline and diesel prices by P1.40 per liter, owing to changes in the global oil market, largely borne by OPEC’s decision to cut its global oil supply. (READ: OPEC boosts oil price with output cut)

This oil price hike is made worse by the peso’s steady depreciation against the US dollar, which makes it more expensive for Filipinos to import commodities. Although prices are seen to accelerate further next year, we must remain confident that the Bangko Sentral will do its best to combat runaway inflation.

3) Unemployment and underemployment continued to go down

What happened: At just 4.7%, the country’s unemployment rate last October is at its lowest since the definition of the “unemployed” was changed in 2005 (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, the underemployment rate – which comprises those with work but still need or want more work – is also on a general downtrend despite an uptick from July to October.

Where we are headed: We need to create around 9 to 10 million jobs to solve both unemployment and underemployment. Indeed, we need not just more jobs but better-quality jobs. This can be done by further promoting entrepreneurship, attracting more investments into the country, and dissuading long-term investors from leaving the country (particularly BPOs and other outsourced businesses). (READ: BPOs need to ‘level up’ as protection against Trump – NEDA)

4) The peso depreciated significantly against the US dollar

What happened: One of the most headline-grabbing economic news in 2016 is the sharp depreciation of the Philippine peso against the US dollar, especially in the latter half of the year. In late November the nominal exchange rate again hit P50 per US dollar (see Figure 4). The last time we reached this territory was in November 2008, or more than 8 years ago. This trend has made life easier for dollar-earning sectors of the economy (like exporters and families of OFWs) and harder for dollar-spending sectors (like importers).

Where we are headed: As I explained in a previous Rappler piece, the peso’s steady depreciation seems to stem from an expectation of higher interest rates in the US that led to a sell-off of domestic assets and capital flight. Nevertheless, the government’s economic managers note that the peso’s depreciation is in line with the movements of regional currencies. But should further US interest rate hikes happen, the Bangko Sentral stands ready to prevent excessive foreign exchange volatility. (READ: BSP to intervene if there’s too much forex volatility)

5) The stock market rallied till midyear, then slumped

What happened: Finally, the Philippine stock market index displayed a mixed performance this year. There was a steady rally in the first half of 2016, followed by a slump in the latter half (see Figure 5). Again, this can be largely attributed to the massive foreign sell-off of stocks owing to the anticipated interest rate hike in the US.

Where we are headed: Insofar as the stock market index is often taken as a barometer of future business conditions, there is a need to improve impressions of doing business in the country. Truly, there’s little to be done about movements in global markets which also affect businessmen’s confidence. But it will help if the country’s leadership projects an image of safety, peace, order, and stability (rather than violence, lawlessness, and uncertainty). (READ: PH stocks dip over security concerns, ‘political uncertainty’)

Conclusion: Let’s sustain and guard our economic gains in 2017

Amid the turmoil that is 2016, the Philippine economy has proven robust enough to weather the many tectonic shifts that occurred here and abroad.

But as we enter 2017, we need to sustain our economic gains and guard them against further social uncertainties and political unrest. There are at least 3 ways to do this.

First, let’s demand from our leaders sound, evidence-based, and consistent policies that will continue the growth momentum, keep prices low, and create more and better jobs.

Second, let’s also demand that our leaders remove the atmosphere of fear, violence, and lawlessness that currently prevails across the nation. Not only does this disrupt economic activity in our daily lives, but it also makes doing business in the country less attractive.

Third, in this so-called “post-truth” era – where public opinion is dictated more by emotion and belief than facts and data – we need to raise the level of social discussion and engagement by promoting more responsible production and consumption of information and news.

Only by doing so will we Filipinos inoculate ourselves and our economy from the rising tides of populism, misinformation, and ignorance spreading throughout the world. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. His views do not necessarily reflect the views of his affiliations. Thanks to Kevin Mandrilla (UP Asian Center) and Charmaine Crisostomo (UP School of Economics) for valuable comments and suggestions.

Author’s note: Using the example of the Filipinos’ favorite snack, I discuss how factual information can be assembled to manufacture a lie. (Warning: Read the entire article)

Chicharon – deep-fried pork rind – is one of the favorite snacks of Filipinos. It can be traced to Spain (the only difference in the name is the double ‘r’ in the Spanish chicharron), and variations of the snack are found all over Latin America – from Panama to Peru.

Chicharon is usually seen as an unhealthy food because of its high fat content. But actually, recent studies have shown that sugar – not fat – is the major culprit of many of our health problems. On this register, cholesterol has high marks as it is actually a zero carbohydrate food.

Also, if you look at the kind of fat that’s in chicharon, you will find that a good proportion is actually mono-unsaturated – the same, healthy kind of fat found in olive oil, avocados, and macadamias. Some kinds of chicharon have as high as 40% of this “heart-healthy” fat.

Moreover, each 0.5 oz serving of chicharon has 8-9g of protein, making it a protein-rich food, comparable to the protein content of Greek yoghurt. Compared to the same amount of your average potato chips, chicharon has 9 times the protein, less fat, and fewer – if any – artificial ingredients!

Chicharon in the Philippines is usually consumed with vinegar, and this condiment also has health benefits, being a fat- and carbohydrate-free liquid. The coconut palm vinegar commonly used in the Philippines is mineral-rich, having phosphorus, potassium, iron, magnesium, sulfur, boron, zinc, manganese and copper, and may have benefits that include diabetes control.

***

By now, you may be feeling incredulous about all that I’ve written. As I don’t want this piece to be mistaken for one of those satirical articles that people take seriously, I will have to stop now and be clear that chicharon, despite all that I’ve written, is unhealthy and must be taken in small amounts – if at all. But here’s the rub: every sentence in the above paragraphs is factual.

But it goes to show how, in our world of information overload, we can be misled not by lies, but by the truth. It illustrates how everything and anything can be made to look healthy. How do we lie using truth?

First by omitting certain details. In my brief spiel about chicharon, by not mentioning its very high sodium (salt) content, I ignored the elephant in the room. High salt intake raises blood pressure, which in turn can to heart problems. Fats, moreover, still translate to a high amount of calories (one small pack has more calories than a cup of rice) – which I also conveniently ignored. Finally, most chicharon are further processed and include MSG, among other unhealthy ingredients.

This is what many health articles and food labels do. They highlight the good (“Fortified with Vitamins A, B, and C”) but leave out the bad (“High in sodium, high in MSG, contains artificial ingredients”).

Second, there is the trumpeting of negatives as if they were relevant. In my writeup, I emphasized that chicharon has no carbohydrates, even though meats and meat products like lechon and pork chop don’t have carbohydrates to begin with. Many foods are naturally “gluten-free”, but mentioning it somehow boosts their image as healthy products. In like manner, some products are glorified as “fat-free” even though they are high in sugar, or “sugar-free” when they are dangerously high in fat.

Third, there is selective comparison. In my above spiel, I compared chicharon to potato chips – which is like comparing the venom of a tarantula to the venom of a cobra. In supermarkets you will see artificially-sweetened “orange juice drinks” being labelled as having “more Vitamin C than 8 oranges”, omitting the fact that there is much more to oranges than Vitamin C – there’s a bunch of phytonutrients and fiber – and much less simple sugars.

I could have spiced my chicharon story further by adding some jargon to boost its “credibility”. This is because, as food manufacturers know too well, we are enchanted by antioxidants and acids, L-carnitine, theanine, and anything else that sounds scientific. And if that weren’t enough, I could cite actual scientific research, but exaggerate the implications of its findings. Alas, this is being done all the time: plant extracts showing some “cytotoxic activity” in a lab is being taken as proof that they’re cures for cancer; a trial involving mice is marketed as evidence for a product’s efficacy for humans.

***

As a medical doctor, I welcome the availability of health information available online – and admire the efforts of physicians like Dr Willie Ong who are actively using cyberspace to reach and educate the public (my own efforts can be found in the Tagalog-language website, Kalusugan.PH).

But I also worry that many people are unequipped to sort between medical fiction and fact. Thus we end up finding (and sharing) articles that tell us what we already want to hear: soymilk fans will share articles that enumerate its health benefits, while anti-soymilk advocates will also share equally-convincing articles that document its alleged harmful effects.

To be honest, we medical professionals are sometimes confused too – and I oftentimes have to tell my patients that I would need to study the topic first before making any informed opinion.

I guess the minimum I want to say is: don’t believe everything you read on the internet, no matter how well-written or scientific-sounding. Do fact-checks, and scout for second opinions. Consult your doctor – make the most of medical consults by asking questions! Be skeptical of outlandish claims, and most importantly, bear in mind that no single food can boost your health: you must consider your entire diet and lifestyle.

Of late, much has been said about fake news, and we should broaden this conversation and discuss what else is untrue on the internet, and where else are we affected by it in our everyday lives. The health benefits of chicharon and many other food products and practices may be thrown into doubt, but with thoughtful deliberation and critical thinking, the benefits of online health information may yet be realized. – Rappler.com

Gideon Lasco is a physician, medical anthropologist, and commentator on culture and current events. His essays have been published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Singapore Straits Times, Korea Herald, China Post, and the Jakarta Post.