On May 17, 2009, in the campus of the University of Notre Dame, my wife and I will be seated at the Joyce Center among thousands of students, faculty, parents and alumni, listening to the President of the United States address the graduating class of 2009.
Our daughter, Lauren Marie, would have received her diploma by then. However, two decades earlier, if President Obama’s “culture of death” philosophy had won over Notre Dame’s Catholic “culture of life” theology, our daughter would never have graduated. Simply because she would never have been born!
In 1987, we found out that my wife Lucie was pregnant. Previously, she had suffered a few miscarriages. I was a surgical fellow at the University of California San Diego at the time and we sought the help of pediatricians at the university medical center. Well-respected professors in pediatrics and genetics recommended an amniocentesis. They felt that it was important to know if Lucie was carrying a defective embryo, and therefore at risk for yet another miscarriage.
We both were troubled. What if the amniocentesis confirmed the worse – that the fetus was defective? The answer from the experts was straightforward: a therapeutic abortion. Why carry a risky pregnancy to term, which would likely end in spontaneous abortion anyway? And if the fetus survived, did we really want to raise a retarded baby, who would be a burden to carry for the duration of his or her unproductive life?
Our medical colleagues could not even understand why we were reluctant to have Lucie undergo an amniocentesis. What was there to think about?
Lucie as a pediatrician and I as a surgeon were familiar with the medical science on which the experts based their recommendations. We were also practicing Catholics and aware of the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion and the protection of human life.
If we proceeded with an amniocentesis, there would be the minor risk of an induced abortion. If the study confirmed that the fetus was normal and healthy, that would be great news. However, if the fetus were shown to be defective, would we then have it aborted?
We thought long and hard. We prayed about it. The medical arguments for amniocentesis and potential abortion were compelling. The Catholic and ethical considerations were convincing. Even if the baby turned out to be physically disabled or mentally retarded, we ultimately decided that we would accept God’s gift of life in gratitude, even if the future did not look too bright.
To this day, we are glad we made the decision to “keep the baby”. The pregnancy went smoothly and Lucie delivered a bouncing, robust, and healthy baby girl. We have four children and that baby is our only girl. What a bundle of joy she is!
Lauren Marie graduated in the top of her class in grade school and high school. She has been in the Dean’s List at the University of Notre Dame. Far from being the burden that medical experts had feared, she has been the jewel in our eyes and a delightful gift to our lives.
Yet, had we followed the promptings of the “culture of death” rather than the “culture of life”, we wonder what our lives would have been without her.
It is estimated that over three thousand abortions occur in the United States every day. The majority are not the rape or incest cases that pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates, the liberal media and Planned Parenthood are so concerned about. Most abortions are the result of lack of information regarding viable alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Many are based on unfounded fears – will the baby be defective? How can I financially support the baby? How much of a burden will the baby be? What will my parents think? What will the future be like?
The controversy surrounding President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, from my viewpoint, is not so much about the university’s traditional invitation to a sitting president, which dates back to President Dwight Eisenhower. Rather, it is about Notre Dame’s awarding the President an honorary doctor of law degree. How in the world can the foremost Catholic University in the world justify conferring such an honor on a politician whose major policies to date have trampled on Catholic ethics and principles?
As an Illinois state legislator, Barack Obama personally worked to block legislation banning the killing of disabled newborns that survived botched abortions. In the US Senate, the senator from Chicago was involved in fundraising to continue the practice of partial-birth abortion (an obstetrical technique to deliver a live infant except for the head which, in utero, is incised and suctioned resulting in death). As a presidential candidate, Obama promised the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act that would eliminate all existing regulations from the practice of abortion.
In the President’s first 100 days, he has issued executive orders facilitating the funding of international abortion agencies and for stem cell research utilizing human embryos. President Barack Obama disregards scientific data that confirm the embryo’s human characteristics or the developing consensus that adult stem cells offer a viable therapeutic and ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells.
At present, President Obama is preparing the federal government to eliminate conscience protections from physicians and from clinics and hospitals morally opposed to carrying out abortions. Furthermore, he has appointed to the White House and key federal agencies bureaucrats and lawyers recommended by extremist abortion advocacy groups.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and the President should be allowed to speak his piece at Notre Dame. However, his record speaks for itself and should be more than sufficient to persuade the University of Notre Dame not to confer an honorary degree which exemplifies its recipient as the embodiment of the Catholic values of the University of Notre Dame and the ethical and moral aspirations of its students, graduates, and alumni.
###
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Garden of Eden
(Reprinted from The Asian Journal)
Sometimes I wonder how far we, human beings, should go. How deeply should we venture into the mysteries of the universe? Does the One Infinite Intelligence want us to discover and unravel all of the intricacies of the created world? Or does God – whatever our finite minds can conceive the Eternal Being to be – want us to just go along for the ride?
Does God want us to go into stem cell research, into genetic engineering, into cloning? Or does He/She want us to simply enjoy the fruits of creation, without dismantling its delicate clockwork or messing things up?
The church, a fount of wisdom enshrined through centuries of experience in human affairs, cautions us against pushing the envelope. Yet, we now realize the error of suppressing Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric explorations into the universe. No less than the great Pope John Paul II apologized for that shortsightedness. Three and a half centuries later, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the brilliant Jesuit paleontologist, probed20this issue. The Vatican has yet to put de Chardin on the pedestal he deserves.
Is stem cell research in our day and age a parallel dilemma? Or does caution in tinkering with the seeds of creation – and being aware of the logical principle that the end does not justify the means – endow us with the wisdom to uncover an ethical solution to the problem of regenerating beneficial cells?
The author of Genesis struggled with this issue, around 900 BC. The Israeli writer(s) came up with a simple story of the Garden of Eden (literally, “The Garden of Delights”). Stay here, Adam and Eve. Live well and enjoy the fruits that have been provided for you gratis. But, stay away and do not touch “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Curious and undisciplined as human beings were in the beginning of time -- and still are to this present age -- Eve ate the apple and gave the residual to Adham (Hebrew word for “man or humankind” or “a creature made from dust”). And Adam did not even have the courage to admit that he had succumbed to the temptation; he blamed Eve (Hebrew word for “mother of all living”)!
Thus, God banished man and woman from the Garden of Eden and let them out into the world, to bear the pain of childbearing, to raise food from thorns and thistles, to labor for their daily bread “east of Eden”. Yet, as history unfolded, mankind multipl ied and prospered. Human beings discovered fire and harnessed the energies of the earth. Man learned to utilize water, oil, and the planet’s essential resources. Our ancestors conquered the mountains and the seas. They planted and they built. The frenzy of uncontrolled building led to the Tower of Babel. At that point, God said enough is enough. I let you free to roam and discover the earth, but you now think you are the masters of the universe. You will speak in different tongues and realize the errors of your ways.
The genius in this tale of the Garden of Eden is that it is a human being’s effort (or the Jewish community’s effort) to make sense of the complex mystery of God’s creation. It is an attempt to make sense of man and woman’s relationship with the Being from whose creative hands they originated.
The Garden of Eden is more than a prescientific explanation of cosmology. It is an effort to make sense of how far we, human beings, can venture to develop the earth and the skies and the resources God has bequeathed us, and how careful we need to be so that we are not blinded by our brilliance and think we know it all.
I am amazed at the haughtiness of people who regard the Garden of Eden as a simpleton’s story, or Scripture a bunch of fables. Naïve comments on this subject, such as those from prominent media personalities, only reveal them to be intellectually nimble perhaps, but essentially cerebral lightweights. & nbsp;
In 399 BC, Socrates was forced to drink a poisonous concoction of hemlock for railing against pseudo-intellectualism. The great Greek philosopher had insisted that people who think they know it all are dangerous. People who think they know, when in fact they do not, are pathetic. Unfortunately, these pseudo-intellectuals can be outright disastrous for they often are the ones who, by sheer chutzpah and a deluded sense of greatness, run our governments, our churches, and our many institutions. In other words, they run our lives!
One can examine the stimulus package and spending bill that the United States Congress just passed and note how on target Socrates was.
It takes wisdom to acknowledge that we know that we know nothing – or, at least, that there are many things we do not know. Yet, while Socrates and Plato and Aristotle made us aware of this simple fact, many have yet to learn this truth.
###
Sometimes I wonder how far we, human beings, should go. How deeply should we venture into the mysteries of the universe? Does the One Infinite Intelligence want us to discover and unravel all of the intricacies of the created world? Or does God – whatever our finite minds can conceive the Eternal Being to be – want us to just go along for the ride?
Does God want us to go into stem cell research, into genetic engineering, into cloning? Or does He/She want us to simply enjoy the fruits of creation, without dismantling its delicate clockwork or messing things up?
The church, a fount of wisdom enshrined through centuries of experience in human affairs, cautions us against pushing the envelope. Yet, we now realize the error of suppressing Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric explorations into the universe. No less than the great Pope John Paul II apologized for that shortsightedness. Three and a half centuries later, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the brilliant Jesuit paleontologist, probed20this issue. The Vatican has yet to put de Chardin on the pedestal he deserves.
Is stem cell research in our day and age a parallel dilemma? Or does caution in tinkering with the seeds of creation – and being aware of the logical principle that the end does not justify the means – endow us with the wisdom to uncover an ethical solution to the problem of regenerating beneficial cells?
The author of Genesis struggled with this issue, around 900 BC. The Israeli writer(s) came up with a simple story of the Garden of Eden (literally, “The Garden of Delights”). Stay here, Adam and Eve. Live well and enjoy the fruits that have been provided for you gratis. But, stay away and do not touch “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Curious and undisciplined as human beings were in the beginning of time -- and still are to this present age -- Eve ate the apple and gave the residual to Adham (Hebrew word for “man or humankind” or “a creature made from dust”). And Adam did not even have the courage to admit that he had succumbed to the temptation; he blamed Eve (Hebrew word for “mother of all living”)!
Thus, God banished man and woman from the Garden of Eden and let them out into the world, to bear the pain of childbearing, to raise food from thorns and thistles, to labor for their daily bread “east of Eden”. Yet, as history unfolded, mankind multipl ied and prospered. Human beings discovered fire and harnessed the energies of the earth. Man learned to utilize water, oil, and the planet’s essential resources. Our ancestors conquered the mountains and the seas. They planted and they built. The frenzy of uncontrolled building led to the Tower of Babel. At that point, God said enough is enough. I let you free to roam and discover the earth, but you now think you are the masters of the universe. You will speak in different tongues and realize the errors of your ways.
The genius in this tale of the Garden of Eden is that it is a human being’s effort (or the Jewish community’s effort) to make sense of the complex mystery of God’s creation. It is an attempt to make sense of man and woman’s relationship with the Being from whose creative hands they originated.
The Garden of Eden is more than a prescientific explanation of cosmology. It is an effort to make sense of how far we, human beings, can venture to develop the earth and the skies and the resources God has bequeathed us, and how careful we need to be so that we are not blinded by our brilliance and think we know it all.
I am amazed at the haughtiness of people who regard the Garden of Eden as a simpleton’s story, or Scripture a bunch of fables. Naïve comments on this subject, such as those from prominent media personalities, only reveal them to be intellectually nimble perhaps, but essentially cerebral lightweights. & nbsp;
In 399 BC, Socrates was forced to drink a poisonous concoction of hemlock for railing against pseudo-intellectualism. The great Greek philosopher had insisted that people who think they know it all are dangerous. People who think they know, when in fact they do not, are pathetic. Unfortunately, these pseudo-intellectuals can be outright disastrous for they often are the ones who, by sheer chutzpah and a deluded sense of greatness, run our governments, our churches, and our many institutions. In other words, they run our lives!
One can examine the stimulus package and spending bill that the United States Congress just passed and note how on target Socrates was.
It takes wisdom to acknowledge that we know that we know nothing – or, at least, that there are many things we do not know. Yet, while Socrates and Plato and Aristotle made us aware of this simple fact, many have yet to learn this truth.
###
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Sarah Palin Factor
Reprinted from The Asian Journal
As the presidential election gets closer and the race tighter, it is to be expected that the campaign rhetoric gets even hotter. Tactics from the extreme wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties (which hardly represent mainstream America) get downright nastier. The democratic process of electing the most powerful political leader, indeed, is a mess -- though it remains the best system we've got.
Yet, since Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was nominated Vice Presidential candidate by the Republican Party, no campaign in recent memory has exhibited more nasty, bitter, or personalized attacks.
American culture idolizes beauty, success, and gutsiness -- traits that Gov. Palin is not short on. And in the framework of male dominance in politics and the slow evolution of women's suffrage, one would think that the appearance of Sarah Palin on the national stage would be met with cheers, rather than jeers.
Yet, the opposite has happened, particularly in the media. Except for Fox News Network, television and print conglomerates have joined forces to demonize Governor Palin. Cleverly disguised fair and balanced interviews are conducted to catch Palin off guard, so that edited video clips can be replayed ad infinitum over the internet. The goal, it appears, is not to find out what Gov. Palin thinks of the issues but to portray her as either clueless or incompetent.
The most popular and accomplished governor of Alaska has clearly been treated differently from such female politicians as Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Dianne Feinstein, or even Linda Lingle.
Which begs the question: Why is a charismatic politician whose accomplishments as a maverick mayor and governor merit a whooping 80+% approval rating in her home state, who is happily married and raises a Down Syndrome child, incessantly portrayed as inexperienced or lacking in intelligence?
The answer is not that Governor Sarah Palin is ugly, has a low IQ, or is unethical. Nor is she oblivious to geopolitical realities or ignorant of energy demands and conservation. The answer -- the big elephant in the room -- is that Palin clearly expresses her stance on abortion, is openly pro-life, and does not hide her Christian faith under a bushel.
And that is something that the liberal advocates in media and entertainment -- whether it's Katie Couric or Barbara Walters or Barbara Streisand or Whoopi Goldberg -- get apoplectic about.
If Governor Sarah Palin is elected Vice President, she (with John McCain) will be a formidable force in moving the Supreme Court to the right and eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.
"A President Obama or a President McCain will likely be handed an opportunity to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court that is unprecedented in our history," comments Wendy Long, chief counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
During the first term of the next administration, there could be two or three openings in the Supreme Court. Justices John Paul Stevens, 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, and perhaps David Souter, 69, may retire in the next four years.
Today's Supreme Court is split on constitutional issues, with four conservatives (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas), four liberals (John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer), and one moderate (Anthony M. Kennedy).
Whether it is publicly admitted or not, rejection of a litmus test nothwithstanding, religion is a factor, particularly on constitutional matters relating to abortion and church-and-state separation. The four conservative justices are Roman Catholics (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas). President George Bush successfully pushed for the confirmation of Roberts and Alito. Kennedy, the moderate independent, is also Roman Catholic.
On the liberal end of the spectrum, Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish; Souter is Episcopalian and Stevens is Protestant.
If Stevens, who at age 88 is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, steps down, a McCain-Palin administration will likely nominate a conservative judge who will nudge the court to the conservative right. An Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, will nominate a liberal "judicial activist", tugging the court to the left.
The very real possibility of McCain and Palin nominating conservative judges who will eventually overturn, or at least erode, Roe v. Wade is the greatest fear of liberal pro-abortion advocates. This explains the intensity of hatred and vile directed towards Gov. Sarah Palin. She has become a conservative lighting rod, protecting the rights of the unborn and the disabled, and taking the hit from abortionists.
As voters, we can change and push back the pro-abortion media onslaught. We can elect to office a Mc-Cain/Palin pro-life team that can reform the Supreme Court's composition and finally stop the indiscriminate killing of innocent lives.
In the same manner, let's vote YES on Prop 4 (Sarah's Law) so that a responsible adult family member (parent or legal guardian) is appropriately notified 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor (under the age of 18). After all, a physician or nurse is not allowed to treat or even dispense an aspirin pill to minors without parental notification.
 |
As the presidential election gets closer and the race tighter, it is to be expected that the campaign rhetoric gets even hotter. Tactics from the extreme wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties (which hardly represent mainstream America) get downright nastier. The democratic process of electing the most powerful political leader, indeed, is a mess -- though it remains the best system we've got.
Yet, since Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was nominated Vice Presidential candidate by the Republican Party, no campaign in recent memory has exhibited more nasty, bitter, or personalized attacks.
American culture idolizes beauty, success, and gutsiness -- traits that Gov. Palin is not short on. And in the framework of male dominance in politics and the slow evolution of women's suffrage, one would think that the appearance of Sarah Palin on the national stage would be met with cheers, rather than jeers.
Yet, the opposite has happened, particularly in the media. Except for Fox News Network, television and print conglomerates have joined forces to demonize Governor Palin. Cleverly disguised fair and balanced interviews are conducted to catch Palin off guard, so that edited video clips can be replayed ad infinitum over the internet. The goal, it appears, is not to find out what Gov. Palin thinks of the issues but to portray her as either clueless or incompetent.
The most popular and accomplished governor of Alaska has clearly been treated differently from such female politicians as Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Dianne Feinstein, or even Linda Lingle.
Which begs the question: Why is a charismatic politician whose accomplishments as a maverick mayor and governor merit a whooping 80+% approval rating in her home state, who is happily married and raises a Down Syndrome child, incessantly portrayed as inexperienced or lacking in intelligence?
The answer is not that Governor Sarah Palin is ugly, has a low IQ, or is unethical. Nor is she oblivious to geopolitical realities or ignorant of energy demands and conservation. The answer -- the big elephant in the room -- is that Palin clearly expresses her stance on abortion, is openly pro-life, and does not hide her Christian faith under a bushel.
And that is something that the liberal advocates in media and entertainment -- whether it's Katie Couric or Barbara Walters or Barbara Streisand or Whoopi Goldberg -- get apoplectic about.
If Governor Sarah Palin is elected Vice President, she (with John McCain) will be a formidable force in moving the Supreme Court to the right and eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.
"A President Obama or a President McCain will likely be handed an opportunity to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court that is unprecedented in our history," comments Wendy Long, chief counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
During the first term of the next administration, there could be two or three openings in the Supreme Court. Justices John Paul Stevens, 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, and perhaps David Souter, 69, may retire in the next four years.
Today's Supreme Court is split on constitutional issues, with four conservatives (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas), four liberals (John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer), and one moderate (Anthony M. Kennedy).
Whether it is publicly admitted or not, rejection of a litmus test nothwithstanding, religion is a factor, particularly on constitutional matters relating to abortion and church-and-state separation. The four conservative justices are Roman Catholics (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas). President George Bush successfully pushed for the confirmation of Roberts and Alito. Kennedy, the moderate independent, is also Roman Catholic.
On the liberal end of the spectrum, Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish; Souter is Episcopalian and Stevens is Protestant.
If Stevens, who at age 88 is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, steps down, a McCain-Palin administration will likely nominate a conservative judge who will nudge the court to the conservative right. An Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, will nominate a liberal "judicial activist", tugging the court to the left.
The very real possibility of McCain and Palin nominating conservative judges who will eventually overturn, or at least erode, Roe v. Wade is the greatest fear of liberal pro-abortion advocates. This explains the intensity of hatred and vile directed towards Gov. Sarah Palin. She has become a conservative lighting rod, protecting the rights of the unborn and the disabled, and taking the hit from abortionists.
As voters, we can change and push back the pro-abortion media onslaught. We can elect to office a Mc-Cain/Palin pro-life team that can reform the Supreme Court's composition and finally stop the indiscriminate killing of innocent lives.
In the same manner, let's vote YES on Prop 4 (Sarah's Law) so that a responsible adult family member (parent or legal guardian) is appropriately notified 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor (under the age of 18). After all, a physician or nurse is not allowed to treat or even dispense an aspirin pill to minors without parental notification.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Restore Traditional Marriage - Vote YES on Proposition 8
 |
This choice has serious implications on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic recession, healthcare, taxation, and immigration. It will also move the United States as a society toward conservative or liberal policies in social and moral issues.
In California, we will be offered several initiatives to vote on. The more critical propositions will be Prop 4 and Prop 8.
Proposition 8 states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
This measure contains the same terminology in Proposition 22 which was approved in 2000 by 61% of California voters. It was overturned by four liberal San Francisco-based judges in a 4-3 decision.
Here we go again, waging a familiar battle for traditional family values. We may just throw our hands up in the air and not bother. But, it is critical that we vote for this measure and gather community support to restore the definition of marriage.
Voting "YES" on Proposition 8 will accomplish three things:
1) It will restore the traditional and common-sense definition of marriage.
2) It will overturn the decision of four activist judges who ignored the majority decision of voters in 2000.
3) It will protect our children from being taught in California public schools that same-sex or gay marriage is not different from the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
With an amendment of the state constitution in place, the State Supreme Court cannot declare Prop 8 unconstitutional as it did with Prop 22 which had been added as a regular statute to the California Family Code.
We cannot afford not to pass this measure on November 4, 2008. If Proposition 8 is defeated, marriage in the State of California will be regarded as nothing more than a no-frills contractual relationship between adults. The sanctity and sacredness of marriage, which has been at the heart of society since time immemorial, will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
The Catholic Church and other faith traditions view marriage as instituted by God, as the faithful, loving, permanent and exclusive covenant between a man and a woman. In traditional marriage, husband and wife vow to love each other, "for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, 'till death do us part." Husband and wife take on the task of bringing children into the world, raising, educating and caring for them. Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage, is the ideal setting for children to be raised.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage as an ideal. It does not insult, attack, or discriminate against homosexuals. Voting yes to Prop 8 will not eliminate any rights or benefits enjoyed by gay and lesbian domestic partners because California Law (Family Code 297.5) ensures that "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses."
If Proposition 8 is not passed, the consequences will be far reaching. For one, state law requires teachers to instruct children as early as kindergarten about marriage (Education Code 51890). Teachers will be required to teach our children that there is no difference between traditional marriage and "gay marriage." Churches which teach and advocate traditional marriage and family values may be sued for discrimination.
Register to vote. Endorse Prop 8 and tell your family and friends about this important measure. During the recent Vice Presidential debate, both Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden fully supported traditional marriage while endorsing tolerance toward homosexuals and respect for the civil rights of gays and lesbians, as the majority of Californians do.
Proposition 8 is supported by national and state pro-family organizations. For more information, please visit www.ProtectMarriage.com or call (916) 446-2956.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Rethinking Iraq
As San Diegans, with families and friends inextricably linked to the military, we may prefer not to ponder much about the situation in Iraq beyond “staying the course”, wishing for President George W. Bush to finally declare: “mission accomplished”.
Yet, after 4,000 plus deaths and more than a hundred thousand casualties since the war began March 19, 2003 – not to mention the estimated 1.2 million Iraqis killed, including innocent women and children (a study published in Lancet, the well respected British medical journal, documented 600,000 Iraqi deaths as of July 2006) – isn't it time for each one of us to rethink the situation there?
The 5-year war (the second longest war in American history) may be waged by the armed services under orders of Washington, yet it is, despite the much publicized international coalition, solely (at least, primarily) an American war. We, as citizens of the United States, are flat out responsible for the war – and its long-ranging consequences.
There is much talk about the soaring prices of gasoline. Isn't it ironic that the raison d'etre for the war was to secure our national interest in the Middle East (termed Pax Americana in foreign policy parlance) and that a major cause for interest in the Middle East is oil, $5 trillion worth of this hydrocarbon commodity? Yet, the war has weakened the US dollar and driven the American economy into a recession. It is not hard to figure the math. In September 2002, the former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey estimated the war to cost around $200 billion, or 2% of the GNP. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost of waging war at $6-9 billion a month and of maintaining an occupying military presence at $1-4 billion a month.
The combined Iraq Afghanistan wars are now estimated to cost $600-$800 billion (ten times more than was originally estimated by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and is projected soon to reach a trillion dollar. Adding post war reconstruction, continuing foreign aid, long term medical care of the wounded and disabled, etc., the cost is projected to triple, as claimed in the book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, written by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.
The original argument of course was that we could not afford to sit idly by while Saddam worked overtime to gather weapons of mass destruction and that dirty bombs from the splintered USSR were filtering into the back alleys of Islamic Jihadists. In the bitter aftermath of 911, who would risk the possibility of seeing our major cities blown to pieces? Who could comprehend the horrors of Disneyworld or a Superbowl stadium blasted to smithereens? Or millions of people dropping dead from drinking contaminated water? Then Secretary of State Colin Powell did make a compelling argument before the United Nations, pointing out that Iraq was capable of manufacturing not only chemical but insidious biological weapons.
Framed in the context of righting human rights abuses -- the noble and moral imperative of eliminating three decades of sadistic rule and mass graves -- then bolstered by the fear of a Middle East madman stockpiling an Armageddon arsenal of weapons while harboring Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda, people rallied behind the American flag to confront the modern axis of evil forces. At the time, there were very few, if any dissenting voices. Having experienced first hand the abuses of a dictatorial regime under Marcos, Filipinos in particular felt the plight of oppressed Iraqis and the necessity of unleashing liberation forces from the democratic superpower house that was America.
One significant objection came from Pope John Paul II. But the Pontiff’s ailing voice was drowned in the frenzy to stop a potential nuclear holocaust.
It was difficult to understand why John Paul (the Great) was against the liberation of oppressed people. After all, the Holy Father lived under Communist oppression in Poland before assuming the chair of Peter.
Yet, didn't Pope John Paul's concerns about the war in Iraq turn out to be prophetic? No weapons of mass destruction were found. The US military combed every square inch and turned over every rock but found nothing, except a disheveled and emasculated dictator. Indeed, we effectively eliminated a strongman and his ilk, but is Iraq better off now? Moreover, are we, as a nation, better off? Is the international community better off?
Not to objective observers. Not to someone who was born and raised in Iraq and now practices in the U.S. as a physician. After morning rounds in the hospital, I often talk to him about the situation in Iraq -- what is publicized and what is not. Indeed, he thinks it was justified for American and allied forces to liberate his native country. But since we have metamorphosed from an invading to an occupying force, Iraq has groaned from one disaster to another.
Pope Benedict XVI did not specify Iraq nor did he denounce the United States when he addressed the United Nations on April 18th, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, his message to the US and the world was clear and unequivocal. Brief excerpts of the Holy Father's message are worth pondering.
“As Pope John Paul II expressed it in 1995, the Organization (United Nations) should be “a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a ‘family of nations’...
This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.
Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet...
What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-emptying and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation...
When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.
The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security. Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace.....
Today...efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration (of Human Rights) and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests...
Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their foundation and their goal...
My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.
Peace and Prosperity with God’s help!”
Indeed, it is time to rethink the war in Iraq.
Yet, after 4,000 plus deaths and more than a hundred thousand casualties since the war began March 19, 2003 – not to mention the estimated 1.2 million Iraqis killed, including innocent women and children (a study published in Lancet, the well respected British medical journal, documented 600,000 Iraqi deaths as of July 2006) – isn't it time for each one of us to rethink the situation there?
The 5-year war (the second longest war in American history) may be waged by the armed services under orders of Washington, yet it is, despite the much publicized international coalition, solely (at least, primarily) an American war. We, as citizens of the United States, are flat out responsible for the war – and its long-ranging consequences.
There is much talk about the soaring prices of gasoline. Isn't it ironic that the raison d'etre for the war was to secure our national interest in the Middle East (termed Pax Americana in foreign policy parlance) and that a major cause for interest in the Middle East is oil, $5 trillion worth of this hydrocarbon commodity? Yet, the war has weakened the US dollar and driven the American economy into a recession. It is not hard to figure the math. In September 2002, the former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey estimated the war to cost around $200 billion, or 2% of the GNP. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost of waging war at $6-9 billion a month and of maintaining an occupying military presence at $1-4 billion a month.
The combined Iraq Afghanistan wars are now estimated to cost $600-$800 billion (ten times more than was originally estimated by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and is projected soon to reach a trillion dollar. Adding post war reconstruction, continuing foreign aid, long term medical care of the wounded and disabled, etc., the cost is projected to triple, as claimed in the book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, written by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.
The original argument of course was that we could not afford to sit idly by while Saddam worked overtime to gather weapons of mass destruction and that dirty bombs from the splintered USSR were filtering into the back alleys of Islamic Jihadists. In the bitter aftermath of 911, who would risk the possibility of seeing our major cities blown to pieces? Who could comprehend the horrors of Disneyworld or a Superbowl stadium blasted to smithereens? Or millions of people dropping dead from drinking contaminated water? Then Secretary of State Colin Powell did make a compelling argument before the United Nations, pointing out that Iraq was capable of manufacturing not only chemical but insidious biological weapons.
Framed in the context of righting human rights abuses -- the noble and moral imperative of eliminating three decades of sadistic rule and mass graves -- then bolstered by the fear of a Middle East madman stockpiling an Armageddon arsenal of weapons while harboring Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda, people rallied behind the American flag to confront the modern axis of evil forces. At the time, there were very few, if any dissenting voices. Having experienced first hand the abuses of a dictatorial regime under Marcos, Filipinos in particular felt the plight of oppressed Iraqis and the necessity of unleashing liberation forces from the democratic superpower house that was America.
One significant objection came from Pope John Paul II. But the Pontiff’s ailing voice was drowned in the frenzy to stop a potential nuclear holocaust.
It was difficult to understand why John Paul (the Great) was against the liberation of oppressed people. After all, the Holy Father lived under Communist oppression in Poland before assuming the chair of Peter.
Yet, didn't Pope John Paul's concerns about the war in Iraq turn out to be prophetic? No weapons of mass destruction were found. The US military combed every square inch and turned over every rock but found nothing, except a disheveled and emasculated dictator. Indeed, we effectively eliminated a strongman and his ilk, but is Iraq better off now? Moreover, are we, as a nation, better off? Is the international community better off?
Not to objective observers. Not to someone who was born and raised in Iraq and now practices in the U.S. as a physician. After morning rounds in the hospital, I often talk to him about the situation in Iraq -- what is publicized and what is not. Indeed, he thinks it was justified for American and allied forces to liberate his native country. But since we have metamorphosed from an invading to an occupying force, Iraq has groaned from one disaster to another.
Pope Benedict XVI did not specify Iraq nor did he denounce the United States when he addressed the United Nations on April 18th, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, his message to the US and the world was clear and unequivocal. Brief excerpts of the Holy Father's message are worth pondering.
“As Pope John Paul II expressed it in 1995, the Organization (United Nations) should be “a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a ‘family of nations’...
This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.
Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet...
What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-emptying and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation...
When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.
The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security. Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace.....
Today...efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration (of Human Rights) and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests...
Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their foundation and their goal...
My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.
Peace and Prosperity with God’s help!”
Indeed, it is time to rethink the war in Iraq.
Friday, March 7, 2008
A matter of consequence
In the frenzied campaign for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, it can be difficult to separate the weeds from the wheat.
The two remaining Democrats are history makers -- Senator Barach Obama could be the first African-American occupant of the White House, while Senator Hillary Clinton could be the first woman president. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain is a genuine American hero, having proved his mettle as a prisoner of war at Hanoi Hilton for five years, two and a half in solitary confinement. Governor Mike Huckabee is a staunch conservative gifted with a refreshing sense of humor, and of history.
The United States, at this particular period in its 232-year history, is faced with serious issues -- the global threat of terror from Jihadists, a resurgent arms race from Putin’s Russia, the economic ascendancy of a China which trivializes human rights, AIDS epidemic and genocides in Africa and many other problems competing for supremacy on the world stage. On the domestic front, recession looms large as the housing industry takes a nosedive; the nation is polarized on the war in Iraq, on ways to solve the health care crisis, on the issue of illegal immigration, on education access, etc.
It almost seems irrelevant to consider the abortion issue and how the presidential contenders stand on the matter. Why worry about reproduction rights and Roe v. Wade, if the next president of the United States will have to contend with matters of more serious consequences?
The New York Times publicizes what is well known. Democrats Clinton and Obama are on the pro-abortion or pro-choice side. Republican Senator McCain, Gov. Huckabee, and Congressman Ron Paul (who is an Ob-Gyn physician) are on the pro-life side. Furthermore, pro-life McCain is pro war, while pro-abortion Obama is anti-war. Clinton is staunchly pro-abortion but is backtracking on her original support of the war in Iraq.
Should the views of presidential contenders on the subject of abortion really matter? They do because, for the most part, their position, and how they regard the most vulnerable and defenseless members of human society, are reflective of their moral philosophy.
“The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion”, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta pointed out. If we dismiss the sanctity of life as an irrelevant issue, then we allow a woman by the name of Margaret Higgins Sanger to cast a deceptive veil over our collective eyes.
Born in 1879 in Corning, New York, Margaret Higgins was the sixth of eleven children of an agnostic father and a Catholic mother. After her mother’s death, she attended practical nursing school, and in 1902 married architect William Sanger. Separated from her husband in 1913, she started a career in political activism that spanned half a century. Via a monthly newsletter, called the Woman Rebel , with the motto: “No Gods, No Masters”, Sanger incessantly advocated birth control, encouraging women to take “complete control of their reproductive functions”.
In October 1916, Sanger opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. In 1917, she founded the Birth Control Review, touting the benefit of eugenics “to create a race of thoroughbreds” because “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ (is) the greatest present menace to civilization”.
In the 1920s, the idea of contraception and eugenics was anathema across all segments of society. It was widely opposed by the Catholic and Protestant churches, by Congress, by the Judiciary, by the medical profession, by the media, etc. Unfazed, Sanger set out to break the opposition methodically.
In 1926, Sanger fought to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow for the transport and mailing of contraceptives among drug manufacturers, pharmacists, and physicians. She gathered a core group of congressional representatives and senators to push for birth control legislation. Blaming Catholics for blocking her legislative efforts, she encouraged her readers to be single-issue voters: “ Make your political interest this year a vote for the man who will support Birth Control Legislation”.
Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which Sanger later founded, is quick to dismiss pro-lifers as single-issue voters.
Opposed not only by the Catholic Church, but also by the American Federation of Labor, the American Medical Association, and other well-respected institutions, Sanger cleverly shifted the debate on birth control from morality to medicine, arguing that limiting families promoted health and well-being. Meeting resistance in Congress, she focused on judicial legislation where her arguments found receptive judges, particularly when the debate bore down on the constitutional right of the mother versus that of her unborn child.
To counter the impression that her eugenics-inspired movement aimed to limit the growth of the Afro-American population, a National Negro Advisory Council was created. Drafting “Suggestions for Negro Project” in 1939, Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir of Procter and Gamble company, strategized with Sanger to make birth control acceptable in black communities. When eugenics became associated with Nazi Germany, Planned Parenthood quickly dropped the discredited term.
Sanger achieved maximum success when First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt endorsed her ideas
as later enshrined in the agenda of Planned Parenthood. Traditionally, Christianity regards children as God’s blessings, as gifts for the family. Sanger and Planned Parenthood regard them instead as harmful to a woman’s health and detrimental to the family’s financial status. While Christianity considers the unborn to be a human being created in God’s image and likeness, Planned Parenthood views the fetus as a nuisance.
As Sanger’s movement gained national prominence, corporations such as American Airlines, American Express, Bank of New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon, etc. became regular financial contributors. The New York Times, The New York Post, CBS remain stalwart supporters. So is the Rockefeller Foundation.
In effect, according to statistics gathered by the Guttmacher Institute (an affiliate of Planned Parenthood), 1,200,000 babies are aborted each year in the United States. A total of over 49 million abortions have been carried out from 1973 to 2007.
This is not an insignificant nor irrelevant matter.
Reference: Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan. Blessed Are The Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1991.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Poverty in the Philippines
Reprinted from the Asian Journal
November 16, 2007
(First of two installments)
You may have come across a news item heralding a bright economic forecast for the Philippines. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in a speech before the National Press Club, declared the country’s graduation from Third World to “Second World” or “Middle Class Country”.
The economist president based her optimistic comments on the fact that the annual per capita income has topped $1400 per year. Indeed, under Arroyo’s government, GNI per capita has steadily grown from $1,040 in 2000, $1,200 in 2004, and $1300 in 2006, as verified by the World Bank. Recently, GNI achieved the magic number of $1400/year. Assuming an annual decline of the poverty index by 1%, the President predicted the Philippines would join the prestigious rank of First World Countries by the year 2020.
I reacted to this news as if it was June 12, 1898 all over again, when Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed independence from 400 years of Spanish colonial rule. Isn’t it about time we broke the shackles of colonialism and poverty, harnessed the talents of 85.2 million Filipinos, managed our natural resources wisely, got rid of political corruption, and closed the gap between the rich and the poor?
Happy images danced in my head, like throngs of exultant Filipino expatriates chartering flights back to the “best place on earth”, unending fiestas in prosperous and Wi-Fi connected rural communities, JCAHO accredited medical centers providing accessible health care to all, 5-star beach resorts affordable not only to Japanese, Korean, and German tourists but to Juan de la Cruz and his family. What a joy to imagine Dr. Jose Rizal’s “pearl of the orient seas” gloriously emerging from its craggy shell!
Shortly, thereafter, I read statistics that proclaimed the opposite. Eighty percent or 69 million Filipinos barely survive on P98 or $2 a day. Economic inequality -- or the gap between the haves and the have-nots --has actually widened the last 20 years. Income for the richest 10% is at least twenty times that of the poorest 10%. The net worth of the 40 most affluent Filipinos is $16 Billion or equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 9,600,000 families (approximately 49 million Filipinos).
Are we talking about the same country? The pristine archipelago made up of 7,107 tropical islands in the western Pacific Ocean, ranked the 12th most populous country in the world but 39th in the listing of world economies?
According to Forbes Asia (December 25, 2006), Henry Sy, who owns 27 shopping malls, Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Highlands Prime Holdings, plus shares in China Banking Corporation and Equitable PCI Bank, is the richest Filipino with $4.0 billion. Next comes Lucio Tan, owner of Philippine Airlines, Fortune Tobacco, Asia Brewery, etc., with $2.3 billion. Jaime Zobel de Ayala, patriarch of the oldest Philippine conglomerate, Ayala Corporation, which owns Ayala Land, Bank of the Philippine Islands, Globe Telecom, Manila Water Co., Integrated Microelectronics, etc., ranks third with $2.0 billion.
The assets of these three billionaires, together with those of several other top millionaires -- Eduardo Cojuango ($840 Million), George Ty ($830), John Gokongwei ($700), Tony Tan Caktiong ($575), Andrew Tan ($480), Emilio Yap ($350), Oscar Lopez ($315 million) and others -- surely qualify to make the country a First World kind of paradise. But do these super-rich Filipinos, living in the same country as 46 million Filipinos who barely earn a dollar a day and go to bed hungry each night, elevate the nation up to “Middle Class” status?
Nobody begrudges those who earn their money the hard way. John Gokongwei Jr., whose father died when he was only 13, sold thread, soap, and candles during World War II. He started a textile company at age 19 and ventured into food manufacturing at age 30. Gokongwei’s assets today include Cebu Pacific Air, Digital Telecommunications Philippines, First Private Power Corporation, JG Summit Petrochemical, Litton Mills, Robinsons Land, Robinsons Savings Bank, Sun Cellular, United Industrial Corp. and Universal Robina Corporation.
He could well be our Philippine version of Bill Gates or Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- bright, innovative, driven, hardworking entrepreneurs. But that is not the point.
From 2001 to 2006, due in part to “neoliberal globalization of the economy”, the net income of the top 1,000 corporations in the Philippines increased a whopping 327%, but left 11.3 % of the labor force unemployed and 18.7% underemployed.
Poverty is deeply entrenched because the development of a predominantly agriculture based economy is held back by rural land monopolies (Agro corporations). One-third of landowners still hold 80% of agricultural land. Seven out of ten farmers are landless. The much-heralded land reform has not come to fruition. The backward Philippine economy remains merely a source of cheap labor and raw materials while foreign and domestic boardrooms guide the government’s economic policies toward their parochial interests.
While the affluent barons spend their evenings in the best supper clubs and their weekends in luxurious beach resorts, 69 million of 85.2 million people struggle to survive. Thus, over 3,200 Filipinos leave the country each day, adding to the 10 million Filipinos toiling in 192 countries around the world, establishing the legend of the “Filipino Diaspora”.
Depending on one’s viewpoint, the phenomenon of the overseas Filipino worker is good or bad for the country. In 2006, expatriates remitted $12.8 billion, keeping the Philippine economy afloat. Remittances from Filipinos abroad make up the largest source of foreign revenue, surpassing the annual $2.5 billion direct foreign investment. While a boon to the economy, the phenomenon has contributed to dysfunctional family relationships and domestic strain.
President Arroyo-Macapagal is half right. In the second quarter of 2007, the Philippine economy did grow by 7.5%. Yes, the average per capita income of the Filipino is $1400 but that is only better than Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar (Burma). We teach Vietnam farmers how to grow rice at the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute), yet we import rice from Vietnam.
We send our business professors from Manila’s Asian Institute of Management to teach Indonesians and Malaysians banking expertise. But our $117 billion economy ($145 according to other stats) is inferior to neighboring Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore.
Our foreign debt burden has ballooned from $17 billion in 1980 to $60 billion in 2006.
First World Country by 2020? It could happen. But we would have to institute genuine land reform, spread the wealth, unleash the work force, get rid of politics as the national pastime. Likewise, regional development needs to be addressed because major economic benefits are narrowly funneled into Metro Manila at the expense of the impoverished central and southern regions of the country.
Certainly, we have diagnosed the illness. Do we have the national will to treat the disease?
more . . .
November 16, 2007
(First of two installments)
You may have come across a news item heralding a bright economic forecast for the Philippines. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in a speech before the National Press Club, declared the country’s graduation from Third World to “Second World” or “Middle Class Country”.
The economist president based her optimistic comments on the fact that the annual per capita income has topped $1400 per year. Indeed, under Arroyo’s government, GNI per capita has steadily grown from $1,040 in 2000, $1,200 in 2004, and $1300 in 2006, as verified by the World Bank. Recently, GNI achieved the magic number of $1400/year. Assuming an annual decline of the poverty index by 1%, the President predicted the Philippines would join the prestigious rank of First World Countries by the year 2020.
I reacted to this news as if it was June 12, 1898 all over again, when Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed independence from 400 years of Spanish colonial rule. Isn’t it about time we broke the shackles of colonialism and poverty, harnessed the talents of 85.2 million Filipinos, managed our natural resources wisely, got rid of political corruption, and closed the gap between the rich and the poor?
Happy images danced in my head, like throngs of exultant Filipino expatriates chartering flights back to the “best place on earth”, unending fiestas in prosperous and Wi-Fi connected rural communities, JCAHO accredited medical centers providing accessible health care to all, 5-star beach resorts affordable not only to Japanese, Korean, and German tourists but to Juan de la Cruz and his family. What a joy to imagine Dr. Jose Rizal’s “pearl of the orient seas” gloriously emerging from its craggy shell!
Shortly, thereafter, I read statistics that proclaimed the opposite. Eighty percent or 69 million Filipinos barely survive on P98 or $2 a day. Economic inequality -- or the gap between the haves and the have-nots --has actually widened the last 20 years. Income for the richest 10% is at least twenty times that of the poorest 10%. The net worth of the 40 most affluent Filipinos is $16 Billion or equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 9,600,000 families (approximately 49 million Filipinos).
Are we talking about the same country? The pristine archipelago made up of 7,107 tropical islands in the western Pacific Ocean, ranked the 12th most populous country in the world but 39th in the listing of world economies?
According to Forbes Asia (December 25, 2006), Henry Sy, who owns 27 shopping malls, Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Highlands Prime Holdings, plus shares in China Banking Corporation and Equitable PCI Bank, is the richest Filipino with $4.0 billion. Next comes Lucio Tan, owner of Philippine Airlines, Fortune Tobacco, Asia Brewery, etc., with $2.3 billion. Jaime Zobel de Ayala, patriarch of the oldest Philippine conglomerate, Ayala Corporation, which owns Ayala Land, Bank of the Philippine Islands, Globe Telecom, Manila Water Co., Integrated Microelectronics, etc., ranks third with $2.0 billion.
The assets of these three billionaires, together with those of several other top millionaires -- Eduardo Cojuango ($840 Million), George Ty ($830), John Gokongwei ($700), Tony Tan Caktiong ($575), Andrew Tan ($480), Emilio Yap ($350), Oscar Lopez ($315 million) and others -- surely qualify to make the country a First World kind of paradise. But do these super-rich Filipinos, living in the same country as 46 million Filipinos who barely earn a dollar a day and go to bed hungry each night, elevate the nation up to “Middle Class” status?
Nobody begrudges those who earn their money the hard way. John Gokongwei Jr., whose father died when he was only 13, sold thread, soap, and candles during World War II. He started a textile company at age 19 and ventured into food manufacturing at age 30. Gokongwei’s assets today include Cebu Pacific Air, Digital Telecommunications Philippines, First Private Power Corporation, JG Summit Petrochemical, Litton Mills, Robinsons Land, Robinsons Savings Bank, Sun Cellular, United Industrial Corp. and Universal Robina Corporation.
He could well be our Philippine version of Bill Gates or Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- bright, innovative, driven, hardworking entrepreneurs. But that is not the point.
From 2001 to 2006, due in part to “neoliberal globalization of the economy”, the net income of the top 1,000 corporations in the Philippines increased a whopping 327%, but left 11.3 % of the labor force unemployed and 18.7% underemployed.
Poverty is deeply entrenched because the development of a predominantly agriculture based economy is held back by rural land monopolies (Agro corporations). One-third of landowners still hold 80% of agricultural land. Seven out of ten farmers are landless. The much-heralded land reform has not come to fruition. The backward Philippine economy remains merely a source of cheap labor and raw materials while foreign and domestic boardrooms guide the government’s economic policies toward their parochial interests.
While the affluent barons spend their evenings in the best supper clubs and their weekends in luxurious beach resorts, 69 million of 85.2 million people struggle to survive. Thus, over 3,200 Filipinos leave the country each day, adding to the 10 million Filipinos toiling in 192 countries around the world, establishing the legend of the “Filipino Diaspora”.
Depending on one’s viewpoint, the phenomenon of the overseas Filipino worker is good or bad for the country. In 2006, expatriates remitted $12.8 billion, keeping the Philippine economy afloat. Remittances from Filipinos abroad make up the largest source of foreign revenue, surpassing the annual $2.5 billion direct foreign investment. While a boon to the economy, the phenomenon has contributed to dysfunctional family relationships and domestic strain.
President Arroyo-Macapagal is half right. In the second quarter of 2007, the Philippine economy did grow by 7.5%. Yes, the average per capita income of the Filipino is $1400 but that is only better than Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar (Burma). We teach Vietnam farmers how to grow rice at the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute), yet we import rice from Vietnam.
We send our business professors from Manila’s Asian Institute of Management to teach Indonesians and Malaysians banking expertise. But our $117 billion economy ($145 according to other stats) is inferior to neighboring Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore.
Our foreign debt burden has ballooned from $17 billion in 1980 to $60 billion in 2006.
First World Country by 2020? It could happen. But we would have to institute genuine land reform, spread the wealth, unleash the work force, get rid of politics as the national pastime. Likewise, regional development needs to be addressed because major economic benefits are narrowly funneled into Metro Manila at the expense of the impoverished central and southern regions of the country.
Certainly, we have diagnosed the illness. Do we have the national will to treat the disease?
more . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)