Andrew Engel Articles

Are we mad and is it Time for MAS; Mindanao Times 1 September

2011-08-31T06:52:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Are we MAD and is it time for MAS

Most readers will recall the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, so aptly abbreviated with the acronym MAD.

The central theory of deterrence during the Cold War, MAD postulated that the use of weapons of mass destruction did not result in victory but the total annihilation of opposing sides.

As neither the U.S. nor the USSR could survive a full scale nuclear war there would be no point in starting one. MAD was predicated on inaction. The threat of obliteration had to be credible and this was achieved by building stockpiles of nuclear warheads so large that no doubt was left about the result if things got started.

We all understood the gravity of the situation, the message was clear, the threat was self-evident. You would have to be mad to start a conflict. The doctrine worked, even though the peace it brought was uneasy.

Do you sense the same level of threat from climate change? I suspect not.

For a majority of the world’s population it is a subject the beats softly in the background. The talk of dire consequences and pending disasters fail to resonate or build a palpable sense of apprehension.

The grind of daily life and more immediate problems are numerous and serious enough to push threats to our climate to the back of a long queue. Moreover, for every dire claim made about the climate there is a counterview and a counterclaim, and proposed action comes at a cost that we hesitate or refuse to pay.

No wonder most people simply turn off. I suspect people’s apathy is as much as a case of overload, as it is lack of relevance. If you disagree on the apathy claim, there is a simple personal test: ask yourself if you have taken the time to study or even consider the scientific arguments?

*******

Are there correlations between climate change and the doctrine of MAD? Does MAD provide lessons which can benefit our understanding of this important global conundrum?

Maybe?

We would need to acknowledge that human annihilation, mass extinction or something near to that was more than possible, it was probable. A credible stockpile of evidence would need to be built to support the threat. But unlike MAD, a plan of action would also be needed to show that sacrifices were justified: that, inaction in this case could be catastrophic.

On the first parallel we must ask is mass extinction possible? Well there is no proof as far as the human species concerned. There are compelling arguments that many species will become extinct. It is suggested that 50% of current species won’t be here by the end of this century, consigned to history as a result of human activity.

Should the connection between plant and animal life break down and the food chain fail we can only guess what might happen. The inverse relationship between the loss of land and unsustainable population growth on the one hand and food security on the other is clear enough. The empirical evidence is that pressures of this type increase the risk of conflict as nations fight to protect their national interest.

As for a stockpile of evidence to support assumptions and predictions, our scientists are endeavouring to understand the signals, readings, climate history and the sciences involved so as to extrapolate the impact of climate change.

But they are dealing with inadequate data, and uncertain science. For every chilling conclusion reached there is debate, conjecture and outright disagreement. There is plenty to read on the subject but it will not provide a conclusive answer. It will, however, highlight the difficulties we face in attempting to predict what is coming.

So, is the supporting evidence sufficient to support the annihilation scenario? To over simplify the evidence we seem to have reached a stage that says:

Human pollution is causing the planet to heat faster than would otherwise be the case. We are starting to see the impact of these changes. We have strong evidence to suggest it will get worse unless we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our present scientific understanding of climate change is incomplete, but sufficient to take action. We don’t know what will happen to our species, but it is conceivable our very existence will come under threat.

Is that a credible threat? Well it is certainly not overwhelming, and it does not equate with the threat from massive nuclear stockpiles accumulated during the cold war. And that goes someway to explaining why a debate is raging.

So if the threat of annihilation can’t be made and our stockpile of information is incomplete what do we do?

Well, we argue, disagree, complicate, obfuscate, rationalise and take tentative steps to reduce the risk defined by most of the world’s leading scientists. Our action plan seems to be a slow move away from a carbon intense world, and a dawning realization that our rapacious tendencies can’t continue indefinitely.

Does MAD have a resonance we can learn from? As I said earlier maybe.

We are capable of being mad. That is, acting in a way which guarantees mutual assured destruction. Whether we can act in a way that guarantees mutually assured survival (MAS) is open to question.

A theory of MAS would say that unless we find a way to cooperate at all levels of civilization to do something and soon, to protect life on this planet; all that will be left for us to do is pray.

Perhaps you think that will be enough.

PS. This is my last article as I return to Australia in a few days. The discipline of putting thoughts to paper has been valuable in organising my view of the Philippines and has been motivated by a desire to see the quality of life for Filipinos improve. That hope remains strong and I will continue to watch developments from afar with your best interests at heart.

(Comment or contact Andrew at andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Everyone Loses

2011-08-28T18:52:00.001-07:00

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Everyone Loses

There are significant variations in the role and accountability of politicians here in the Philippines and those in most democracies which are worth considering in the light of local economic condition generally.

Take, for example, the situation revealed last Friday with the revelation by Vice Mayor Duterte over the use of groundwater for the proposed coal fired power plant in Binaguao.

The fact that the Vice Mayor has expressed surprise at the advice from Abolitiz Power that 1500 cubic meters of groundwater will be required daily for the operations of the plant, at what amounts to the 11^th hour of the process, would bring a storm of critical comment in most democratic political environments.

The Press would be quick to react with a series of questions, starting with the most obvious one; why wasn’t this known before approval was given? Political opponents would be swift to use this information as an example and proof of the council’s inefficiency and possibly worse, corruption. Interests groups would ask what else wasn’t known and what was yet to be revealed. And in the process, political support for the incumbent councillors would be damaged, possibly fatally.

The fact that Abolitiz has refused to comment on the decision to defer the land reclassification proposal to the press would be seen as a possible cover up, that by failing to be transparent and give its explanation, it had something to hide. To suggest that it was a matter which needed to be explained to the Vice Mayor first promotes the view some sort of a deal is in the works and makes the political fallout that much worse.

Now, none of the criticisms need be true, but in politics perceptions are reality.

Except, I don’t sense any of the above dynamics, or at least very little of this, in what I see taking place here. The press has reported the Vice Mayor’s decision to defer the approval of the reclassification and one sensational headline shouted the Vice Mayor “blinks” over the coal fire power plant. But the press does not have opposing political opponents to quote and further fuel the critical comment and provide the oxygen to keep the issue alive. Investigative journalism is not something that features in most broadsheets either so I don’t expect to see much from this perspective. And I have questions about just how broad the readership of the dailies is and to what extent the public of Davao is aware of the latest controversy.

Having read blogs on the subject there does seem to be a general disinterest in the proposal and for all those who are critical of the decision there are just as many who take the view that it’s time to get on with the plant’s construction. Most of the opinion appeared to be based on a superficial appreciation of the facts.

It follows that the political fallout for the councillors is not likely to be harmful. That in turns means that the councillors can skate past the obstacle when in fact the apparent ham-fisted nature of the process should be causing red faces and heavy political criticism for all of them.

I sympathise when politicians have to handle controversial policy issues on which they have little or no expertise. And let’s be honest, few if any of the councillors have thermodynamics on their resumes so it is perfectly understandable that they are no better equipped that most of the public to assess the technical nature of a proposal to build a coal fired power plant.

And, that it is exactly why politicians need to get expert advice, to have due diligence done so that they can make informed decisions. It is no more than a risk assessment, both to inform the politician but also to provide political protection against both reasonable and unfounded criticisms. If they don’t then criticism is not only appropriate but essential.

That is unless the process is free of close and detailed scrutiny. If there are no checks and balances in the process, if the councillors are free to make mistakes or fail to carry out due diligence without any political penalty, than sloppy administration of the process is permitted to flourish. I just don’t see where this type of accountability can come from under the system in place in Davao and I can’t identify where check and balances exist particular if the public by and large do not care.

And here is the irony. Everyone loses including Abolitiz Power as the process has failed to show the rigour needed to potentially gain the support for the power plant or to demonstrate that the cost benefits are too high to proceed. In the end no one knows with any certainty what the best policy is at this point in time.

The coal fired power plant will in all probability be built. The suggestion that the process was flawed or corrupt will, however, linger and yet again the thought that the process is one which favours the powerful will be present, whether it is true or not.

And that is a belief system that is wholly more damaging to the integrity of the political process with all its consequences than any decision to build the plant will ever be. It is a view that an open and fully independent assessment process of a coal fired power plant would have avoided.

The admission that information is just now being revealed creates the impression that the process is an illusion of good governance, not the real deal. For some reason most people seem willing to accept that this is way things are done here.

(Comment or contact Andrew at andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Can the Philippines grab the Opportunity? August 25

2011-08-25T01:06:00.000-07:00

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Can the Philippines grab the Opportunity?

Living in the Philippines could, from one perspective, be described as living in the worst house on the best street. The other houses have been updated or are undergoing renovation, but the Philippine house remains largely untouched and dilapidated.

As a metaphor for the emerging Asian economies, the picture of houses on a street goes some way towards describing today’s realities and where the Philippines sits in relation to its neighbors and the economic growth they are experiencing.

I say some way, because not all the Asian economies are booming and because there are good things happening here. But too many impediments remain problematic, too many indicators are below where they should be, too many lag behind many other Asian countries, whose people are no smarter or hard working than Filipinos.

And while many of these indicators can be depressing, it is also true that sooner or later, investors are going to realize the opportunity the Philippines offers because of what has happened with the economic value of all the other houses.

It may come in the form of investors who can sense the opportunity for profitability; it may come from the owners themselves who realize that the status quo can be changed, or it may be a combination of both. And it will come if impediments are cleared.

It would be a mistake to think it is not possible. Investors with literally billions of dollars are watching the Philippines waiting for signs of change and a move to address the obstacles that keep too many away and wary of putting capital into the Philippines in the quantities needed to kick start Asian style economic growth.

********

The Philippines is at the center of the greatest shift in the global economic structure seen in recent history. The days of European and US dominance and the lions share the world’s wealth they have traditionally taken are coming to an end. No longer are the poor neighbor’s price takers. Increasingly, Asia is a partner and beneficiary of global wealth production. Moreover, Asian economies are capable of driving the world economy even when the rich countries of the developed world falter.

There is no longer any doubt that the economies of greater Asia are playing an increasingly important role in global economic prosperity. Statistical indicators all point to growing prosperity of what are now being described as emerging economies. From exports to the need for raw material, innovation and an increased domestic demand, it is now clear the quality of life in most Asian countries is improving. And it has only just started with abundant capacity for further expansion.

It is no longer the case that Asian economies just offer cheap labor. As prosperity grows in these populous countries their domestic markets become opportunities in and of themselves and the first cousin of this growth is innovation.

The sheer size of these domestic markets, with over half the world’s population, and the amount of catch up available to get a slice of what the rich nations have long enjoyed, sets the pattern for years to come.

No longer can it be said that when the US catches a cold, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. We can see that today with the problems in the US and Europe can cause for global growth being offset to some extent by China, India and other Asian countries. While the structure is not yet completed and it is a period of transition, meaning many of the norms still operate, the building process is well underway. A new global structure (what economist describe as structural, not cyclical change) is emerging, and it is one which will benefit Asia greatly.

When you think about it, the untapped potential of the world’s poor countries has been there for decades, waiting for the right set of conditions, the spark to get things started along the road to increased prosperity. Small individual actions helped to pre-position these economies for the lift-off that has now seen not just China emerge as a global economic power house, but Asian economies generally prosper.

Sooner or later, it will happen here in the Philippines.

********

The existing impediments in the Philippines are well known and extensively documented, not only by those who watch or govern the Philippines, but its citizens. Ask any Filipino what these problems are and they list the same things. Poverty, corruption, and lack of employment will always feature at the top of the list. Foreign investors will talk of political stability, institutional concerns, inadequate infrastructure investment, red tape and corruption, as well as other subjects less spoken of that I will also leave aside.

Clearly, there is a culture of corruption in the Philippines which while oiling the process of redistribution is a key impediment to growth and shared prosperity. Some would say it is the single greatest impediment.

For many it is both necessary to make ends meet and a simple reflection of what many of those in authority do or are forced by the system to do. As it riddles the system from top to bottom it can be justified as unavoidable. It can be used as an excuse that says everyone does it. It provides a pretext for saying it can’t be changed.

Few are comfortable with this system, and most would like to see it changed. A majority of people seem to despair feeling it can’t be altered and that it has become too ingrained.

Indeed it would be foolhardy to think corruption can be eliminated. It occurs everywhere in the world. But can the pervasiveness of corruption in the Philippines be changed?

Absolutely!

It starts with great leadership; it grows in small increments as demonstrable victories are obtained; it comes from systemic changes that make dishonesty too costly; it needs to happen at all levels of the social structure. People need a reason to buy into the idea that it might be possible. It comes with determination to write a brand new chapter based on what is possible.

It is not easy to change a belief system, but when the benefits are made obvious by the neighbors in the street, the gravitation pull ultimately becomes irresistible.

At least that is my hope.

The house may be seen to be full of termites by those who despair, but I prefer to see the inherent benefits in taking a positive view. That is a vision to be seen by just looking at the neighbors. If they can do it, so can we.

That is a vision of change which gives a reason to believe. Do you believe it is possible?

(See Andrew’s blog at andewengel.blogspot.com)

Ever tried to Catch a spinning Wheel with your Teeth: Aug 18

2011-08-20T17:09:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Ever tried to hold on to a Spinning Wheel, with your Teeth?

Can you imagine what you might do if one morning you woke to find you were the President of the Philippines.

Would you have an agenda to work on? Would you have a vision for the future of the country? Where would you start and what would be your priorities? Who would be the first person you would call?

It’s a mental exercise you might consider doing. Step back from the role of citizen, observer or commentator and put yourself in the hot seat.

I’m sure for many their first instinct would be to doubt their ability, their qualifications to do the job. Immediately, the magnitude of the role would start to dawn, the subjective and narrow concerns each of us holds would be swamped by the concerns of the whole body politic…….. and 100 million Filipinos.

Does the burden seem a bit heavier now you are in office?

So you are concerned about education. What are you going to do? How about health, defence, foreign relations, economic growth, corruption, financial systems, the global economy, the constitution, separatism, framing a budget, selecting the heads of departments, regional issues, making speeches, answering questions on all subjects, picking a cabinet, the environment, power and energy, urban planning, infrastructure, population growth, agriculture, industry development, foreign investment, taxation, poverty alleviation, social welfare, culture, the arts and sport, dealing with vested interest, political strategy, tactics, vision, the law and the list goes on….and on.

How do you feel now?

Are you ready to go back to bed yet?

No, well let’s get on to personal qualities and traits

*********

Whatever your character, your personal failings, human weaknesses, you can expect that the people will have high expectations for you.

Were the position to be filled as a result of a job application we can surmise in thinking about people’s expectations that it would contain the following human qualities: honesty and unshakable integrity, selflessness, gallantry, intelligence, loyalty, vision, kindness, concern for others, knowledge, patience, strength, supreme communication skills, credibility, decency, a humanitarian, historian and citizen of the world.”

The Job ad could be headed, “Required: an extraordinary human being”.

You will need to have the fortitude to remain confident in the face of criticism, but be open to better ideas, while keeping a firm eye on the political consequences of appearances. The job ahead will require a personality with the strength to act, the ability to organise, the certainty to know what is right and the arrogance to believe you are correct, all while harbouring doubts, not knowing anything for certain and showing humility.

Hmmm, this is getting harder all the time.

There are serious messages underlying the question, in particular that the job is one that can only be done with the help of the majority. It should remind us to be a little less certain in our criticisms, or at the very least more understanding. Yes, criticism is valid, indeed essential, but it is not too much to ask for a touch of humility in the process, particularly when the job is being done with honest intent.

It is worth reflecting on not only the magnitude of the job but also the complexity it entails when we jump in and offer our arm chair expertise.

To cherry pick that which concerns us, and let the rest pass by, is a luxury only the uninvolved get to enjoy.

The point I intend is that the job of running a country is beyond difficult, it is near impossible and no single human has the capacity to do it perfectly.

*********

In playing this question game with friends and family, another human trait has been most evident, and that is humour. I have been left in fits of laughter as people confront the question. Usually, they have nothing to say at first, struck dumb by the implications, a nervous laugh preceding a puckering of the brow.

One friend spent the first few minutes just shaking his head in dismay as he tried to put it together in his mind, before finally saying the first thing he would do is have breakfast! Typically Filipino wouldn’t you say, let’s eat first. Here is a sample of some other responses:

I’d resign. I’d find out how much I was being paid, than I’d resign. I’d take a sick day. I’d call my mother.

Yep, as much as we might want to have the power of the Presidency, most of us would not take it even if it was handed to us on a golden platter.

It would be a bit like the proverbial dog chasing a car wheel, catching it and then thinking, what the hell do I do now? To complete the imagery, picture the dog spinning through 360 degrees at speed being belted each time it hit the ground.

The next time you comment, reflect for a moment what you would do if you woke up one morning and found………………..The more I think about it, the more I think I’ll just go back to bed.

(You can find Andrew’s article and comment on andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Nothing Like a Good Chat to Start a Day: 16 August

2011-08-20T17:07:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Nothing like a good chat to start the day.

I had coffee several weeks ago in Bislig with a very nice Filipino gentleman.

It was early morning but daily life was already in full swing. The pulse of the waking dawn beat steadily in my consciousness and I was again reminded how much I love this time of the day.

We met at a small sari-sari store adjacent to the hotel where I was staying, arriving around 6 am, both in search of caffeine to get things moving and wash away the cobwebs. A ritual I must admit is one of my many faults.

There was a small seating area out front, enclosed behind a high security fence that was completely out of proportion with the building, but in keeping with the environment, a rather narrow street with an assortment of ramshackle buildings that were equally fortified.

The congenial owner supplied us with several 3-1 satchels and hot water, an unhealthy start for our bodies made worse by the cigarettes we consumed. We both agreed it was another habit we both needed to overcome.

We settled, as easily as two barkadas sharing bar stools, into a discussion and the gentleman, perhaps 20 years younger, talked about life in general and Bislig in particular. He was a wellspring of information, and knowledgeable about a wide range of subject matter.

I felt totally at home, yet again being schooled on life in a way only available when you seek companionship and open yourself to insights.

Regardless of the security measures everywhere I looked, I felt no sense of alarm. The advice I received constantly from many friends and family about being careful and the risk foreigners run in Mindanao didn’t enter my mind.

Why would it, my companion and the shop owner were friendly and I never find Filipinos to be anything other than courteous and giving. That is not to say the robbery doesn’t take place or people shouldn’t take precautions.

But, life is full of dangers, and believe me, when I say I feel safer here than I do on a street in Los Angeles or Port Moresby. In any case, I would not give up the chance to talk to people and live in some guarded compound, or seek to mediate in private like a Buddhist monk……….for all the tea in China.

I need to be with other people. Singular self-reflection is something I am forced to do only when I can’t be with people, of before I sleep. And even then I talk to myself.

What I hear from others in conversation is always sufficient to cause me to reflect, both in agreement and disagreement. It gives meaning to my own thoughts. It stimulates my thinking. It is the catalysis of my cognitive awakening which otherwise seems to be on some sort of permanent vacation.

My companion and I talked of the town and its history. How its current circumstances were damaged by the closing of its paper mill and the cascading impact of the unemployment that followed. I said I had noticed how the town seemed to me to have had better times and the closure of this important plant went some way to explaining what I had seen.

At the same time I said that the town was situated in a beautiful area, that I could see the money that had been spent on beatification of the foreshore, and how tourism was one industry that held the prospect of economic growth.

I explained how I had visited The Enchanted River and the Tinuyan Falls. Both were breath-taking and I would recommend a visit to anyone. These two natural gifts alone, it seemed to me, should be enough to form the basis on which a tourism industry could flourish. I assume locals are aware of the potential without me pointing it out, but I don’t have any specific details and my companion likewise, while agreeing, didn’t know either.

I was fascinated by his insights more generally, and the degree to which he understood the dynamics at work in the town, how peopled coped, the work that was available, the good and the bad.

His own life choices were revealing. He had worked overseas, but ultimately had come home, “even if I am poor and have to struggle”, to look after his children. He just couldn’t subjugate his paternal feelings, or justify not being with his children.

As I sat there talking I realised that we were neither a Filipino nor Foreigner, just two people talking about life’s vagaries. It didn’t matter that we had lived two very different lives, or the cultural disparities and diverse paths of our combined history. I could have come from Mars for all that mattered.

We were talking the same language, we harboured the same aspirations, and we worried about the same type of things. But more than that, we appeared to hold similar views on what was lacking and what was needed to make things better. And, as is usually the case when the conversation turns philosophic, we ended up agreeing we had no idea how to go about making things better.

I left my companion after an hour or so, not feeling defeated by our failure to solve the world’s problems.

No, I left happy to have met him, to have shared a coffee and a few experiences. I hope he felt the same way. When I returned to the hotel I found my friends frantically searching for me, relieved I had not been ”grabbed”….I just smiled and explained I was just fine.

Is there a moral to all this? Maybe something like: “coffee and cigarettes are bad for your health, but a conversation will always make you feel better.”

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

Catching Smoke: Aug 11

2011-08-20T17:06:00.000-07:00

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Catching Smoke

Earlier last week I had roughed out the draft of an article on how the US debt crisis may effect average Filipinos.

I had a structure in mind and I hoped some useful insights, including the impact of an appreciating Peso on remittances from OFWs and those likely to gain or lose from improved terms of trade. The working title was winners and losers.

I had even managed to turn some economic gobbledygook into plain English, without the need for clichés or the use of vehicle part analogies.

In the process, I was also playing around with the idea of saying something on how incomprehensible economics is for most people. That an economist might as well be speaking in Swahili as far as Joe or Pedro public were concerned: firstly, because economic jargon is a foreign language and secondly, because economics is a convoluted and complex discipline.

I had written the follow sentence as part of the point about economics being little understood by laypersons; “as for the so-called ‘dismal science’, there are multiple determinants to consider, rarely do these work in harmony, there are pressures exerted in opposing directions, indeed in all directions and future events are mostly if not entirely unpredictable”.

That was on Monday, when the US debt crisis was the only game in town. Moving forward, the US debt crisis was avoided with a last minute deal, the world sighed with relief and the dramatic and breathless minute by minute media coverage of an approaching Armageddon ended, to my delight. Phew, lucky they fixed that right?

Wrong! Before the working week was over, the stock markets crashed around the world, pundits predicted a double dip recession for the US, while basically saying the biggest economy in the world is tanking. And, of course, bearing in mind that the US economy had been given a D (for dud) by every economic commentator or expert around the world, the US dollar appreciated! Go figure.

My draft went in the bin as well. All I was left with was the Swahili idea.

********

Of course, any economist can tell you why the US dollar can appreciate on the back of the US economy being publicly declared a basket case. Here’s where you need to put common sense on hold, particularly if you think it should have been the other way around. When stock markets crash, people get nervous and scared (a loss of confidence in eco speak) so they race out and buy US dollars because it’s the reserve currency of the global financial system. It represents safety! See, easy, clear as mud isn’t it.

The Economist ran an article on 8 August “Guessing in the Dark” which provided further clarification. The gist of the piece was that markets fall if you have more sellers than buyers, and that it will be a week or two before we find out that there was a forced seller behind the collapse. It was “a non-economic reason” (sic), part of the market’s dynamics, according to The Economist.

Whoa, wait a minute, it’s not economics based?

Even if that’s right it is a damn convenient argument for economics. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is saying stock markets don’t operate with economic good sense doesn’t it? That market “dynamics” are in some way not economically rational. So, rather than apply economic logic to the strength or otherwise of national economies, sellers and buyers will be guided by irrational thinking. So it’s not real economics at work. Mmmm, so remind me again, what’s the point of teaching economics?

In this context irrational thinking is being used as a get out of jail free card. Even though it is what economists refer to as “animal spirits”. The phycology of people as they swing from optimism to pessimism when considering, among other matters, their investments and the risks they face. The pejorative reasoning is that the human mindset veers from confidence to fear and that we are driven like cattle and spooked by the reaction of a few in the herd.

As usual, I’m oversimplifying, but here I was thinking economics and markets were all part of the same game. That it’s all part of economic thought and reasoning and that human behaviour was a chunk of the explanation for market collapses, indeed it is very often the reason that the neat and tidy economic model breaks down. If there can ever be a totally effective economic model.

My mistake and clearly I’ve confused the matter and am not about to question a peer economics publication. But it does help me make my point about how confusing it all gets.

I have to come clean and admit I consider that economic predictions are a bit like trying to grab smoke. It doesn’t stop us, however, and there are thousands out there running around with their arms flaying trying to do just that, and making a tidy living out of it. When you ponder the futility, some of the time, of the process it can seem a bit silly (Ok, before you have a heart attack, I have left out all the valuable work done and the contributions to humanity of every scholar since Adam Smith).

So where do we go now? Well let me try and catch some smoke.

*********

In the grand scale of things, the impact on a majority of Filipinos of these latest events is likely to be minimal.

With 41% of the Filipino population being described as “vulnerable” (a quaint use of the word that only an economist could come up with) and 26% said to live in poverty (both ADB estimates), there are at least 40 million Filipinos who probably couldn’t care less about a debt crisis in the US or Europe, or a stock market “correction”.

Add to that the number of “employed” who barely make enough in wages to survive and the figure jumps to…who knows what, perhaps 60 or 70 million. (And bear in mind that the official unemployment rate is 7.3% - which doesn’t seem too bad until you understand how it is calculated.)

So we have more than half the population, arguably much more than half who struggle just to get by every day. Their lives will not change dramatically, whatever the consequences of the US or global economic headaches.

While I hesitate to say this, the one good thing about being poor, is that you don’t stand to lose much if the world economy tanks, or big players lose their shirts.

One thing I am certain you can predict is that we are going to hear a lot more about economic prospects over coming weeks, and most of it will be scary as hell.

I hope you can make sense of it and what it means for you personally, if it bothers you at all.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

A Letter to Kristelle: August 01

2011-08-20T17:05:00.000-07:00

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

A Letter to Kristelle

If you want an example of excellence in writing, check out Kristelle Omar’s piece, “Realizations”, in the Mindanao Times Opinion section on Saturday July 30. You can get it in the archives section of the web site if you missed it or don’t have a copy of the paper.

When we talk about a writer needing to find their voice, we mean simply that a writer must find their style. It’s the tone they wish to set, the mood they seek to create in the reader’s mind. It’s also about being true to oneself, honest and unique. The best writers do this with such ease that one can do no more than stand back and marvel.

Kristelle’s voice rings loud and clear in her article. You are immediately transported into her world, her fears are real, the experience resonates, we empathise, her honesty is palpable and the words drip with feeling.

Depending on your perspective or your age the article will send different signals and for me one was amusement over her self-doubts in the face of such a powerful specimen of writing.

If this is an example of her skills, she has nothing to be concerned about.

I found myself shedding my years in a time machine back to my own youth. Recalling the stumbling attempts at speech making, embarrassed by recollections of faux pas and idiotic statements, over used clichés and generally no ideas about how the world really worked.

I also recall that I was so stupid I actually thought I knew most things and it took several more years before I started to realise that I was a suitcase short of anything approaching knowledge, let alone wisdom.

Fortunately, here I am washed up on the shore of old age, but still capable of being taken back by a young writer to feel what youth was like, however embarrassing some of the recollections are. That’s the definition of good writing.

And writing doesn’t need to be lofty and high-brow to be good. Indeed, writing from the heart in a simple but effective style often makes for much better reading. Look at the way self-assessment is handled in the following sentence from Kristelle’s article. It conveys the sense of a young woman who not only sees faults in herself but is confident enough to write about them:

“Take, for instance, the fact that I can’t play an instrument, or ride a bike, even snap my fingers”.

It’s the choice here that works, not everyone can play an instrument, or ride a bike, but everyone can snap their fingers, can’t they? Actually, no they can’t when you think about it and it’s the counterpoint between the examples that works in this sentence. It’s what makes it so good.

I’m aware that Filipinos are sometimes a bit hesitant when it comes to communication in English. My advice is don’t be and don’t get overwhelmed by what seems better, more wordy, a wider vocabulary, better grammar. These things can help, but nothing trumps good honest writing.

I am sure that there are plenty of Kristelle’s out there, aspiring writers or journalists and I don’t mean to blow her trumpet too loud, if you will excuse the clumsy metaphor. It’s more that I see the real value in promoting youth and recognising the contribution they can make to our society.

I am reminded that a person from the baby boomer generation can just as easily be educated by a Y generation as the other way around. Something we “oldies” too easily forget and that gives lie to the attitude that youth is wasted on the young.

As for speech making, I will recount for Kristelle a survey conducted in the US several years ago about people’s greatest fears. The question posed to over 10,000 people was to list their greatest fear in descending order from 10 to 1. Number 2 on the list, the second greatest fear, was death. Top of the list at number 1, was the fear of public speaking!

So be brave and know that for most of us the anticipation of having to address a crowd strikes fear into our hearts. Most of us we would rather stick a fork in our eye than speak in public.

Fowler, the English grammarian once wrote that: “what you don’t precisely know you can’t precisely write and what you can’t precisely write you don’t precisely know”.

I’ve always found that to be good advice and it also works if you are confronting a public speaking engagement. I hope that helps you as much as your article taught me.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

State of the Nation speech over a cup of Coffee 28 July

2011-08-20T17:03:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

State of the Nation Speech over a Cup of Coffee

Over a cup of coffee, a friend asked me on Tuesday if I thought that President Aquino was a good President.

I replied that I thought he was a good man, but his leadership will be judged by history.

Change takes time, and often attempts to shift the paradigm are fiercely opposed: by those who see their vested interest challenged, or the simple conservative nature of people. There is a natural aversion to change aided by the fear it can create.

It is rare, therefore, that a leader forms a legacy while in power. The struggle is too intense while change is being pursued and it is only in hindsight that the benefits can be seen, the fears having evaporated like the morning mist.

Many political leaders think and talk about the legacy they want to leave behind. It is the political narrative of their goals while in power, the story of what they want to achieve, their vision of the future. And all leaders need a political narrative.

As a great deal of what President Aquino says is in Tagalog, I am at a disadvantage when assessing his narrative. I have read a translation of his state of the nation address but it is always better to watch and listen. So much is conveyed non-verbally, so much is less accurate in a translated tongue. But, from an outsiders perspective this is the narrative I see.

The Philippines has a relatively young leader who is passionate about his people, seized with the need to improve their lives and focussed on ridding the country of its endemic corruption. He is not the first President to make such claims, but one senses the sincerity behind the rhetoric.

The central story line is corruption and the hero of the story is the Filipino people. The villains are those who take and rob food out of common people’s mouths. The first chapter sees the battle enjoined, perhaps too successfully. Five chapters to go, but not a lot on what these may contain, and the characterisations are still a bit thin.

The problem is that this is not a new story. Until action matches words there will be scepticism.

This is not a speech based in reality. It is one based on hope; one that seeks a common commitment, one which demonstrates the size and complexity of the job, but ultimately hesitates to confront the big questions head on.

He has chosen to be optimistic in tone, preferring to see the glass as being half full, not half empty. You would have to be politically naïve to think he is unaware that the job remains largely incomplete, but his vision and hope for improvement beats steadily throughout the speech.

He appears to be that rare thing; an honest politician - in so far as any of us are truly honest. As a result it is difficult not to like him or believe he means to do his very best for his people. Trust is a commodity in short supply, and it is priceless. Once lost, it can never fully be regained. For whatever criticisms made against PNoy, I sense that he has the trust of his people. When he says and repeats he wants to change things, it is believable.

He is a man who appears to understand that arrogance and greed are human characteristics too common in Philippine society. His own humility is tangible. He sees the job as not his alone, he calls the people his Boss, and he lauds the work of those who are responding to his call to arms over honest government.

*******

Great leaders are a rare commodity. To infrequently in history has the right man or woman come along at the precise moment they are needed. And their traits vary widely. Mandela teaches us to forgive ones enemies, Churchill to, “…never, never, never, surrender” and Ghandi believed that we don’t need to spill rivers of blood.

President Aquino has an opportunity to be one of the Philippines great heroes. He has walked onto the stage at a time when the gap between the Asian tigers and the Philippines has grown so wide that they are almost out of sight. From the lofty heights of Asia’s second best economy in the 1970’s, the Philippines has fallen to the bottom of the pack and all at a time when the “shift” to Asia and the sub-continent gathers pace.

He can set a place at that table that will benefit Filipinos for generations, reversing the slide of the last 30 years.

That is a new story line (if not original). That is a big target I would have liked to see the President put in his sights. To become part of this exciting age of Asia is a narrative full of exhilarating possibilities, and it lifts the heads of Filipinos to the horizon, beyond the mundane.

And within that vision lay the solutions to most of the internal problems confronting the people of the Philippines including corruption. Achieving the former solves the latter.

(Let me hasten to say that politics is a tough game. It is a really tough game in the Philippines and armchair experts are a dime a dozen.)

The Philippines must be part of the era of Asian prosperity. It cannot afford to miss this opportunity. Two particular areas are critical policy considerations if the Philippines is to claim a greater share of the largess available: action on unsustainable population growth and foreign investment.

Foreign investment is needed to release the potential of the human resource in the Philippines. Like many countries, the Philippines lack the savings to do this job alone. Australia with its small population depends on foreign investment, and some fear that the country is being sold. It is a misplaced fear, as it benefits Australia greatly, and never threatens the sovereignty of the nation. Action which promotes greater foreign investment in the Philippines, under rules set by the state, but which give certainty to investors will unleash a powerful wave of change.

It’s time to get the job done on population growth. The precise moment has arrived. It should not be allowed to continue unchecked and it needs management. The harm being done to millions is clear for all to see and people support action. A majority of the Filipinos get it, even if they remain silent in the face of a vocal minority.

The RH bill provides the solution and reducing the birth rate has been a 20 year old policy debate that needs to end. It is time for the President and all political leaders to step up and make it happen. It is time for the state to assert its power.

This is a legacy act for the President, and no matter how strident and entrenched the opposition, or rather because of it, this single act will ensure his presidency will make its mark in Philippine history, for its benefits, will be profound and wholly positive.

A Puncj that Stunned the Nation, literally: July 12

2011-08-20T17:02:00.000-07:00

A Punch that stunned the Nation, Literally

By Andrew Engel

Like a modern day Joan of Arc, Mayor Sarah Durterte, strode into a fracas in Agdao and wrote herself into the history of social media with 4 well directed right crosses.

But she did much more than that.

She catapulted herself into national prominence, into a political spotlight that has created a base from which anything is possible.

She rose above the law to remind us all that it can be blind to justice.

She established herself as a champion of the defenceless and dispossessed in a country where they are the vast majority.

She captured the hearts and minds of a majority of Dabawenyos with a siren call: a warning that a system of governance that is seen as the servant of the rich and powerful and the bedfellow of influence has its limits.

So, despite the notoriety she has received from certain quarters outside Davao, she has achieved something more fundamental and lasting. She has initiated a discussion that will increasingly move from the dramatics of the incident itself to the underlying message and the symbolic value of the punch.

That message is that the people have a voice. That the law must be dispensed equally or there is no real justice and its institutions are hollow. That it is government which is the servant of the people and not the other way around.

And “the voice” is not new, as a modest, self-effacing housewife found in Manila over two decades ago, albeit in very different circumstances.

People want to believe that there is someone who will stand up for their rights and challenge the status quo. They tire of empty promises and the constant rhetoric they hear falls on deaf ears. They long for a hero, or heroine.

That is why the punch struck home, why it symbolised the frustration felt by so many at the failure of the system to improve the basic lot of the Filipino.

Whether it is true or not that institutional weakness is causing a failure in the delivery of justice, that appears to be what people believe, and perceptions not only count in politics, they count in life!

Will anything change as a result? Well that is the question. It is a question the Mayor and her advisors will need to ponder as she finds herself at the head of agenda she would never have imagined possible as she let fly with those right crosses. It is a question all politicians or those inclined towards a political career need to ask.

Does it overstate the political case to say she has captured the hearts and minds of the people? I think not.

Is the task of reform too difficult for any politician in the Philippines? Well, so far, history records it has been.

It is easy to surmise that no lessons will be learned and that the matter will fade into the background quickly. That depends on what happens now and into the future, what this clever and capable young Mayor does with the opportunity she has inadvertently created.

Irrespective of what the Mayor achieves in the future, I doubt she will ever be able to top this. It is almost certain to be the signature moment of her political career. You can’t buy this type of attention and for that reason it is a political opportunity not to be squandered.

My guess is the claims of abuse of power will soon be lost, the arguments over its rights and wrongs consigned to fading memory. The so-called imperialists in Luzon will have their moment and those who mistakenly think the system has been wronged will continue to miss the point completely, until something else takes their interest.

What will be remembered is that a young female politician stood up for the common people. She didn’t think twice about the damage she might do herself politically or legally, she acted to defend what she believed in, her people!

Isn’t that what people want of their politicians?

She doesn’t need to be censored or counselled and she certainly doesn’t need to be defended. She is more than capable of looking after herself, and the people of Davao have made it clear that they will defend her without hesitation. There are literally thousands out there who now hold out hope that Mayor Sarah Durterte, “Inday Sarah” as she is fondly called, offers something different.

She already had a heavy weight on her shoulders and the impact of the recent flood is but one in a long list of challenges. Nonetheless, her responsibilities are even greater now as she moves forward in the aftermath of the Agdao incident.

This relatively young woman deserves the support of all Dabawenyos for the task ahead. And I have no doubt she will get it.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

The Horns of A Dilemma: July 07

2011-08-20T17:01:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

The Horns of a Dilemma

A modern day skirmish, with roots in century old decisions, is taking place to the south of Davao.

It is a clash to win the hearts and minds of people, between the forces propelling modernisation and those who see its perils, or those who feel its footprint.

The decision by of the City Council to approve a coal fired power plant in Toril is the battleline for this confrontation.

Caught in the middle are the residents of Binugao and Hinatulan.

At its core, it is a confrontation born in mutually exclusive positions, in views which are contrary and in the complexity of human need and human behaviour.

And here is one fact. There are no simple answers. No argument can win the day outright.

Why do we build coal plants if they cause so much harm to the environment and human health? Why not use “clean” energy sources like solar, wind, tide, geothermal and the like?

It seems like a no-brainer.

Well, in answer to the first question, we didn’t know any better when it all kicked off.

We needed abundant energy to power the industrialization of our civilization. We had burnt coal for a 1000 years, but late in the18^th century we turbo-charged it’s production to run our revolution. We didn’t understand the harm we were causing the planet or our health by releasing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere and by spewing toxic waste and heavy metals into our pristine environment.

Or we didn’t want to know.

(And if you want a health description for the gases above, let’s replace carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide with the words, global warming, lung cancer and acid rain.)

In was a period heralded as the dawn of a new age of prosperity for the human race. And with it came an unprecedented advance in human knowledge enriching humankind. The human race was on a roll, prospects looked good.

There was sting in the tail we only realised in hindsight. By the time we worked out that fossil fuels had some nasty side effects, and some of the knowledge is quite recent, the horse had bolted. Too late to shut the gate or to go back and try another way.

And that partly answers the second question. Whole economies now depend on fossil fuels, our modern world is powered by its energy and millions of jobs have been created to run these industries, light our cities and fuel our cars.

That is not, however, the whole story.

Economics play a role, and profits. It is a fact that renewables being new technologies cost more to develop and this creates a price gap between the renewables and fossil fuels. You need technology that works, and to get it you need research, investment and time.

In simple terms if you want renewables, you have to pay more. The investment of the private sector is higher and these costs would be passed on to consumers.

So, the coal is available and mining continues partly because the renewables are either not yet available or are still too expensive to compete.

(I should mention that even without climate change we need to find alternative forms of energy as fossil fuels are non-renewable and are running out. We are extracting these resources faster than they can be regenerated.)

This all adds up to a consensus view that we need to make a transition over time from the old non-renewable fossil fuels paradigm, to a new era, or risk throwing the world economy into turmoil, with millions of jobs lost and the calamitous consequences this would entail.

Let me return to the coal question. The defenders of the fossil fuel era are trying to find a way to compete with the emerging renewables option. For the coal industry that comes recently in the form of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).

That is the reengineering of our original decision to dig up the carbon. The planet has been storing carbon dioxide for millions of years and the idea for coal combustion now is to put it back into the earth where it came from, to store it.

The problem is that it took millions of years for the planet, beginning with decomposing plants and animals, to capture the carbon dioxide. We are now trying to find a way, unsuccessfully so far, to put it back but in a fraction of the time the planet took to form coal.

That is not, however, what is being proposed for the Binugao plant for the obvious reason that the technology is not available.

When its owners talk of clean coal, they use a term that was commonly used to describe any technology that reduced the emissions of sulphur dioxide or others oxides, or the concentrations of ash, sulphur and heavy metal by-products of coal combustion. The term is now generally accepted to refer to CCS.

So the coal industry promotes advances in production technologies that dilute pollutants or recycle some elements. It is not the elimination of the pollutants and no reasonable argument can be made to say coal is “clean”.

If you wonder what burnt coal residue contains, here are a few of the nasties: mercury, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, magnesium and zinc. We have to put the residue somewhere and storage in landfills or ponds is the answer. The concern is whether the nasties stay there.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or be educated in thermodynamics to understand that opening the jail door to this “slug” is best avoided. It’s simple common sense. Nonetheless, we build coal plants around the world. China builds a new coal fired power plant every two weeks. Almost 90% of the world’s energy needs come from fossil fuels. That’s 90%!

So here we are, faced with the need, perhaps the uncontrollable desire, to improve the quality of life humans seek and the knowledge of the price we are paying for our “toys”. The emerging question is not what amount are we willing to pay for our development? We already know the answer that question.

The question is how much longer will we be willing to pay a price that could be higher than anything we can possibly imagine?

Well stick around,” you ain’t seen nothing yet”!

This is the predicament of two mutually exclusive positions. What someone once described as being caught between a rock and a hard place.

One thing is true. We are caught on the horns of a dilemma of our own making.

(you can contact Andrew or comment at engelmint@hotmail.com)

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover: June 16

2011-08-20T16:59:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

A column by Andrew Engel

Don’t judge a book by its cover

I often wonder if foreigners living in or visiting Davao get it?

Perhaps my friends think that of me.

It is with trepiation that I write this first column for the Times, because if I can be critical of some things I hear from foreigners, whose to say I’m not as bad.

It is not false modesty on my part, I prefer to think of it as being realistic about subjective opinions. So it’s best I tread carefully as I share some of my experiences as a foreigner living in Davao.

Before we go any further, you should know that my perspective is exactly that, of a foreigner. Not an expatriate, “a person who lives outside their native country.” That word fails to catch sufficiently my meaning. Rather I am an alien, an outsider. I shall expand on that in what follows.

Secondly, as individuals we all tend to see things differenly, the whole ‘it’s in the eye of the beholder’ argument. And there is genuine human value in this inate condition of the human species. We are not programed to think exactly the same thoughts. It makes us special, unique and it gives us variety, but it does not come without risks.

While it can enlighten, it can also devide. At its worst it can lead to lethal confrontation.

I’ve discussed the concept of seeing Davao through the eyes of a foreigner with many of my Filipino family and friends.

The basic premise of these conversations has been that no matter how long I live in the Philippines and I first came to the Islands in 1973, I will never truely comprehend what it is to be a Filipino.

That means I struggle to understand fully the social, economic and political structures at work, but more particularly, the cultural imperatives that drive the processes involved.

On the flip side, I have argued that a Filipino will encounter similar difficulties in any foreign land.

How then does one assimilate, understand and answer the myriad of questions that the eyes and senses demand as daily life unfolds for a foreigner in this land?

The answer is you don’t.

What’s more you never will unless you are an exceptional human! It is true that you may have some insights and some things will make sense, but others will remain shrouded in a mist of uncertainty. For a majority of the time you will be left with questions unanswered.

Counter-intuitively not knowing can be a significant advantage. It opens the mind to others and their ideas, so I don’t intend to suggest it is totally negative situation. Rather that there are limitations on ones ability to fully “get it” and we should all be aware that there are boundries .

A healthy degree of self-doubt, coupled with a high degree of respect towards a culture that bears few earmarks of one’s own upbringing is as good a starting point as any.

I don’t believe that is always the case with foreigners. While it may not be intentionally unkind, many foreigners are critical of much they see here in the Philippines after dispensing with a degree of basic politeness. It can be as a result of curiosity. Caring can motivate a critical perspective. It can also be rude, inconsiderate and ill-informed.

Proselytizing views and appearing to be ominficent on matters of worldly and social importance is an insidiuos trap into which a foreigner can fall. That really doesn’t serve to prosecute any agenda other than one’s own ego. It is both superficial and banal.

Of course, I would not want to generalise, its far from true of many good people who come here and love the city.

But, I must say that I rarely hear anything from foreigners that I haven’t heard from Filipinos, and the latter usually have a deeper and more complete grasp of the issue. From the foreigner it is often, though not universally, a case of stating “the bleeding obvious”, and then saying it again.

When a foreigner laments the behaviour of drivers on the road, does he or she say anything that Filipinos don’t know, or experience, or get exasperated by? Does an explanation of how it works overseas add anything to the public policy debate underpinning road rules? Do not the local officials and politicians struggle daily with the problems in search of solutions?

Unless you have experienced poverty here, you are in no position to really comprehend its deadly nature, or how to combat its insidious and pervasive influence. One can have empathy of course, but I have learned that poverty works in ways that I never thought possible. So, take a breath my foreign friends, step back, and relax a little. Don’t be too eager to jump in with both feet.

That is not to say a foreigner can’t or shouldn’t be critical, or doesn’t have the right to express a view. However, a foreigner should be circumspect and consider that others more intimately involved might know better.

Foreigners here who want to have a voice heard need to be willing to look more than superficially and avoid any element of paternalism or worse comments that exude patronising undertones.

Critical commentary should generally be reserved for those who know best, Filipinos. For those who have the right to be critical. The country has had more than its fair share of imperialism

So my advice is, to those few foreign comrades who feel the need to demonstate their superior intelect about matters local when they lack sufficient knowledge: don’t!

If I were to be blunt, perhaps discourteous, I would use the words of Dennis Miller the American satirist, when addressing the five term Republican Senator Jesse Helm’s constant rantings, “shut up and sit the....down!”

A Reason for Hope: June 30

2011-08-20T16:57:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

A Reason for hope

Can one say that Filipinos live in poverty?

Million are poor, it is true. It is probably the accepted wisdom that being poor equates with poverty. But to say poverty, I’m not so sure.

I guess it becomes a definitional disagreement and I’m running dangerously close to turning this piece into a semantic argument before I even get started.

I have always understood poverty to be a condition where people don’t have enough to eat; lack their most basic needs; have no employment opportunities; can’t look after their health, or get an education.

I could use hyperbole, expand on that understanding and be more emotion in my definition, as many considerate and caring people do, but I think you get my point.

Living in Davao where poverty is a word riveted to our social dialog, I now ponder its utility or indeed if it distorts the picture I see. Does it do Filipinos a disservice by being an ineffective vehicle for understanding life in Mindanao and across the country?

What I witness suggests that to describe a large portion of Filipinos as people living in poverty, gets it wrong. It simply doesn’t capture the whole meaning of the word poverty.

At the very least there are things about life in Davao, the interaction and behaviour of people that gives me reason to pause and reassess my preliminary thinking.

For a start, I see no poverty of the spirit.

People seem happy. Despite the difficulties that are manifest in everyday life that require diskarte. Filipinos complain far less about their generally diminished circumstances than people in the first world countries where wealth is greater and more evenly spread.

If you think about it that is odd. It just doesn’t fit with the connotations we associate with the state of poverty. At least, not mine. However, confusion is my constant companion.

Can you be rich and unhappy, or conversely poor and happy? You bet you can. We see it all the time.

The obvious conclusion is that money or financial security is not in and of itself enough. There are other things in life which are needed. To live in poverty, all of these other things, I would argue, need to be absent.

In absolute terms, poverty would need to exclude the love of children; the joy of family and friends; the freedom and wisdom to lower expectations and rationalise one’s life opportunities; to laugh and joke; to enjoy one’s environment; to relish small wins; by helping others; to be part of a community and interact just to list quickly what springs to mind.

All of these things are evident in Davao and in the temperament displayed by people every day.

I see no poverty of imagination.

Watch a tradesman consider building options when the tools of trade he needs are not available. How he creates a tool to get the job done, how his skilled hands and trained eye achieves what looks like a machined finish. No one could argue that Filipinos don’t have an idea for every kind of business and how nothing is wasted and every material irrespective of value is used or recycled. Watch the inventive way a Filipino will circumvent a rule which he or she no doubt believes creates a disadvantage.

And why wouldn’t Filipinos have imagination. Drive through Bukidnon and marvel at grandeur of the mountains and valleys, green and luxuriant, abundant in flora, rich of soil, exemplifying the best that mother earth has provided. Sit and take that it in and see if it doesn’t inspire one to dream or make one realise that richness comes in many forms.

Are the people living along this and other arterial roads poor? Yes many are, but to wake up to these vistas, to see the last rays of the sun being absorbed by children playing and laughing as they walk home from school hardly squares with suggesting they live in poverty.

The picture of a Manila resident carrying his meagre belongings in a wooden cart, with his former home, a dilapidated and condemned building in the background (Mindanao Times, Sunday June 19) is shocking. It is a picture of sheer human neglect and a level of human suffering none of us should be willing to tolerate.

The last thing I intend in this article is to trivialise this level of despair.

What I am suggesting from an oblique angle is that the picture of human need is balanced by other images in the minds-eye.

It is not all doom and gloom and these other images give rise to that most fundamental human need, hope. What I see, as well as suffering, is a community which is also resilient and strong. Filipinos have not been defeated by their circumstances.

Is there a lot to be done, clearly there is much to be done.

But as I marvel at the spirit and imagination of Filipinos, I can’t think of stronger forces for improvement or a better reason for optimism.

I see no poverty of courage.

(you can email Andrew of comment at engelmint@hotmail.com)

The Ombudsman of Last Resort: July21

2011-08-14T21:26:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

The Ombudsman of Last Resort

The so-called RH bill debate has become a test of the Government’s will to ensure secular policy remains the sole province of elected representatives. It is a test of the democratic systems legitimate claims to govern the nation and it is one which is yet to be won.

I have been somewhat surprised by the rich vein of academic argument on the key issues contained in the RH Bill. Only somewhat, as academics can produce lengthy dissertations on most subjects.

But, an opinion piece is a different beast, and requires nothing more than the writer’s unsolicited thoughts. So, having reflected on the RH bill debate, here are some of the questions it raised for me (without footnotes).

Let me first deal with the old chestnut of the separation of church and state.

The freedoms sought in Democratic systems are interdependent. You don’t get to cherry-pick the ones you like and dispense with the ones you don’t. It is a take all or nothing deal if it is to work.

The freedom to worship is one and it means that individuals are free to choose any one of history’s 10,000 recorded religions as their faith of choice, or something new or none at all. The freedom of speech is another and with caveats surrounding how your speech can affect others, we get to say pretty much what we want.

To keep the church and state separate guarantees religious freedom. It leaves the governance of a state and the formation of its laws as the province of elected representatives in a purely secular form. That does not mean a church cannot express a view, or be vociferous in doing so, on a secular law it may see as being contrary to its core beliefs, or even more so, contrary to obligations of the faith. That is a right that freedom of speech provides.

It follows that a church, or a religion, is free to object, but it cannot interfere in the governance process.

Clearly, if a religious group had a proxy vote on a new law, or were it seek to exert pressure on a legislator (by, for example, threats or corrupt practices), or were it to bring undue influence to bear, a line would be crossed. The wall of separation that Thomas Jefferson spoke of would be breached.

In summary, the freedom of religions and speech are fundamental parts of the whole. We should defend both equally and forcefully.

*******

There is another freedom that does not require a democratic structure to give it oxygen and indeed is operative under all systems of governance including under the yoke of totalitarian and authoritarian leadership. That is the freedom of thought, the innate ability of human kind to think as individuals.

No matter what people say, what they think is theirs to hold tight, and they almost always do just that.

Democracy is adversarial and disorderly process, but it’s the best we have. Moreover, as in the idea that order exists within chaos (as explored by mathematicians studying fractals and underlying order in random data), we might surmise that people can collect data and make decisions that order the majorities’ preference.

Particularly, when freedom of speech flourishes and all the facts are licenced.

I’m of the view that despite all of the arguments which can confuse and complicate the picture being painted people will listen to discussions, be influenced by some, angered by others, but ultimately will reach conclusions that are visceral, what their gut tells them about the debate.

The beauty of this human quality is that one does not need to write a doctoral thesis to get a good feel for what is being argued. The simplification of what otherwise can be enormously complicated assists greatly in forming opinions. So, with the RH bill in mind let me pose a few simple questions that I thought about and leave them for you to answer.

Do you think rapid population growth is a good thing, or is it likely to exacerbate the problems of the poor and disadvantaged the citizenry? Can the Philippines support a population of near 100 million? How about 120 million or 150 million?

If you are concerned, are there other better prescriptions available than the RH bill and if so will they, or have they worked?

Does the government put forward legislation of this type with ulterior motives, does it seek to hurt its people or is it acting in what it believes is the best interests of its people?

Do the pressures on the redistribution of wealth for; the provision of adequate health care; decent education; services that light homes, build roads and provide clean water; or policies which address food security, get harder as population increases?

Does the government have unlimited funding, is there a money tree in the back garden of the government it can tape at any time, or are funds scarce?

Is the emancipation of woman a good or bad thing? Would we be better off as a society if woman had equality, if they had the right to make decisions on their health, the health of their children or will we be better off to let the affairs of the world continued to be dominated by men?

Do the moral arguments that oppose contraception convince you?

Are there genuine health risks associated with contraception and if so is medical science untrustworthy?

Does the use of a condom seem to be a sensible way to contain the spread of disease (with the vast majority of opinion seeing it as a necessary preventive measure to reduce the spread of aids in Africa where a million people a year die)?

Do you think that a government has a responsibility to educate its people on family planning and to make tax payers money available to increase awareness and understanding?

Do we protect and prepare our children for life by limiting their education or is a full and complete explanation of sexual relationship a better path to follow?

Should people be able to get this information without the threat of some form of retribution?

Does it help the debate to attack the character of the players?

******

Questioning is a wonderful thing and it is the basis upon which all human advances have been made.

The freedom to think for oneself, the ability to plough through the detail, and form opinions, reach conclusions, explain the unexplainable is our real strength as thinking primates. And in democracies, people get the last word sooner or later. In this sense the people are the ombudsman of last resort.

Beware those who doubt it, or seek to manipulate people’s thinking, or do people’s thinking for them. Those that do will find their arrogance is misplaced and as much as they may want it to be so, people are not sheep.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

It Never Rains it Pours: June 23

2011-08-14T21:25:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

It never Rains, it pours.

I was caught in a thunder storm in the city a week or so ago. The rain sheeted down in Biblical proportions. The street turned into a canal.

I found myself wedged between two walls and under an awning that had sprung leaks.

With no attractive options and no escape route, I did what any sensible Filipino would do. Took off my shoes and socks, rolled up my pants, and made a dash for my destination.

Come to think of it, Filipinos are smart enough not to wear shoes and socks in the rainy season! (Filipino 1: Foreigner 0).

Dripping and barefoot in the foyer of the Mindanao Times trying my best to appear inconspicuous, I got to thinking about global warming and sea levels.

Imagine what would happen to the city if the worst fears about future sea level increases were to be realised and the waters of Davao Gulf were to penetrate the city. It would make the flooding we often see in downtown streets and elsewhere during heavy rain seem trifling.

Is it possible? The good news is, not in the foreseeable future.

The bad news is that some scientists are predicting sea level rises over the next couple of hundred years that would be cataclysmic for Davao, and many parts of the world.

In economic terms the costs of such a calamity would far outweigh the expense of abatement that is at the centre of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is, the efforts being made to shift from carbon intensive industries to alternative sources of energy production.

What do we actually know about rising sea levels? Well, there is a lot written and many contrary views. Let me give you an example.

The Unites Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been reported projecting that the maximum sea level increases in the next 100 years will be 81cm (32 inches). Researchers cited in the journal, Nature Geoscience, concluded the IPCC estimate was too low and that the actual maximum could be double the IPCC figure: 163cm (64 inches).

But it gets worse. Those researchers claimed that in the last period of global warming some 100,000 years ago during the so-called “interglacial period” sea levels rose six meters (20 feet) above current levels.

Gulp, or rather, gurgle!

Can we believe such predictions? I find it difficult to answer with certainty, but I have my doubts.

It doesn’t help when I see that the article is based on reports published in 2007. But my scepticism stems primarily from the fact the researcher’s figures misrepresent the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published the same year.

The IPCC Report actually provided a range from 18 to 59cm by the end of this century.

There are so many claims, dire predictions, and doomsday scenarios being written that it is hard to know exactly what is going to happen.

The bottom line is that no one knows with certainty what it will be! The IPCC climate scientists have made a best attempt to forecast a range of possible outcomes based on scientific methodology, which only holds until it is disproved. And I am sure those very scientists would be the first to admit they could be wrong.

I’m reminded of the impossible task of predicting the weather. It was once put to me that to model weather predictions accurately one would need to be able to calculate everything down to the impact on air pressure movement caused by a single butterflies’ wings as it took off from a shrub in South America!

OK, I give up, that can’t be done. I hope our climate scientists have better luck.

I think we can agree on one thing, along with most of the world’s leading scientists. The climate is undergoing change and that human pollution is contributing to this warming. Further that the warming of the oceans and the melting ice caps is causing sea levels to rise. By how much and over what period, well, we’ll get back to you.

Now, I’m not a climate change denier, but then like most readers I’m not a climate scientist. Neither am I a meteorologist, nor a politician. I rely on experts to inform me and politicians to act on my behalf. And I have sympathy for our political leaders trying to make sense of it all in their attempts to protect our communities.

While some might see climate change as the “greatest moral challenge of our times”, the fact that the tiger is not yet at the door focuses us on more immediate problems. And there are plenty of them. The lack of scientific certainty, even a high degree of probability can’t be claimed, makes the task of responding all the more difficult.

Some will say it is best to plan for a worse-case scenario. Yes, it probably is, provided the price to be paid by current generations is not too high. Let’s be honest, a majority of us are not unnerved by events being predicted 50 or 100 years into the future.

Look, things might get really bad for future generations and concern is warranted. Sea level rises of the magnitude some predict would inundate low-lying lands around the world. Flooding that occurs once a century could become a yearly event. Weather “episodes” could increase in magnitude. Beach erosion, the loss of barrier reefs, contamination of fresh water are a few of the dangers lurking and beginning to show themselves.

Let’s hope our best and brightest can get a better handle on the changing climate soon and that a consensus on the best course of action can be reached by all. Then our politicians can be guided by information that helps them make decisions that protect us and our children’s children.

Meanwhile, I’m off to buy a pair of tsinelas.

PS. If you want to have some fun, have a look at the site www.flood.firetree.net. It models, using Google Maps, sea level rises and you can see the impact on Davao. Don’t take it as truth; after all it’s just another person trying to measure the air pressure variations of a butterfly taking off in South America.

(You can email Andrew or comment at, engelmint@hotmail.com)

The Missing Pig: July 14

2011-08-14T21:23:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

by Andrew Engel

The Missing Pig

Mark Twain once remarked that; “The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.” He must have been part Filipino, because nothing is truer of the Filipino people than their ability to use humor both to deflect and to manage circumstances that can be testing.

And it is a form of humor that is distinctly Filipino, using a refreshing level of awareness and a self-deprecation style as well as a nifty exploitation of language and imagery.

It also generally avoids sarcasm. Filipino’s don’t use the tongue to make fun of or lash other’s mistakes; it’s just not in their nature.

So, when a friend related an incident following the devastating rains and flooding in Matina recently, he did so with a sense of irony, but with no harm intended.

He had woken to find a torrent of water had flushed down a gully at the bottom of his land like some tidal tsunami, destroying all it encountered, including his fence line and 50 bananas plants.

As he stood surveying the damage and calculating the costs a nearby resident came wondering down and asked, “Sir, Sir, maayong buntag, puede mangotana sir? Kita bamo sa among baboy?”

My friend paused, looked at his neighbor and replied, “Pila edad, baye o lake?

(rough translation: “Morning sir, sorry, but have you seen my pig?” response, “how old, was it a boy or girl?”)

It takes a special kind of mentality to find humor in such circumstances. Of course, there is a time and place for everything, but I have to think that as miserable as he was feeling, my friend drew solace from the exchange.

For my part I was left with the image of the flood of water and debris storming down the gully with the pig perched on top!

I think we all know how humor can help one feel better, relax a tense situation, and probably lower blood pressure. Of course it is good for us, isn’t it?

Let me digress briefly. One thing I don’t understand is why so many of the world’s leading comedians and satirists are manic depressives, or should I say suffer from bipolar disorder. Perhaps their humor is too unkind and infects their being? It has been suggested that there is a relationship between genius or people with creative talents and forms of bipolar disorder.

To that I say, whew!

I have some other favorite Filipino anecdotes as related by friends.

“A Filipina returned to her humble home in the provinces, having lived in America for a number of years, replete with Nikes, branded clothing and….. an attitude to match. She explained that she no longer spoke her dialect and could only converse in English. So sorry, but it had all been forgotten!

A bump against a door was responded to with ‘ouch’, a surprise with ‘wow.’ Not a word of Visayan passed her lips for several weeks.

Her relatives found it difficult to keep digging from their pockets the odd English word reserved for foreigner visitors or the local foreign priest.

One morning she was out early exercising in her Lycra training gear when a bee stung her on the leg. She jumped in pain and ran off screaming, “Agay! Agay! Agay! Tabang!Tabang!Tabang”!

The moral of the story being that you can take the girl out of the “bukid , but not the “bukid” out of the girl. As the Greeks might have said, her hubris had been pricked.

Another of my favorites is:

“A young Filipino boy lives in LA with his parents. The family had recently emigrated and the boy had some problems assimilating. At school he found that his classmates all had models of American super heroes: Superman, Batman and the like.

He complained to his father that Filipinos didn’t have a super hero and that he felt left out. ‘Oh don’t worry’ his father told him ‘we will fix that.’ The next day at school, during lunch with an array of super heroes set out on the lunch table, the young Filipino boy reached into his back pack and produced proudly a statue of…….Santo Nino”.

There are many causes of laughter. Trying to understand a new language can be really funny. A friend living in Mexico was driving with a Mexican acquaintance who was learning English. They stopped the car and my friend turned to his acquaintance and said “the door is ajar” meaning he hadn’t shut the door properly.

Perplexed and confused his Mexican friend replied,” how can a JAR be a DOOR?”

Mangling a foreign language can be even better as I found recently with the Visayan dialect.

I was practicing words, struggling with the vowel sounds as usual and trying to remember complete sentences. In this case I had heard the expression, “tisoy ako”. I liked the idea of representing myself as a white Filipino so again and again in private I had repeated the phrase,”tisoy ako, tisoy ako, tisoy ako”, seeking to lock it into in my memory.

Finally, an opportunity arose where I could use it as a group of young Filipinos called out “hi Joe”. Nothing gets your attention quite like being called an American when you are from down under.

Without hesitation and anxious to use my new vocabulary I yelled back from my car, “dili ko Americano, Australiano Ako…….PISOT AKO!” (I’m not an American, I’m Australian, I’m uncircumcised)

Needless to say everyone in my car collapsed in hysterics. I didn’t see the reaction of the youngsters. My guess is that they were completely stunned.

When I found out what had been going on, I didn’t see the funny side…immediately. Somewhat wounded, but not defeated, I resolved to re-enter the battle at a later time.

My weapon of choice will be…yes, you guessed it, humor. One other thing, if at some future time I completely lose my memory, forget all the words I have ever known, I guarantee you that the last two that go will be…… tisoy ako.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

The Elephant in the Room: 8 August

2011-08-14T21:22:00.000-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

The Elephant in the Room

I have read everything I can get my hands on covering the President’s State of the Nation address. I have to confess that I can find nothing, not a scintilla, on the countries pressing problem with population growth.

I find that beyond odd and for me, it is the elephant in the room.

As a fifth generation German Australian my mind wandered to an old German proverb, “silence is a fence around wisdom”, as I contemplated the reticence this issue seemingly caused following the SONA.

I ask myself why this is so. Clearly, some don’t find it to be a problem. For others, I’m not sure, but it can’t be because of media phobia, as the RH bill generally gets wide attention. Maybe it is overload? Perhaps the President’s choice of subject matter has focussed attention elsewhere. I can certainly understand a political argument for avoiding the subject within the SONA as it is controversial in the extreme.

Logically, it should feature prominently in the post speech assessment. Let me flip that around. Would it not be illogical to avoid commentary in such a nationally important speech if it misses a seminal issue like unsustainable population growth?

Why, well because so many of the rail tracks that represent political issues emanate from a town called population. It is arguably a root cause of many difficulties confronted in the Philippines and most of these issues have been canvassed in the wrap up of the SONA.

I guess that is partly why I find it hard to fathom the absence of a population discourse.

I realise that there are taboo subjects that just don’t get raised in polite conversation in the Philippines. A person’s religious opinion is not a topic for discussion. Sex education is provocative and generally remains out-of-bounds, divorce is an area for polite avoidance and homosexuality is a subject that is mute even though seemingly tolerated. I don’t see or hear much “gay bashing” going on here.

As an outsider one has to respect these cultural norms and understand the reasons that make certain subjects uncomfortable. It is basic politeness to do so. But, as a commentator there is an equally pressing remit to speak one’s mind, within the limits in my case of self-imposed protocols.

In any case, I don’t see population growth as being sacrosanct, so I don’t believe I am beaching my own guidelines or overstepping the mark as an outsider.

Maybe I’m being arrogant or ignorant or both. Well if I am there is certainly nothing to match the arrogance of ignorance to get you into trouble, so here goes.

**********

I don’t put population growth into the no go zone as its as much a long running secular argument as it is one about spiritual values. Scholars and great thinkers have been arguing the pros and cons since the late 18^th century, quite separately from the moral imperatives contained in the spiritual contemplation of the issue.

That might surprise some as I realise that in the Philippines it quickly attaches itself to the moral, thus changing its form from an argument of philosophical and political dimensions, to one which is transcendental. That adds a particularly difficult layer to what is already a dense cake of disagreement.

Whatever the realm of discussion, I don’t really care.

Be it Marxists yelling that poverty and social injustice are not simply by-products of population growth, but result from the systemic pursuit of profits and accumulation; or Malthus who sees its dangers but blamed the poor; or those who fear moral degradation, I’m not much interested any more.

I am of the school of thought that unsustainable population growth has reached a point that is now undeniably destructive and detrimental to human welfare, period. The limits of the planet’s support systems are being tested in a way not conceivable two centuries ago when the modern population debate got underway. I can find no rationale in 2011 to persuade me that the damage being done is anything short of a growing human tragedy of epic proportions.

We cannot continue to consign millions yet to be conceived, to a life of servitude, a life without aspirations, a life barren of educational opportunities, decent heath care, a fair wage, and a very basic level of human rights on a planet struggling under the weight of human excess.

It is equally foolish to demand of Government the role of parent and protector when the means to do so are stretched thin, or are beyond breaking point.

*********

It boils down to this simple contention. Can the World and the Philippines specifically continue to grow the human population of the earth and these islands without regard to the consequences while arguing that people’s welfare is a sacred responsibility?

Also, can we consume our finite resources with impunity?

Can we continue to delude ourselves that the human species is superior to all other life, destroying what we need or believe we are entitled to take, while disregarding the interdependencies that are fundamental to our very existence?

We have now reached 7 billion heartbeats worldwide, and by 2050 the figure is estimated to reach 9 billion. The Philippines is at 100 million and you can expect that if current birth rates are maintained, by 2050 the figure will be well above 100 million.

That is the picture of a future world with more and more mouths to feed; where dwindling resources will eventually fail to meet the demand; all on an unstable planet with a climate system under duress; and under the guidance of political structures and a dominant sovereign state mentality which give little reassurance that we are wise enough to control and determine our destiny as a species.

***********

Population growth is not a subject to be consigned to the quiet of night or to be avoided like that annoying uncle. Whatever your view, wherever you stand, no matter what your conviction, the truth is that we are heading for a human calamity never before witnessed if we continue to expand beyond a level this planet can sustain.

In the Philippines we need to talk about it, all the time, every chance we get. Not as pessimists, but as realist with the power to do something about the risks. How many more 16 year old girls with a new born baby on their hips, a sight we witness every day on our streets and in villages, will it take to shake the very foundations of our polite silence?

How many more shanty shacks on the side of our roads need to be built and occupied by squatters, where parents and 7 or 8 kids scratch out an existence, will it take to disturb our lethargy? How many more school years need to start with no class rooms, furniture, school reference books, before we realise this is not a fault of government, it’s just a matter of simple arithmetic.

The warning signs are everywhere to be seen, the consequences of accelerating and unsustainable population growth too obvious to deny.

If we are lucky, and smart, we might just manage ourselves sufficiently well to avoid, and let’s not pull our punches here, an apocalypse.

For if we don’t, it won’t matter who was right or wrong, as in all probability too many of us won’t be here to make a judgement or to crow, “I told you so”.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)

So Much for Due Process: 25 July

2011-08-13T22:53:00.001-07:00

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel: Mindanao Times Thursday 25 July 2011

So Much for Due Process

Mayor Sara Duterte’s incident with the Sheriff continues to get significant column space around the country, but an editorial in Philippine Daily Inquirer on Monday 18 July caught my eye.

The editorial line expressed concerned about the possibility that sanctions might not eventuate. The author was fretful; to quote “greatly disturbed,” by this possibility and later “disappointed” and “wary” when it was learnt from “sources” that the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) would recommend charges.

(I don’t favour the over use of adverbs to aid a perfectly good adjective but the emphasis intended in being “greatly disturbed” became clearer as I read on.)

The central theme seemed to be the argument that it would be wrong if a case was not brought and the implicit sentiment was that the DILG would be derelict in its duty if this eventuated. The editorial went on to make a convoluted point about the absence of a complaint not obviating the requirement for charges, which at one level is true, but at another level, erroneous.

At this point the editorial was partially arguing the need for due process, the basic idea of fairness under the law, even though the tone suggested the author was predisposed to say more by suggesting the DILG must act, inferring the author of the editorial knew better than the DILG.

As I read on I hit the following sentence:

“To let her act go unpunished is to prove that the law does not apply to the powerful”.

And there it was, the opinion that the Mayor was culpable, already judged and found guilty, and that punishment was in order.

In an editorial that basically promotes the notion of the sanctity of the law or more accurately, legal processes, that’s a breathtaking departure from the law’s conventions. On the one hand to argue for legality and in the next breath to flout the process is rich indeed.

Additionally, are we meant to accept that this relatively minor incident is a test of the equality of the law, when much worse occurs every day?

And by stating the Mayor’s actions “cannot be justified” the editorial dispenses with mitigation as an integral part of any consideration by those who have the appropriate authority to look at the matter.

It is difficult to swallow an argument for adherence to the law when its fundamental precepts are being trampled sentence after sentence.

Of course, we also get a line taking the high moral ground by saying that the Sherriff’s human rights had been abused. I’m sure the folks in Agdao would agree wholeheartedly when it comes to the matter of human rights. But then they don’t get a mention or a voice, do they; or do they?

In this case they actually did, in the form of one young female Mayor. She spoke for them and millions of others who are frequently disenfranchised under the law and face discrimination because of their socio-economic status. It was a proverbial scream in the night with symbolic value far beyond the literal.

To quote Gandi who said it as well as anyone, “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so”.

But, in the eyes of this editorial line, she abused her position of power and ipso facto must be punished otherwise the law fails in its duty.

And here’s the rub for this line of reasoning.

She didn’t exercise or abuse power in the traditional sense it occurs in the Philippines.

She put her own power at risk!

She did so for people who could offer nothing and she stood to gain nothing.

She did so in circumstances that were unique and testing, where lives and safety were at risk, and in the immediate aftermath of an unfolding human tragedy in the city.

That’s mitigation, and should wrong doing be found after the full facts are weighed, if indeed a case is even considered appropriate (again by those who have the jurisdiction), moderation of any sanction would not only be arguable, it would likely serve justice.

Pictures don’t lie, but they also don’t necessarily convey meaning. The law seeks to find meaning and justice in its rulings. It is not based on rumour or innuendo, and it dispenses with unfounded suggestions, as contained in the editorial, that the Sherriff himself is somehow too threatened to file a complaint: a supposed truth based on assumption and a founded on a conspiracy theory. (You will also find there is a law against defamation, if the truth of the assertion cannot be established.)

On any scale, Inday Sara’s alleged offence for all the shock value involved is relatively minor in the middle of an act that was arguably a greater offence. More to the point it occurred under a system where justice is not dispensed equally, where it is common knowledge that money, power or influence subverts the system.

So please, let’s get things in proportion. Let those working in an imperfect system do their best without predetermining outcomes. Let the matter be put into context where the events, the antecedents at work, and the deeper and wholly more meaningful messages and lessons to be learned from this incident, get a just hearing.

And please enough of the hyperbole. Can anyone truly use the words human rights in relation to the Sherriff’s bruised eye and give it equal status to a thousand more serious examples of crimes against humanity and not be embarrassed.

Let’s not be “greatly dismayed” over technical interpretations, there are plenty of important issues to describe, more than enough for a squadron of superfluous adverbs to prop–up the available adjectives.

Finally, let us all allow the process to take its course before jumping to premature conclusions. That is one brick, along with many others, that will help build the foundations of a working and robust legal system.

After all, the Mayor also has legal rights. She is entitled to expect fairness and due process, and trial by media is not the way.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)