Statements made by Cebu Representative Eduardo Gullas that two oil companies have raked in P70 billion over the last 10 years reflect the utter ignorance or rather the brutal imbecility of politicians in this country when it comes to economic matters and the proper functioning of the price system in a free market.

Do politicians think that businesses will ever get into business without the promise of a fair return on capital. For one thing, oil companies operate on a free market basis. Unlike public utilities like Meralco, consumers have a choice in buying from any of the oil players large or small. Consumers can actually by-pass oil companies by forming cooperatives and importing petroleum products themselves.

But why don’t you think this is happening? The answer is pretty obvious — the risk on capital, Mr. Congressman. The oil business is a very risky business. Imagine if you stocked up on oil last week and the price dropped (as it did) by $10. Not to mention the risk of shipping oil from overseas in these huge tankers, storing them in depots and moving them to the gas stations.

Are you aware of how much pilfering happens in the distribution system? Please realize that if we did not have free enterprise to facilitate that process, we would not have oil products available to us at reasonable prices; yes, even at P60, petroleum prices are reasonable.

Have you ever heard of scarce resources, Mr. Congressman? Of course, there is no scarcity of politicians running for office. If you ask me, I would rather live with petroleum prices at this level because I have a choice of using my cars or taking public transport or even walking (which, by the way, I have been doing to save money).

However, when I look at the prices the citizens of this country has to pay for maintaining congressmen and senators and all politician for that matter, I can see the real place where the Filipino people is really being ripped off. And it is not at the gas pump.

Gus Cosio, Quezon City (via e-mail)

Not a few of us doubt that the former Speaker has plenty of beans to spill. But we likewise doubt his willingness or courage to face the consequences of surfacing in the Senate as witness against the President. I think it would be more self benefiting for him to paint a pragmatic excuse to stay in safe waters far from pressures that may be worse than those that Jun Lozada went through.

A wise politician and businessman formerly allied with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be better off playing ball with Malacanang’s occupants than turning against them, because the process could be ugly and painful in the immediate and long term. However, if, as the congressman says, his revelations may “bring down the presidency” because of the enormity of evidence he can show, then let it be so — if that would be finally good for the country.

De Venecia would be a credible witness considering his affiliations and affinity to those who were and are in power. But if in his heart De Venecia discerns that he is only motivated by vengeance and his subconscious desire to wrest back his great political powers, then I think he should take back his words humbly and sink into a peaceful state of ignonimity.

On the other hand, if he truthfully believes that he has what would make this country take the path of moral revival and recover from its sinful and corrupt governance (as is seemingly the commonly accepted impression or nationwide belief) then, unfortunately for him or not, the moral responsibility rests on his shoulders to cooperate with the Senate and give all that he has to give in an objective, fair, and just volume of information.

De Venecia’s situation is like that of an officer in Mel Gibson’s “We Were Soldiers” — he called in a “Broken Arrow” condition and had bombs dropped a few meters from his own lines, placing even his own self at risk of getting napalmed but in the end saving the battalion from certain annihilation.

Such is the call that would need courage and true patriotism. because the officer believed he was fighting for a good cause. Now, for De Venecia, he would have to ask himself if he has the same kind of cause. If not, then the Senate better forget his appearance and submit its report “finished or not finished.”

Victor Manalac, Taytay, Rizal (via e-mail)

I find it painfully hypocritical that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) would suggest not giving communion to members of the church simply because of their stance on family planning. What about other members guilty of other “sins?” What about the politicos who steal from the people and still have the gall to show their faces at church every Sunday? That’s been going on for decades, and yet they pick this as a reason to kick somebody out? Why not also refuse to give communion to Gloria’s entourage who flew overseas just to watch Pacquiao’s bout, even as we were still reeling from Typhoon Frank’s aftermath?

Talk about double standards. While I don’t agree with Gabriela on many matters, I will side with their point that abortion happens simply because many women here have neither the financial nor the emotional means to care for their child. There are probably more reasons, but given our level of poverty, this is the most likely cause. If the church is so against abortion, then why don’t they care for the unwanted child? Or would they rather he or she grow in “a situation of sin,” where starvation and neglect will push them to resort to drastic actions just to stay alive?

I am angered especially because I am also a practicing Catholic. Since when did we end up with leaders with this backward thinking. Family planning does not equal anti-life. If anything, it ensures that the couple will have the means to properly care for their offspring.

As for the argument that sex education would lead to immoral acts, this flow of logic implies that reading about lock picking will also encourage us to commit thefts, or that reading about serial killers will turn us into murderers. Except that this doesn’t happen normally, unless the one reading is already mentally disturbed. This only reveals that the CBCP is selling their pulpit’s common sense and integrity short. We are smarter than that, and we certainly deserve better leaders than that.

-Antonio Yang III, Sta. Mesa, Metro Manila (via e-mail)

WHY does Mr. Winston Garcia insist on representing the Government Service Insurance System in his fight with the Lopezes?

Does he really think that just because of his position in the GSIS, he represents all government employees? Has he tried to get their opinion? He is gambling with these employees’ future. The pension fund is not his alone. He is just its caretaker.

He will soon be out of office as soon as his bosses in Malacañang are either booted out or their terms expire. What will he do then? In my opinion, Mr Garcia might be diverting attention from his management of the pension fund altogether. His strategy seems to be to go after his neighbor’s trash so that his own trash won’t be looked at.

The Senate should start looking at the management of the pension fund. I’m not saying they’ll find anything there, but it’s worth it to take a cursory look at how it’s being managed being that it affects all past, present, and future government employees. Look at how the money is being invested, look at the balance sheets. It’s only fair we take a look at Mr Garcia’s backyard as well, not just the Lopezes. I’ll bet there are unwanted weeds and trash in his backyard that’ll need cleaning up or may lead to the eviction of its occupants.

– Bong Dignadice, Fontana, California (via e-mail)

AMONG the members of Arroyo’s Cabinet Raul Gonzales Sr. stands out as the most hated, reviled and made fun of, head of a national department in the Republic of the Philippines.

It is to her credit that Arroyo keeps Gonzalez because he is an asset to her administration as he is a very loyal lapdog, notwithstanding his antics. Arroyo lets him loose once in a while so he could intimidate the opposition, and deliver not-so-subtle warnings to anyone who opposes Arroyo. She could keep him at arm’s length, or say that he acted on his own. What Raul Gonzalez Sr. is doing to the office he is occupying now is to smear it with the blood of the innocent citizens of the republic; he is also prostituting the justice system for his own ends, and bringing ridicule to the most venerable and respectable department of the country, while members of the national bar listen to him play his harp.

– Alfonso DeMayo, Vancouver, Canada (via e-mail)

By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net

Editor’s note: INQUIRER.net reporter Veronica Uy was one of the journalists who covered the Makati Standoff at The Peninsula Manila on Nov. 29. This blog entry was written tongue-in-cheek and is meant to share what she experienced on the field and her thoughts on the events that unfolded.

1. Don’t stage it from a five-star hotel. It has been done before and it failed miserably. Do it from where it will create a lot more impact. A television station, a military camp, and of course Malacañang are the best bets. Communist rebels still wage their revolution from among their professed constituents of the poor in the countryside. Does Senator Antonio Trillanes IV know who his are? The 11 million voters who voted for him? Come on!

2. Don’t do it before a long weekend. People have already made plans. They don’t need another diversion when they are busy living their own lives or simply eking out a living. And certainly don’t do it close to the holidays. Filipinos live for temporary escapes from life’s hardships. Don’t be a Grinch and rob us of these momentary illusions. Even the most sensational coup attempts waged during this time of year were simply that — attempts.

3. Don’t just wing it. This is not a stand-up comedy act. Manila Pen was a battle zone and lines were drawn and people could’ve gotten killed. You can’t just escape your armed escorts and proceed with the attitude, “Let’s see who’ll join me and we’ll take it from there.” Have a plan, man.

[Read the rest of this entry »]