China's Future

At Large : China's 'yuppie corps'

Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

BEIJING -- An important part of the economic restructuring taking place in the "Reform Era" in China is the transformation of State ministries into government-owned or -controlled corporations. The re-tooling of bureaucratic institutions into corporations (run with private-sector efficiency and competitiveness) has enabled China to compete with the rest of the world, not just in providing goods and services to its own huge population, but also in going head-to-head with multinationals in the global arena.

Crucial to China's strategy to leap into the age of globalization is the appointment of young, well-educated and aggressive leaders to head the country's flagship firms. Together with the most successful private-sector entrepreneurs, they constitute what has been dubbed as "China's yuppie corps."

A study published in the "China Leadership Monitor" describes this new economic elite as "party-legitimated entrepreneurs," most of whom have been trained in engineering or economics and business administration; some of them hold post-graduate degrees from Western universities. Most are male, city-born and -bred; the majority is below 45 years old. One might also call them the elite of the post-Cultural Revolution generation, Chinese who have no experience or just vague memories of their country's political upheavals.

The rise of the "yuppie corps" promises more than economic changes. "The rapid rise of young business executives may also broaden the way in which political leaders are chosen," the study says. While the political and Party leadership has traditionally been held by individuals who gained experience and power by rising through the political ranks, the economic elite suggest a way to leapfrog the local-to-national politics route. Already, a number of CEOs have been appointed to sit in the People's Assembly and even in the Party Congress, bringing a different sensibility to Chinese governance.

"The transformation of social and economic life in China during the Reform Era is eventually a tale of redistribution of power, wealth and prestige," says the study. "Chinese entrepreneurs' growing influence in Chinese society, their relations with other elite and social groups, their own diversified characteristics, and the implications of the rise of this group for the outside world should attract much more attention among China-watchers in the future."

* * *

OUR group of journalists met one such member of China's "yuppie corps" Sunday evening. Ren Hongbin is the chair of the China Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) or CNMEG, a state-owned enterprise that arose five years ago from the Ministry of Machinery Industry.

An engineer, Ren was just 38 when he was appointed to head CNMEG, which consolidates 62 companies engaged in science, industry, construction, manufacturing, engineering, trade and finance; and leads the way in research and development. It has 33,000 employees, with an annual turnover of $4.67 billion.

Over a Peking Duck dinner in a historic restaurant, Ren spoke proudly of the scope of CNMEG's operations, which includes construction of a number of structures for the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the manufacture of crucial components for spacecraft, and the construction of the "Three Gorges" dam and hydro-electric power plant, the world's most ambitious civil works project that entailed the dislocation of several villages.

Its annual report proclaims that CNMEG's vision is that of "a large transnational group that is market-orientated, motivated by technology innovation with scientific management and diversified capital structure with engineering contracting and hi-tech products export as its main business."

Ren is married to an engineering professor and they have a 15-year-old daughter who, he confided, had begged to be taken to the dinner "so she could practice her English."

* * *

"WE have over $4 billion in projects around the world," remarked Ren, "but the project in the Philippines is the most difficult," this said with a wry smile.

The "project" Ren was referring to is the controversial $421-million Northern Luzon Railway Project, or Northrail, the subject of a Senate investigation hearing tomorrow. (CNMEG has done projects in the country in the past and is engaged in two other ongoing projects, including the General Santos City fish port.) Though most everybody, especially residents and traders along the Manila-Bulacan-Pampanga-La Union corridor, concedes the need for and importance of a revived railway service in this part of the country, the project has run afoul of the old Filipino bugaboo of politics.

In fact, Northrail and its supposedly anomalous contract were among the items in the "amended" impeachment complaint against President Macapagal-Arroyo. Upon the urging of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, with the active backing of Senate President Franklin Drilon, the Senate last week voted to hold hearings on Northrail, forcing Northrail president Jun Cortes to cut short his Beijing trip. (We teased him about bringing home some bananas in case he ran afoul of the senators.)

Among the questions being raised against the Northrail project is the choice of CNMEG as the contractor, with some quarters alleging that "second-hand" equipment would be used, and calling to doubt the company's capability to undertake the work.

The speculation about "second-hand" equipment puzzled Chairman Ren no end. "Where did they get such information?" he wondered. And there were some rumblings of hurt feelings among more junior company officials, who speculated that if the contractor had been an American or Japanese company, nobody would have questioned its capability.

But CNMEG, given its size and track record, does not have to prove anything. And neither, it turns out, does the Northrail project.

David's Column

At Large : Poor Bert

Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

POOR Bert Gonzales. I'm not really all that surprised that his blood pressure should shoot up after that blistering interrogation he had to endure at the Senate Wednesday.

Before he himself surrendered to the stress, Gonzales had made many senators' blood pressure rise in kind, mainly by his refusal to answer directly the legislators' questions regarding the extent of his authority to enter into a contract with a foreign lobby firm and the identity of the "private donors" who he claimed were going to fund Venable's efforts. I suspect adding to the senators' upset was Gonzales' refusal to take the bait and implicate the President in yet another scandal, one that senators have called "treasonous."

While he might qualify for a medal from his boss, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for being willing to fall on a sword -- or in his case amp up his hypertension -- Gonzales should really reconsider whether staying on as national security adviser is worth his life, his name or his good health. For a while, Gonzales was valiantly taking on the brunt of the blame for the supposedly cancelled Venable deal, his commander in chief was just as valiantly distancing herself from the decision and from her adviser.

I can imagine how his heart rate and blood pressure might rise with the unsavory task of having to stand up in defense of a boss who has already abandoned him to ignominy. That is not the way to reward such rabid, if misguided, loyalty.

* * *

THIS is a theme that the Black and White Movement, which still has not said "die" on its mission to finally arrive at the truth behind the Gloriagate scandal, has picked up on. In a statement, the group recalled that after the Venable contract hit the headlines, Gonzales said confidently that the President had assured him "not to worry about the funds to pay for the Venable contract [saying that] there's going to be a foreign donor."

Well, Malacañang apparently belatedly realized the frightening implications of the President's personal involvement, if not ultimate responsibility, for the arrangement. Just a day after Gonzales talked to reporters about the "foreign donors," the President, in a TV appearance, denied any personal knowledge of or involvement in the affair, saying that "she does not micromanage contracts, leaving everything to Bert."

As the Black and White Movement comments: "Indeed she did. She's left everything to Bert, including twisting and hanging in the wind to cover up and be held accountable for something he could only have done as an extension of the personality of the President. He has received neither reassurance nor support from the President. He is close to being accused of treasonous behavior. And for what? To serve the interests of a President who stands behind nothing: not her own decisions and policies, not her Cabinet members, not the interests of the country."

In the wake of the President's shabby treatment of one of her closest advisers, the group appealed to the rest of the Arroyo Cabinet, pointing out that "this is what you will get, for thinking your service to the President is service to the country."

To those relatively new in the inner circle, particularly the replacements for the "Hyatt 10" group of former Cabinet officials, the Black and White has this ominous scenario: "You will be asked questions you cannot answer, because of the deviousness of the President you serve. You will be asked to defend policies the true nature of which has been kept from you by the President. You will be held accountable for things the President, and not you, should be held to account. The President serves no one but herself, and is prepared to do any disservice to any person, including members of her own official family, if it serves her interests."

* * *

AT A RECENT get-together of friends on matters political and social, we all agreed that Malacañang had essentially won the public opinion battle in the wake of July 8, when people thought the "tipping point" had been reached in turning the nation against Ms Arroyo.

The Palace's attack team, led by Mike "Braces" Defensor, quickly got busy painting the "Hyatt 10" former officials as "traitors" who had been disloyal to their President, betrayed her trust and took advantage of their proximity to power to gather ammunition against her administration.

And Filipinos, we agreed, recoil instinctively against the word "traydor" [traitor] or to the concept of disloyalty. After all, our society has long been built on the foundations of family, where fealty and loyalty are considered prime values.

What was needed, we agreed, was a campaign to turn the tables on the concept of "disloyalty." Shouldn't the "Hyatt 10" be honored instead for being disloyal to the President but loyal to the country and to their principles? What is the greater sin: to stay loyal to a leader who had abandoned her oath and ceased to serve the people, or risk one's position and reputation to stand up for the greater good and for truth?

If the President cannot even "stand by her man (or woman)" in a time of crisis, it's extremely doubtful she would stake her power for such nebulous concepts as the national welfare and honor.

* * *

NOTES: Lawyer Jim Lopez, National Book Awards winner for three consecutive years, will be one of the speakers at the "For Better, For Worse: A Complete Guide to Annulment" seminar today at the Asian Institute of Management Conference Center. Lopez will talk on material covered in his book "The Rules of Marriage: Rules of Engagement."

Lopez is (happily) married to Lorna Legazpi, a former Miss Philippines, and they have four children.

For inquiries, call the Center for Global Best Practices at +632 8427148 or +63917 9295432 or e-mail bestpractices8888@yahoo.com.

Quezon's View

The Long View : The rule of law

Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service

YESTERDAY, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita announced, "The rule of calibrated preemptive response is now in force, in lieu of maximum tolerance. The authorities will not stand aside while those with ill intent are herding a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them into actions that are inimical to public order and the peace of mind of the national community." The term "maximum tolerance" has always been an offensive one -- it presumes that people wanting to hold protest rallies against the government may do so only because the authorities have granted them the favor of a permit to rally when, in truth, rallying is a right, a form of peaceably petitioning government for redress of grievances.

But a "calibrated preemptive response" -- what is that? A systematic strategy to gradually increase the use of force even ahead of a rally; that is, to head off a rally by means calculated to hamper such efforts with a show of force. In other words, a deliberate, official policy of thwarting the rights of the people is in force.

I have publicly stated my opposition to protest rallies at this point, for many reasons. The main one is that rallies do not take into account how the landscape of Metro Manila has changed. Another reason is, with a society as divided between the "active" and "inactive" as we have now (I'm increasingly convinced that the majority are against the President, anyway), the inactive would be better convinced, if rallies didn't play into the hands of the administration. There is also the reason that times being hard as they are, a rally hampers the movement of people who simply can't afford to rally and who are the ones actually penalized by the rallies because it would take them longer travel time to reach destinations or because they get to their respective workplaces late, and so on.

Some readers gently chided me for such position. One pointed out that, first of all, rallying is now an integral part, an essential manifestation of democracy. Another reminded me that rallies serve another essential purpose, that is, to demonstrate on whose side the government really is: the people's or itself.

The price of democracy, then, is inconvenience, just as an essential attribute of democracy is the right to dissent. This includes my right to dissent (with some public officials) on the application of the Penal Code's provisions on sedition (which I consider a colonial relic, enacted during the American rule-that is, prior to the Commonwealth). Our country isn't alone. Other former colonies retain repressive colonial laws (former British colonies, for example, have internal security acts, dating back to British rule, that are useful in stifling dissent and opposition). This includes the right to demonstrate opposition to a government -- any government -- and the corresponding obligation of the government -- any government -- to uphold that right. Not tolerate. Not limit. Not thwart by brandishing the law. The state has the duty to vigorously protect and uphold that right.

What we have instead, is a state policy of using every means -- the Penal Code with its colonial provisions, the various propaganda organs of the State, the massed batons and riot shields of the police, and even the rifles of the Armed Forces -- to turn any assertion of the public's rights into what the government calls a sinister conspiracy to thwart the rule of law.

I am reminded of the comment a friend made as he watched, on TV, Corazon Aquino and Susan Roces confronted by rows of policemen with riot shields and clubs: "Ah, so that is the rule of law! Two widows requiring the mobilization of thousands of people armed to the teeth, and backed up by water cannon."

I wonder where the rule of law has gone, when a government that claims to have an unquestionable mandate from the people, would rather deny people of permits (read: their right) to rally. And then, the same government that claims to an ironclad right to govern wonders why people opposed to it decide to rally in Makati City. In the first place, Makati is as good a place as any to rally; and becomes the only place to rally when the officials of other cities refuse to issue permits for people to rally in public spaces, such as Rizal Park, the Liwasang Bonifacio and the Quezon Memorial Circle.

I possess certain biases that I continue to uphold unapologetically. The first is that those who benefited from People Power yesterday cannot deny it to anyone today. The second is that the targets of People Power yesterday cannot be the beneficiaries of People Power tomorrow (which may be one reason we don't have People Power today, only rallies). The third is that the opposition to the President is not only a Metro Manila phenomenon.

But I withdraw my objection to rallies, because it's everyone's right to rally for or against something. And why do I get the sinking feeling that those demonized yesterday seemed more willing than today's government (which claims, with such supreme self-confidence, to possess legitimacy) to let the public demonstrate? Perhaps, the explanation is a simple one: as Imelda Marcos once put it, to explain their political and financial success, "some are smarter than others." And we have a government today that is the smartest of all. It recognizes that the true test of the rule of law is that might makes right. As to the only remaining question, which is whether the State has the right to defend itself, the answer must be a clear yes. But defend itself from clenched fists, speeches, protest music and banners (whatever their color may be), with a "calibrated preemptive response"? This is the behavior of a government that recognizes its legitimacy only in its press releases.

Looking For Leaders

Commentary : Allure of toxic leaders

Nono Alfonso, SJ, Institute on Church and Social Issues
Inquirer News Service

"WHERE have all the good leaders gone?"

This question has haunted the country since the start of the crisis of credibility that has besieged the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In survey after survey, people have opined that although they distrust the President, they see no alternative to her at this juncture. In a manner of speaking, some say it is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.

This curious predicament is the subject of Jean Lipman-Blumen's new book entitled, "The allure of toxic leaders: why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians -- and how we can survive them." Blumen, who has written books on leadership and was a special adviser to President Jimmy Carter, divides her book into two parts. The first part deals with why we tolerate "toxic" leaders and the second part tells us how we can liberate ourselves from this kind of leaders.

She starts by defining what she means by toxic leaders. These are "leaders who engage in numerous destructive behaviors and who exhibit certain dysfunctional personal characteristics," she says. "To count as toxic, these behaviors and qualities of character must inflict some reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and their organizations."

Many observers have pointed out how the Arroyo administration has emasculated our democratic institutions. Corruption, they say, has escalated in an unprecedented scale. All this therefore makes the government a toxic one by Blumen's standards.

Describing further the qualities of toxic leaders, Blumen provides a list which includes "playing to the basest fears and needs of followers, misleading followers through deliberate untruths and misdiagnoses of issues and problems, identifying scapegoats and inciting others to castigate them, improperly clinging to power, subverting those structures and processes of the system intended to generate truth, justice and excellence, and engaging in unethical, illegal and criminal acts." Reading the list, one would think one is reading the impeachment complaint against the President filed by the opposition last month.

But the real giveaway is when Blumen says that toxic leaders are "consciously feeding their followers illusions that enhance the leaders' power and impair the followers' capacity to act independently, including persuading the followers that they are the only one who can save them or the organization." Not only has this administration been obsessed with doing and redoing the President's image, even hiring professional PR outfits for the task, it has also peddled the highly arguable "truth" that she is the only one who can save this country, the only who can lead us to unparalleled economic development. (I have always believed that with the President held hostage from the start by political wheeling and dealing, it was her economic team led by Emma Boncodin that authored whatever economic gains we have achieved.) And yet the President's inner circle has capitalized on this image, which has been accepted by not a few people as gospel truth.

This brings us to Blumen's main point: There are toxic leaders as there are gullible followers.

Why do we tolerate toxic leaders? What makes us vulnerable to the illusions and myths they weave? Blumen cites internal and external reasons. The internal ones are deep-seated psychological needs such as "our need for reassuring authority figures to fill our parents' shoes, our need for security and certainty, our need to feel chosen, our need for membership in the human community, our fear of isolation, and social death, our fear of personal powerlessness to challenge a bad leader." Because of the interaction of these needs, we would rather compromise our freedom and autonomy and tolerate abusive leaders whether in the family, in the workplace or in our communities.

There are also external factors that make us submit to erring leaders. These factors consist of the societal problems and crises that cause fear and anxiety in our lives. In a world of uncertainty and instability, we crave for a certainty and stability. "Constant change, seasoned with ambiguity, increases our vulnerability to toxic leaders," Blumen argues. "They promise to allay those fears and protect us: in the anxiety of such moments, we become only too willing to trade our fears for the sheltering 'security' of a strong leader, one with a clear ideology and explanation of the disturbing changes exploding around us, a leader who can bring meaning to our chaotic world."

Secondly, there are cultural factors such as society's achievement ethic. It is an unfinished world and leaders present themselves as the ones who can get the work done.

In all, both these internal and external factors conspire to make of us willing followers to toxic leaders. We are forever in search of saviors or even gods.

How then do we liberate ourselves from toxic leaders? Blumen suggests familiar solutions such as joining with others in confronting if not overthrowing the toxic leader. Institutional mechanisms also help such as "putting term limits, repairing the flawed process for selecting leaders, creating respectable departure options." But the long-term solution is realizing the "leader within" each one of us.

The traditional school teaches that leadership is a privilege, the birthright of a few. It's high time we understood it as a responsibility everyone must undertake, Blumen says. This new understanding widens the pool of would-be leaders. Then we don't have to ask the question, "Where have all the good leaders gone?"

With this empowering message, Blumen ends her book the same way she opens it by quoting from Bertolt Brecht: "Unhappy the land that has no heroes. No, unhappy the land that is in need of heroes."

Collision

High Ground : Cory vs. Gloria: The inevitable collision

William Esposo wmesposo@hotmail.com
INQ7.net

Cory C. Aquino vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo – it's a political collision that was inevitable. Cory represented freedom, a return to democracy and its institutions. Gloria represented the annihilation of these revered institutions and values Cory had restored through People Power in 1986. Cory dismantled the instruments of martial law. Gloria is well on the way to governing under a de facto state of martial law, a situation even her own administration allies admit. Cory led us to our greatest, most shining moment when we became the world's quintessence of non-violent revolt. Gloria has shown the world the ugly face of political accommodation and the havoc it can wreak on an already impoverished people.

Cory championed the good values that were inherently Filipino. She upheld the value of nationalism, respect for the law, fair play, loyalty, consistency and sincerity in fighting for causes. Gloria declared she was all that but did the opposite. Cory believed in transparency and being truthful. Gloria lied, denied she lied and then went on to lie some more. She vowed to the nation that she will not run as president in 2004 – then she barefacedly announced her candidacy when the time to announce candidacies came. She vowed to abide by democratic processes in dealing with the impeachment issue against her – then she so skillfully and so brazenly used all resources and tricks of the trade to quash the course of justice.

Cory regarded the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as an important component of the democratic process and the preserver of the sanctity of the voice of the electorate. She manifested this in her choices of officials in the COMELEC – Ramon Felipe, Remedios Fernando, Christian Monsod and Haydee Yorac, people who were revered for their probity. In contrast, Gloria handpicked Virgilio (Garci) Garcillano despite, or perhaps because of, his reputation for electoral fraud, as in previous dagdag-bawas and other vote-count manipulation schemes. In the aftermath of the revelations and conclusions derived from the Gloria-Garci tapes, it becomes even more apparent that the criminal intent to cheat in the 2004 elections found form and structure the day Garcillano was named. Cory distrusted traditional politicians and she reflected this in her choice of Cabinet members. Traditional politicians who did manage to hold positions did so only very briefly – until they ran for office during the 1987 congressional elections. Thereafter, Cory filled the vacancies with professionals. In her later years as president, the only major department that was headed by a politician in the Cory government was the local government department, which is really a political institution in itself. But for Gloria – for all her sophisticated educational credentials and much-touted-about professional background, she displayed little respect for professional talent. After the 2004 elections, she quickly repaid political patrons with premium seats to the nation's fortune train by naming them heads of Cabinet posts even if the incumbent secretary or agency head was more qualified.

In 1996, I was one of those who supported the presidential bid of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the 1998 elections. Many of us who collaborated in this effort did this for only one reason: to prevent Joseph (Erap) Estrada from becoming president, and hence, abort a reversal of the positive momentum achieved by EDSA. Our campaign team had approached various groups and key political players to promote the candidacy of Macapagal-Arroyo. Having directed the Cory Media Bureau during the 1986 Snap Election Campaign and having served in her administration from 1987 to 1988, I went to see Cory in her Makati office to have a feel of her thinking about Gloria's candidacy.

At that time, there were several presidential candidates who were either close to Cory or had served with her and who therefore enjoyed an inside track to her endorsement. Rene de Villa, then seeking the Lakas-NUCD nomination, was said to get her likely endorsement. Raul Roco, a close associate of Ninoy Aquino, was another possibility. But since de Villa belonged to the ruling party, winning the Lakas-NUCD nomination would have given him the upper hand as Cory's choice. Gloria was never close to Cory and was at a disadvantage when compared to de Villa or Roco. But Gloria's predominance of votes in the senatorial race of 1995 showed what was generally believed then as a promising antidote to the toxic prospect of an Erap win. Cory did agree on the importance of having a president that would see through the continuity of the achievement of EDSA from 1998. But convincing her that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was it was another matter altogether. While she was cautious about not giving away her preference as to whether it was de Villa or Roco – her comments on Gloria were downright revealing. Cory said: "I find her too pragmatic."

Having worked with Cory long enough to know when to press and not press a point, I left the issue at that. I immediately sensed that the dice was loaded against me. I remembered the dictum that when one is met by mush – one must advance – but when one is met by steel – retreat. I sensed steeled resistance behind our former president's words.

Sometime later, three of our campaign team members, the late Teddy Benigno, former Rep. Peping Cojuangco (Cory's brother) and Pastor "Boy" Saycon, called on Cory for the same purpose of obtaining her endorsement for Gloria. Right off the bat, she doused cold water on their sales pitch and told them: "If you came here to seek my endorsement, I'm sorry but I cannot endorse Gloria. I find her too pragmatic and she is the type of a person who will do anything just to achieve her ambitions." Teddy later wrote about this meeting in his column.

When our campaign team also approached Cardinal Sin for his endorsement, his response was: "Gloria is too young. She is the type of a person who cannot stand up to a crisis. Unlike Cory, she will cry like a small girl. You tell her to follow the footsteps of her father and run first as vice president." We all knew that the late Cardinal's words packed more meaning than what was apparent. Cory and Cardinal Sin ended up endorsing Fred Lim in 1998, validating their doubts about Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Without the endorsement of Cory and the Cardinal, Gloria opted to run for vice president in 1998.

Thus, I know that the motivation behind Cory's and Cardinal Sin's role in EDSA II had been only to remove and punish the growing national scourge that was President Joseph Estrada. Gloria became president not by merit but by virtue of default, being VP and therefore the constitutional successor.

Cory Aquino was always ready to fight for the cause that her husband Ninoy died for. Contrary to what her critics claim, Cory neither missed nor craved being in the limelight. I cannot say the same for Eddie Ramos. Cory could hardly wait to leave Malacanang in 1992. In fact, early on in her term, she chose to rent a house near Malacanang Palace (in Arlegui Street, where Ninoy used to live) rather than live in the Palace. This decision to live outside Malacanang sent shivers down the spines of the officers and soldiers of the Presidential Security Group who found the place most vulnerable, particularly in the face of coup threats.

Since Cory became president in 1986 under revolutionary conditions, she was not covered by the 1987 constitution and its re-election ban. Cory was eligible to run for president in 1992. The groups behind Ramon Mitra and Fidel Ramos would not have dared go against her. Considering Eddie Ramos' victory with just 24% of the 1992 vote, Cory would have easily won in 1992 by chalking up 30% or more. Before that time, no incumbent president who ran for re-election failed to obtain lower than 40% of the vote. When Gloria broke her promise not to run in 2004, she also employed extraordinary ways and means to commandeer government resources to achieve 'victory' – one that has been adjudged by the general public as invalid and illegitimate. Cory was never afraid to face danger. And most certainly, she never hid under the bed at the height of the 1987 coup attempt which is why she promptly sued Louie Beltran of the STAR for alleging that. Unlike Cory, Gloria had been conspicuously inaccessible during times of unrest, and most certainly when trouble did erupt (like when people stormed Malacanang on May 1, 2001 and during the Oakwood Siege in 2003). We saw a lot of these presidential seclusions from the public during the recent events that followed the revelations of the Gloria-Garci tape.

Not many people are aware of Cory Aquino's instincts and keen sense of discernment. During the campaign for the Snap Elections, we marveled how someone so lacking in political experience could take on a supposedly wily and seasoned political shark like Marcos with such aplomb and adeptness. Instead, Marcos could hardly do anything right while Cory could do nothing wrong. Other than the workings of Divine guidance, many of us knew that much of the Cory magic was due to plain and simple good and reliable instincts.

On hindsight, I know that her instincts about Gloria had been accurate. It's a pity that she had chosen to take the constitutional path during EDSA II in picking Estrada's successor rather than follow her instincts about Gloria. But all that is water under the bridge. What I'm happy about is that Cory is now four square with the rest of the 80% of the nation who want a change in the highest office of the land. The contrasting character study between Cory and Gloria should now allow the nation to perceive and understand the real issues.

Cory vs. Gloria – should we choose the one who never failed our trust? Or one who we can hardly trust? Do we side with the one who has no selfish agenda other than to protect and promote democracy? Or do we choose the other one whose personal agenda has overwritten national interest? Doesn't the contrast become even more pronounced when we realize that Cory had never, ever willfully told us a lie?

RP Debt

At Large : A meeting of hypocrites

Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

"MEET the Fakers" is the title New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof used for his column on the UN Millennium Summit which just ended.

"The biggest gathering of leaders in history unfolds this week at the United Nations, as they preen and boast about how much they're helping the world's poor. In short, it may be the greatest assembly in history-of hypocrites," Kristof wrote.

"The fact is that with just a few exceptions, the presidents and prime ministers coming to the UN summit are doing a disgraceful job in helping the poor."

Kristof's harsh judgment is based on the dismal results (based on reports submitted by the governments led by the "hypocrites" he denounces) of efforts in the last five years to meet their self-imposed goals to bring an end to poverty, hunger, injustice and ignorance in their countries.

At the UN Millennium Summit of 2000, the world's leaders, including former President Joseph Estrada, pledged, among others, to cut extreme poverty in half, reduce child mortality by two-thirds, and maternal mortality by three-fourths-by the year 2015 or 10 years from now. Those goals are contained in the Millennium Development Goals or MDGs, an eight-point distillation of the pledges at the Summit with statistical, time-bound targets for measuring progress in health, education, gender equality and other areas.

Though Christ has said that "the poor will always be with us," meeting the MDGs is, by most estimates, feasible and attainable by 2015, but only if the world's governments, especially the richest governments, are willing to back rhetoric with money and other forms of aid.

* * *

THAT, however, doesn't seem forthcoming. In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, American professor and economist Jeffrey Sachs laments the lack of focus and will of the Bush administration. "It seems at times that all US foreign policy regarding economic development revolves around the US insistence to pay almost nothing to help the poorest countries," Sachs wrote.

"US official aid levels are 0.16 percent of GNP, an increase from 0.10 percent when President Bush took office but still the lowest or second lowest of all donors (vying with Italy for the bottom slot). US aid levels for Africa are 0.03 percent of GNP, meaning that the US gives Africa just three cents in aid for every $100 of US GNP. Much of the rest of US aid still goes to 'strategic' countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, or to US consultants' salaries.

"Why the US government is so dead-set against doing more to help impoverished and dying people is one of the great mysteries of our time. It's not as if the poorest countries are asking for an open checkbook or an unconstrained line of credit. They are asking for rich countries to honor a modest commitment, a mere 0.7 percent of GNP, roughly one-seventh of what the US is spending this year on the military and one-third of what the US has spent on tax cuts in the first Bush term."

* * *

BUT other governments are not off the hook, either. While some countries, says Kristof, from Bangladesh to Indonesia, Brazil to Mongolia, are on track to meet the MDGs, "most of the world appears likely to miss the goals."

The columnist singles out two countries-China and India-that should take the lead for developing countries but are performing dismally. In India, among children from one to five years old, girls are 50 percent more likely to die than boys, "meaning that each year, 130,000 Indian girls are discriminated to death." The two countries' performance is even more shameful when compared to the achievements of other, smaller and poorer countries.

Observes Kristof: "Bangladesh has now overtaken India in improving child mortality, and Vietnam has overtaken China. If India had matched Bangladesh's rate of reduction in child mortality over the last decade, according to the UN Development Program, it would have saved 732,000 children's lives this year."

* * *

THE UNDP, in a report released to coincide with the Summit, notes that "the promise to the world's poor is being broken." Reports show that the gap between the commitments made in 2000 and the trends in actual performance of the signatory governments "amounts to 41 million children dying before their fifth birthday over the next decade."

What makes such a sorry record truly puzzling and inexcusable is that each signatory government was free to set specific targets for itself in pursuit of the MDGs. The Philippines, for example, chose to set for itself the goal of eliminating "gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and all levels of education not later than 2015" under Goal Number 3, which is "Promote Gender Equality." This is disingenuous at best, since girls' access to primary and secondary education has never really been a serious problem in the Philippines. Indeed, experts maintain that more Pinoy boys than girls drop out from school, under pressure from their families to start working and earning a living. If it truly wished to pursue gender equality, the government should have set its sights on other, more urgent concerns, such as violence against women.

Then, too, given the erosion of support for the government's reproductive health program, an offshoot of policy emanating from Malacanang itself, it's doubtful if the country could even hope to reach its goal of increased access to basic reproductive health services to 100 percent by 2015.

If President Macapagal-Arroyo truly wishes to convince our creditors to condone as much as 50 percent of our foreign debts as equity in poverty-reduction measures, then the government should first prove that it will put that money where it's meant to go. So far, though, its record in that regard is dubious.

Wanted: A Good Plan

Youngblood : First things first

Paolo Raynor E. Salvosa
Inquirer News Service

SINCE I first heard the "Hello, Garci" tapes, I've harbored a deep anger. My friends no longer bring up the issue when I'm around, lest I erupt in fury. But while I cannot let the issue rest, just like many other Filipinos, I was confused about what to do until I discussed it with my father. He told me it was not just a matter of thinking things through, but thinking about the right things.

Contrary to what many people think, the opposition did not make the situation worse. The crisis did not start when the opposition exposed the tape. It started when the people began noticing the suspicious behavior of Malacañang officials, which made them look like they were hiding something.

At first, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo kept her silence about the tapes, tapes that strongly suggest that she manipulated the elections in her favor. Then, there was the "Bunye fumble." Next, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez started threatening everyone with imprisonment even if they just listened to the tapes. And things reached the breaking point when the President apologized on national television for her "lapse in judgment."

If there is anything that the political crisis has put in focus, it is not just the lack of accountability of our public officials but the need to hold them to higher ethical standards, especially if she happens to be the President. Public officials are not only supposed to be competent but, more importantly, they are supposed to be people of integrity.

I would choose an honest farmer for president over an intelligent but corrupt politician, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Because at the end of the day, you can trust the honest farmer who lacks political skills and economic savvy to do his best to serve the nation in accordance with the Constitution. A corrupt politician, on the other hand, can hardly do anything good for the country. Case in point: Cory Aquino vs. Ferdinand Marcos, housewife vs. lawyer (unless you are stupid to think we were better off under Marcos, of course).

The issue confronting us now goes beyond the question of the President's innocence or guilt. It revolves around trust, the heart of the social contract between the government and the people. Hence the phrase, "Public office is public trust."

The President betrayed that trust when she went on TV and apologized for her "lapse in judgment." The people wanted her to speak up and explain the contents of the tapes, hoping to be given simple yes or no answers to their questions. But when she spoke up, she never gave clear answers. She insulted our intelligence by not naming the official as if it was irrelevant. Her declaration that she did not cheat cannot be believed unless she gives a credible explanation for the conversations caught on the tapes.

Her statement consisted of half-truths and in so doing, she betrayed the public trust. And for this, there can be no room for understanding or leniency precisely because she is the President.

I have heard people, mostly administration officials, say that it is the system that is the source of our problems. While that may be true to a certain degree, the system cannot be blamed entirely for any individual's actions. Statements such as, "You can put the pope in Malacañang and he will still fail because the system will make him fail," or "A bad system breeds bad politicians," are self-defeating. To argue this way is to shirk responsibility.

Certainly, removing Ms Arroyo from the presidency will not solve all our problems. The system is very much in need of reforms. But first things first, and first, Ms Arroyo has to go. The campaign for reforms cannot move forward without integrity in government.

Political unrest and division are growing, legislation has been put on hold, and the economy is no longer being given full attention. To make matters worse, violence may be looming on the horizon. The New People's Army, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and other militant groups are stepping up their operations to take advantage of the situation. And very soon, the military might be dragged into the equation and we might enter a period of greater violence and turmoil. The precious, little progress we have made could simply go down the drain. The President put her own interests above those of the nation when she refused to resign in spite of these inevitable consequences.

At this point, any worthwhile discussion should just revolve around how we will boot out a President who is desperately using the system to hang on to her office. But whatever action we decide on must be guided by the Constitution. This means that the constitutional succession of Vice President Noli de Castro must be assured the moment the presidency becomes vacant.

I do not like De Castro. I did not vote for him. But only Ms Arroyo deserves to be kicked out. No individual or group has the right to set aside the votes of millions of Filipinos who elected De Castro simply because he thinks he is "unfit" or it will not change things.

Putting anyone else as president would violate the Constitution and be another betrayal of public trust.

Furthermore, any action we take to rectify the situation must be non-violent. That means our only options are people power or impeachment. Otherwise we set a precedent for the use of violence in resolving future political controversies. If we cannot have a dialogue without guns, then we cannot really have a dialogue at all.

And then what? Unfortunately there is no foolproof plan that will get us out of the hole we are in. The most we can do is draw up a good plan, have faith and proceed step by step.

Paolo Raynor E. Salvosa, 20, is a Bachelor of Arts in European Studies senior at the Ateneo de Manila University.

Cruz's Column

As I See It : Will the nation ever know the truth?

Neal H. Cruz
Inquirer News Service

IT WAS a chance for congressmen to be great, but they chose to be greedy instead. They could have opted for the truth that the nation has been asking, ended the uncertainty and disbelief of an entire nation, but they chose money instead like true mercenaries.

In the lowest point of the history of the House of Representatives, gleeful and gloating congressmen like true movie villains murdered the impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It did it in record time, too, like an express train. While the House always took many months, sometimes going beyond the deadline, to do its most important function -- the enactment of a budget -- it took only a couple of days to permanently kill the impeachment complaint. The House had 60 days to decide whether or not to impeach the President. It had used up only 14 of those 60 days. It had 46 days left. Yet it rushed the voting on such an important undertaking, working the whole night straight to the morning after to hammer the last nail on the coffin of democracy in the Philippines.

What was the hurry? The President is going to the United Nations and she wants to be able to boast there that there is no more impeachment threat hanging over her head. Never mind if her constituents back home hate her so much they wish she wouldn't come back anymore, how she looks like to foreigners is more important to her.

So the marching order to her mercenaries in the House was to kill the impeachment case before her trip, perhaps with a bonus if they did it in record time.

So the Filipino nation will never know the truth. Who is its rightful president? Who won in the last presidential elections, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or Fernando Poe Jr.? Did Ms Arroyo cheat? Is she a usurper and an impostor?

The nation would have been better served had the representatives of the people, who had overwhelmingly expressed their opinion in surveys that they want to know the truth, sent the case to the Senate for trial. After all, impeaching the President doesn't mean she would be ousted. It would merely allow both sides to present their evidence so that the Senate can judge it fairly. Ms Arroyo will be given her day in court as she wants.

"Impeach me! Give me my day in court so I can defend myself. Follow the rule of law," she challenged the opposition. Then she can prove her innocence, that she won "fair and square" as she claims. And that's what the opposition tried to do: Impeach her, follow the rule of law.

But instead of seeking the truth, the House decided to kill the complaint so no evidence could be presented. The people will now be forever in doubt. Are we being ruled by a pretender? Do we have a fake president?

Does Ms Arroyo really want to be impeached so she can defend herself? I don't think so. I think her dare to the opposition to impeach her is just one more lie, like the many others before it. I think she is really afraid to let the evidence come out.

Why has she not bothered to answer the charges against her, to enlighten her people? Why has she chosen to remain silent instead all this time? Why is she afraid of the truth?

Silence is the refuge of the guilty.

* * *

The current controversy between the Basketball Association of the Philippines (BAP) and the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) is caused by politics, not sports. It is caused by "amor propio," that very destructive Filipino vice, too much pride. The POC refuses to reinstate the BAP despite the refusal of the Federation of International Basketball Associations (Fiba) to accept the POC's preferred basketball league, the Philippine Basketball Federation Inc. (PBFI), and continue to recognize the BAP. Without Fiba recognition, the PBFI cannot compete in the coming Southeast Asian Games or any other international tournament. And unless the BAP is reinstated by the POC, it cannot participate, either.

In its letter to the POC, Fiba concluded that the BAP's expulsion was maneuvered by the POC.

"Fiba's current conclusion," Patrick Baumann, Fiba secretary general, said in his letter, "is that the expulsion is inappropriate and out of proportion. In particular, it is not understandable why the new leadership of BAP in the person of its president, Mr. [Joey] Lina, was not given sufficient time to adjust to the POC requirements after the suspension. In fact, the sequence of events rather demonstrates that the suspension was a maneuver to reach the expulsion of the BAP and the integration of the opposing personalities under the PBFI.

"Fiba's opinion is that it is inappropriate to use basketball as a sport-political game between opposing sides. As a consequence, Fiba cannot accept the POC's decision to remove one group in favor of another one.

"Therefore, a permanent solution cannot be found by forcing the recognition of the PBFI through Fiba. A satisfactory solution can only be the result of a domestic process where all basketball leaders participate, including BAP, PBA -- who have already a standing memorandum of agreement with BAP -- and all others that you have mentioned as stakeholders in our sport...

"As long as such unity is not demonstrated and guaranteed by all stakeholders to Fiba, Fiba will continue recognizing the BAP as its regularly affiliated member but also maintain the suspension from all official international competitions."

Inquirer Editorial

Editorial : Exposed and humbled

IT WAS a surprising sight on television -- the spectacle of the world's mightiest power laid low and humbled by the elemental forces of nature. The winds and rain of Hurricane Katrina killed thousands of people, devastated about $100 billion in public and private property and flooded a vast area of the American South.

What has been called America's deadliest natural disaster in a century also brought out the lack of preparedness of a superpower that could invade and overrun another country thousands of miles away in a matter of days. Food, water and medicines were unavailable for days for tens of thousands of evacuees in crowded, sweltering evacuation centers. Law and order broke down, and looters, killers and rapists, particularly in New Orleans, roamed and operated at will until the National Guard belatedly stepped in and restored some semblance of order. The entire debacle saw the United States failing its first major test after putting up new security arrangements since 9/11.

What are the lessons of Katrina? The first is environmental: One cannot fool around with the environment and not expect it to hit back with destructive fury. It's the law of ecological karma. American columnist Ross Gelbspan said, "The hurricane that struck Louisiana and Mississippi was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service [but] its real name was global warming."

The unabated use of polluting fossil fuels has caused global warming and many scientists fear that the world may have entered a period of irreversible climate change. We can feel it here in the Philippines where typhoons have become stronger and more destructive, where the level of floodwaters is constantly rising and where sometimes the weather is reversed, with rains falling in usually dry months and drought occurring in usually wet months.

The second lesson is the need for preparedness. It cannot be said that the US was not warned about the coming of Katrina. Days before it finally struck land, TV stations were running hourly bulletins about Katrina. In the meantime, very little was done to shore up installations or board up buildings. Ultimately, in some areas in the direct path of the hurricane, boarding up would have done little to mitigate the damage. The hurricane was so fierce and powerful that it mowed down everything in its path. But the death of thousands could have been prevented had they been evacuated before the hurricane. Some people thought evacuation was not necessary. In the face of an impending natural disaster, it is always better to err on the side of caution.

The US government should have been prepared to cope with the logistical nightmare of moving tens of thousands of people, feeding them, providing them with clean water, clothing them, giving them temporary shelter and ministering to their medical and health needs. New Orleans pointed up the lack of preparedness of the government.

The third lesson of Katrina is the need to study scenarios of the aftermath of a disaster, prepare for the relocation of people and the reconstruction of their homes and infrastructure. In this regard, American and Philippine officials (for the Philippines is a disaster-prone country) would do well to study the rehabilitation and reconstruction work being done by Indonesia in Aceh and Nias, two of the areas hardest hit by the tsunami last December.

The rehabilitation and reconstruction program was discussed last week in a session of the Asian-European Editors' Forum held in Jakarta under the auspices of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The program is based on "the principles of transparency, accountability, participation and responsibility by giving preference to wider community interest and [is] free from corruption, collusion and nepotism." That part about corruption and collusion should be noted by Philippine government officials, for it will be recalled that billions of pesos were lost to corruption in the relief and reconstruction work for the victims of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

The Indonesian program keeps government participation to a minimum; nongovernmental organizations bear the brunt of the work. About $6 billion to $8 billion is being allocated for the rehabilitation and reconstruction program, and of this about half will come from the government and half from international donors and NGOs.

Right now, nothing can be done to reduce the force and destructiveness of hurricanes and typhoons, but people and government can always do something to prepare for their coming, mitigate the damage they inflict and avoid the deaths that they cause.

EVAT v. Glo

As I See It : EVAT could hasten GMA's fall

Neal Cruz opinion@inquirer.com.ph
Inquirer News Service

THE SUPREME Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the expanded value added tax law may be a blessing in disguise for the Filipino people, two-thirds of whom, according to opinion surveys, want Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo out. The EVAT, when implemented, will bring untold hardships to the people, and it could hasten the ouster of GMA. The increase in the prices of commodities, fuel and electricity will surely further infuriate a people already angry over the shameless murder of the impeachment case by the pro-administration House justice committee. The people might just go back to the streets and demand GMA's resignation or forcible ouster. Even those who did not join the street protests before will join this time, for there is nothing more left for them to do but to protest. The crowds will get bigger and bigger, and angrier, until they finally chase GMA out of Malacañang as they did President Estrada.

Some administration legislators already see this gathering storm and they are proposing the suspension of the EVAT, fearing that the explosion of public anger would bring down the administration. Rep. Joey Salceda and Sen. Mar Roxas have filed measures to exempt at least fuel and electricity from EVAT coverage. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez goes farther: "Why not just repeal the EVAT law?"

Indeed, raising taxes at a time when the price of oil is rising to unprecedented levels is foolhardy and reckless, even suicidal. And stupid, if you ask me. More sensible governments subsidize oil expenses to lighten the burden on their people. The Arroyo administration is doing the opposite, stacking instead the shoulders of an already overburdened people with more taxes-because GMA's administration desperately needs additional taxes in the face of a big budget deficit and an enormous debt burden. So it is loathe to suspend even part of the EVAT.

But as the saying goes, "You cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip." You cannot squeeze more taxes out of a people who have nothing more to give. Many Filipinos eat only once or twice a day. Too many have no jobs and no roofs over their heads. At present, our power rates are the highest in Asia next to Japan which has a very high standard of living.

When the EVAT is implemented, we may yet top Japan's power rates. And when the prices of fuel and power rise, transportation fares will also rise, and so will the prices of all products.

The peace and order situation will worsen, the crime rate will soar. What is happening now in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, where looters are shooting policemen and soldiers, can happen here. If a family has nothing to eat, what are they to do? Hunger makes people desperate and reckless. All it needs for widespread looting to happen is for one person to start it. We already had examples of this in the past. It is likely to happen again.

But it is the fate of many leaders not to see what is coming until it is too late. Blinded by power, isolated from reality, surrounded by sycophants, leaders are often overconfident, believing that they are smarter than the others who fell before them. President Erap (Estrada) himself related that he was confident he could not be overthrown, until he found an angry mob knocking at the gates of Malacañang, and he had to leave in a hurry.

Marcos, a very powerful dictator for 20 years, was also confident his generals would protect him. They couldn't-even from unarmed, non-violent civilians.

GMA is confident that the worst is over for her. The impeachment case is in the process of being killed and buried. The street protests are not as big as before. The opposition is being run over on the railroad by the House "express train."

But that is the lull before the storm. A raging storm is coming and its furious gales could blow GMA away. The prudent way is to leave before the storm hits, like the millions in New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi who evacuated their homes before Hurricane Katrina hit. They were spared the sufferings of those who stubbornly stayed behind. Will GMA be sensible and leave early? Or will she be foolish and overconfident, and choose to stay put and bear the fury of the storm that is surely coming?

* * *

GMA is beginning to sound like a broken record. All her speeches have the same theme: Let us unite.

Unfortunately, she doesn't know the meaning of "unite." For her, it means "Support me," "get behind me," "don't expose my wrongdoings," "forget my past sins," "don't rock the boat."

But "unite" means everybody getting together and working together, not "uniting around me." She also has to give something to the people; it shouldn't be that only the people are giving to her.

For the taxes and cooperation of the people, she should give them something in return, like services, jobs, affordable necessities but, most of all, truth, honesty, justice, sincerity and transparency.

But what do the people get from her? Lies, cheating, injustice, insincerity.

Why will the people pay more taxes when they see their taxes being used to bribe mercenaries, congressmen and lying witnesses? Before she asks the people to pay more, GMA should first stop the pork barrel. She must have the moral authority to demand a clean government. How can she truthfully say that she is fighting corruption when the pork barrel is a most corrupt system where hundreds of thousands of pesos are stolen by people's "representatives"? The pork barrel should be the first thing that a president trying to save funds should cut. But GMA is afraid to scrap it because she would have no carrot to entice congressmen not to sign the impeachment complaint. Come on, you cannot make the people believe that those signature withdrawals are not in exchange for very generous considerations.

Future Heroes

Viewpoint : The heroes we never were

Juan Mercado
Inquirer News Service

"HERO" was the favorite word of the week. The word popped up everywhere -- from the convoluted impeachment debates, the Ramon Magsaysay Awards rites to the Libingan ng mga Bayani [Heroes' Cemetery] memorial rites.

"What we have is a crisis of heroes," wrote Inquirer columnist Antonio Montalvan II. Essays on the late President, written by students, he said, revealed youngsters groping for values that Ramon Magsaysay embodied.

In the House of Representatives, is a case of "too late the hero" unfolding? asked constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas, S.J. Unusually shy House members hint that they'll vote for impeachment -- but only in plenary, not in committee. So far, the opposition has lassoed only 49 of the 79 signatures needed to prevent premature expiry of the impeachment complaint.

If the vote collapses in committee, interest in the plenary sessions evaporates, Father Bernas points out. That's the lesson of past impeachments. Legislators then morph into truants.

"We can't all be heroes," Will Rogers once cracked. "Somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by." Is that the reason for this shy-violet routine?

"I see greed, I see indifference, I see apathy … when I listen to the radio or read the papers," Taguig Mayor Freddie Tiñga lamented at the National Heroes Day rites. "It's the heroes I do not see."

"Yet, if one only looks in the right places, one would find heroes," Tiñga said amid the graves of heroes (excluding, so far, the best Filipino dictator money could buy). Today's unsung heroes range from citizens who share with the poor to ordinary policemen who turn down bribes.

"Many heroes lived before Agamemnon," the Greek poet Horace wrote in 65 B.C. "But all are unknown and unwept, extinguished in everlasting night, / because they had no spirited chronicler."

Well, PO2 Guinan Ibrahim and PO1 Jose Calibuso had the Inquirer and other media. Just after Tiñga's speech, they nailed a thief and returned P1.28 million to the victim's family. "Not a centavo was missing," their superiors said. "These are Northern Police District heroes."

Concern about "values that endure even after the sun goes out" is welcome. The country suffers, Montalvan says, from a "crisis of saints -- the self-proclaimed variety, that is." They claw for today's version of Horace's "spirited chronicler": the front page or prime-time TV.

So, I dug up my dog-eared copy of "The Heroes We Never Were." Skeptical University of the Philippines graduates cheered National Scientist Dioscoro Umali who delivered this address shortly before his death. Excerpts:

"I wonder if our generation may have failed your generation," the dean diffidently began. Despite undeniable achievements, like broadened literacy and longer life spans, "our profligacy of years past dissipated your inheritance of abundant God-given resources … and in politics, your heritage from us will be a mixed bag.

"We do not inherit the land from our parents," Umali recalled the old peasant saying. "We merely borrow land from our children." But these resources were wasted recklessly.

"We endangered your capacity to provide daily bread for your families, from the land you loaned us. As prodigal parents, we radically altered your future. Greed of the past has seen to that. We lowered the threshold for violence by breeding social unrest. Above all, you will have little time left to correct our failures.

"We stripped the land of its beauty. Your children will no longer thrill, as we once did, to the heart-stopping dive of a hawk…. The rich texture of Philippine mahogany will be a quaint story for them. Their panoramas will be of drab landscapes, blanketed by sterile cogon grass, not the verdant meadows we knew as youngsters.

"And the bitter tragedy is that these victims are our grandchildren: 'flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone.'

"Part of that legacy is a 'gathering storm,' stemming from failure to ease poverty, lag in agrarian reform, population pressure --and elite indifference. What passes for national debate were the 'charades of yesterday's men.' Are we not all in danger of losing sight of the real future?

"Candor compels me to warn that … your children will be drafted to quell future insurgencies and other consequences of today's unwillingness to accept the social responsibilities of wealth," he said.

"We hope that you learn the lesson we never fully grasped: that a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions; that sharing and equity constitute the first seeds of your survival. Realism compels me to say: Be the heroes we never were -- or perish."

All citizens, especially those gifted with education, are called to "heroic service," Umali told the graduates. All must seek, in their careers, to increase the options of people beyond shared poverty. It is critical to craft people-centered policies and demand accountability from government.

Back those who would nurse the blighted landscape, he urged. "Nature has an amazing God-given capacity to regenerate. The debris are soon swept away by nature's forgiveness, once the hand of man is no longer raised against her."

The disciples' plea "at Emmaus strikes a responsive chord for people of my generation: 'Stay with us, Lord. For the day is now far spent. And it is almost evening.'

"In our twilight years, there is a desperate hope, in many of us, that your vision will see beyond the debris we left to what can still be retrieved and rebuilt. Go and be the heroes we never quite managed to become -- and live."