Philippines

An art exhibit held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) provoked controversy and debate about freedom of expression in the Philippines. Enough people were shocked and offended by the work that the CCP agreed to close it down. Apparently, freedom of expression has gone too far in the Philippines and the devout should not have to suffer such sacrilege.

Personally, I find this kind of so-called 'art' distasteful and a waste of time. However, we do not have freedom of expression in the Philippines, as this case clearly shows. If someone more powerful than you doesn't want your message to get out, they have many methods at their disposal to have you shut up. That is not freedom of expression, only lip-service to freedom.

The best way to deal with this kind of thing is to simply ignore it. After all, what the exhibitors crave is attention and by making a big deal of it, you give them exactly what they want. I would never have heard of the exhibition if it weren't for the furor involved in having it shut down.

A friend of mine asked if it was right to invoke freedom of expression no matter how obnoxious or objectionable the message was to others. The real question is who gets to decide what is obnoxious and objectionable? In Jacobean England, Catholics were repressed; in the USSR, religion itself was objectionable; in Mao's China, intellectuals and professionals were intolerable.

Freedom is one of those few things that must be absolute; it must apply to everyone otherwise it may be taken away from anyone. Today we may be the elites who get to decide what is tolerable. What about tomorrow?

In a free society, people may choose to ignore those views with which they disagree. Dissenting voices are not silenced, no matter how distasteful they are to the mainstream.

Does that mean chaos should reign and people can incite violence? No. Oliver Wendell Holmes said so aptly, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." But holding an art exhibition is not swinging one's fist at another's nose.

After the Great East Japan Earthquake that hit the Tohoku region of Japan in March 2011, the Philippine media quickly began reporting horror stories about what would happen if a big earthquake were to hit Metro Manila. Apparently, studies earlier this decade—some of which were kept secret by the government for a number of years—showed that we are woefully unprepared.

However, most of the discussion focused on what needs to be done on a governmental level; there was very little advice about what we as individuals could do to prepare ourselves. As I began to do some research, I found that many resources are available online but most are United States-centric.

While the principles of preparedness are independent of location and scenario, I thought it would be useful to have some information set in a context for the specific needs of Metro Manila inhabitants. My aim is for this website to fill that gap.

What we can do

During a large-scale natural or man-made disaster, we cannot expect to depend on emergency services or the government; all resources will be stretched to their limit. Our neighbors and friends will also be busy trying to save their own family and property. It may be several days or even weeks before help comes so we must plan to help ourselves until the crisis passes.

Nevertheless, helping yourself doesn't mean isolating yourself. Depending on the scale of the disaster, we may also need to help with rebuilding our community afterwards.

Preparedness begins at home

We may hear that Manila is not prepared to handle a major disaster but there are many things we can do to minimize the impact to our own families. Preparedness begins at home and preparing Manila means ensuring that enough families take simple steps to look after themselves.

Please visit preparemanila.org and join the discussion on how we can build a more resilient city by preparing our own households.

NINOY + PEOPLE POWER: What MEDIA is not telling us

This video delves into the facts behind the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines and uses them to challenge our existing narrative. Whether or not you agree with the film maker's interpretation, it's worth at least considering the alternative viewpoint presented here.

Personally, I think this offers the simplest explanation of the events and is more in line with what we know of human nature and how an oligarchy behaves. If you've scratched below the surface of Philippine society and wondered why most of the companies and resources are owned by a few families, this documentary should provide some insight.

PRESS RELEASE
Issued: January 25, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Senator Franklin Drilon recently filed Senate Bill No. 129, known as the Firearms Regulation Act, with the aim of addressing firearms-related crime in the country. Under the bill, only authorized personnel on duty may bear arms. Senator Drilon, a highly capable and widely respected law-maker with a long track-record of service to the Filipino people, is unfortunately off the mark with this move.

Strict gun-control policies around the world have consistently shown that denying citizens access to the legal means of self-defense does nothing to prevent violent crime. In fact, they succeed only in turning people into victims of criminals and creating a new criminal class among ordinary law-abiding citizens.

In a blog post explaining his decision to push for stricter gun control, Senator Drilon says that the right to carry firearms outside of residences is not based on well-founded facts. He also cites the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, as evidence of the deadly consequences of allowing guns in the streets.^[1]

However, if we are to look at the facts, we will find that after 30 years of concealed-carry rights in the United States, more citizens than ever are legally carrying firearms yet the nation is experiencing a decrease in violent crime.^[2] The FBI's crime report showed that for the first half of 2009, violent crime in America dropped dramatically even though gun ownership surged.^[3] It is also interesting to note that the states with tighter gun control, like California, District of Columbia, and New York, have among the highest violent crime rates in the country.^[4] Tellingly, the recent high-pro?le shootings at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech occurred in 'gun-free' zones.

As to the Tucson shooting, this is in fact an example of how laws do not stop society's predators. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, was mentally unstable and thus not legally eligible to own a firearm.^[5] Nevertheless, he was still able to kill six people and wound 13 others. No law can ever fully protect us from the random act of an insane individual. According to eye-witnesses, it took 20 minutes for the police to reach the scene.^[6] In the meantime, the gunman was stopped only when he was tackled by bystanders, one of whom was concealed-carry permit holder Joe Zamudio.^[7] As we see time and again from similar incidents in the past, the surest way to save lives is for responsible citizens to act until law enforcement can arrive.

When it comes to firearms legislation on both sides of the fence, the United States undoubtedly has more experience than any other country. People have realized that prohibition doesn't protect the law-abiding and legislature is catching up. States are increasingly relaxing their stance with a wave of pro-?rearms laws^{[8][9][10][11][12]} and despite the Tucson shooting, public opinion is still firmly against tougher gun control.^[13]

What happens when a less developed country institutes firearms prohibition? We simply need to look towards Jamaica, Mexico, Rwanda, and Venezuela to see the outcome. Violent crime goes up.

Senator Drilon has brought great respect and admiration upon our nation by being elected as Chairman of the IPU Committee on Human Rights of Parliamentarians. He is the first Filipino legislator to take the seat since the organization was established in 1889. Under this role, he has surely come to understand better than many the dangers of abuse perpetrated by those in power, especially in a weak democracy.^[14] The lesson of both ancient and recent Human history is that a disarmed population eventually succumbs to the predations of tyrants; free people are trusted by their leaders to be armed.

Senate Bill No. 129 states that only authorized personnel on duty may bear arms. In the Philippines, it is common knowledge that crimes and human rights abuses are regularly committed by those who claim to protect us. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of firearms-related violent incidents involve thugs who obey no law. What hope have we of maintaining our freedoms if the only armed groups in society have amongst their ranks the corrupt and rotten who prey on innocents?

There have indeed been cases where civilians carrying firearms have abused their privilege and these incidents were widely reported in the national media. Nevertheless, they gained attention exactly because they are rare. The vicious altercations that are scattered in day-to-day newspaper reports are predominantly initiated by dangerous criminals, not law-abiding firearms permit holders. It is a distressing reality that violence is a fact of life and this truth is interwoven in the story of the Human race. But a world without risks is an impossible goal to attain. In an open and just society, these criminal cases are handled through the calm execution of existing good laws, not the rushed knee-jerk implementation of bad ones.

Our country already has more than enough firearms laws but these are inconsistently applied or poorly thought out. What we need is an overhaul, not a band-aid on a twisted and broken limb. All sides of the firearms debate share the desire to protect the public from harm. This can be best achieved with a push for education, increased training and a culture of safety in both our citizens and law enforcement personnel alike.

###

Download this press release in PDF format.

PROGUN, the Peaceful Responsible Owners of Guns, seeks preserve the freedom accorded to each and every qualified law abiding citizen to purchase, own and carry firearms in the Philippines.

If you?d like more information about this press release or to schedule an interview, please contact the PROGUN board.

Those keeping an eye on the Philippine news would probably have noticed regular reports about the rising tally of gun ban arrests. Encouraged by its apparent success, the Chief of PNP is pushing to have it made permanent. Of course, he is also doing this because of the 'overwhelming clamor' from the people for more gun control.

This is propaganda. The facts do not support his claims. I know because I started a project to create an independent database of violent crime incidents during the gun ban. So far, volunteers have recorded over 300 injuries and 440 fatalities due to violent crime between January and May 2010. The ban did not help any of these victims.

Lies, damn lies and ERVIs

Of course, statistics are easily manipulated to fit any point-of-view. The problem with the official figures are that only election-related violence incidents (ERVIs) are counted. That does not take into account what happens to over-all violent crime during the gun ban period. Also, since the country does not live under a permanent state of election fever, there is no reason why ERVIs should be used as a metric to decide a permanent ban.

The proposal to extend the ban comes after series of sudden moves to tighten firearms controls. As usual, the public is supposed to believe that these steps are all geared to make us safer. But why is the PNP feeding us with information that is blatantly wrong? Some of us pro-firearms and liberty-minded people see this trend as somewhat suspicious.

The authoritarian nature of anti-gun

In light of all this, the pro-gun groups are now up in arms. (Figuratively, of course.) They are now getting organized and starting their opposition by releasing to the media their statements against the ban. The situation took a malevolent turn on 27 May with an article published in the Manila Bulletin.

The Chief of PNP is quoted as saying, "There now appears to be some sectors that do not want a gun ban [so] maybe let's check the background of these sectors or these individuals that are giving unnecessary comments."

This simple statement should send alarm bells ringing. Background check? Unnecessary comments? The threat is plain enough for anyone but the most naive. It is a phrase that evokes not-quite-buried memories of dictatorship and political repression. Why should anyone peacefully protesting undergo a background check? Is freedom of speech in the Philippines to be regarded as 'unnecessary comments'? I'm afraid that in one statement, our Chief of Police has shown his true authoritarian nature.

We should always be wary when our leaders start taking away the ability to defend ourselves. The true motives rarely correspond with their outward claims. Firearms control is the biggest but most insidious threat to freedom in our country. History provides us with a consistent lesson: people control and firearms control always go hand-in-hand. Always.

While our Philippine lawmen are busy trying to restrict the freedoms of ordinary Filipinos, the Americans are steadily strengthening the rights of their citizens.

On May 20, the Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010 was enacted to the United States Senate. The bill protects the rights of Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees by prohibiting any requirement to register privately owned firearms.

This ruling follows on from a wave of pro-firearms laws in the USA such as:

• the overturning of Washington DC's ban on handguns
• allowing concealed firearms carry in national parks
• expanding the lawful use of deadly force in self-defense
• Right-to-Carry reform and the growing number of "Shall-issue" states

Legislators in the US are realizing that gun control, just like alcohol prohibition, does more harm than good. How long will it take before those in the Philippines come to their senses?

In the hope of avoiding violence during the 2010 general elections, the Philippines was put under a nationwide total gun ban for the period between January 10 and June 9. The ban, according to Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief General Jesus Verzosa, has been such an effective crime deterrent that they are considering a permanent total gun ban.

His statement seems brush aside reports from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that the 2010 elections are turning out to be the most violent. As with other gun control adherents, he also ignores is the fact that there have been no cases anywhere in the world where a ban has effectively prevented criminals from obtaining weapons.

It is a fact that the gun ban failed to stop violent criminals from murdering hundreds of people during the 5 months since it started. Further, many of the much publicized arrests were made up of—had it not been for the ban—otherwise legal gun holders.

This development comes in the wake of a series of moves to tighten firearms controls, such as the ludicrous ban on inside-waistband carry and an attempt to reclassify airsoft replicas as firearms. As usual, the public is supposed to believe that these steps are all geared to make us safer.

Some of us, however, may find this trend somewhat suspicious, and rightly so; those who look at history know that one of the first steps of the aspiring autocrat is to disarm the population. The Philippines may not be at risk of another Ferdinand Marcos just yet, but someone is pulling our government's strings.

One of the things that characterises the Filipino parenting style is a focus on academic success. For Filipino parents, education is crucial and subsequently, the brightest children are placed on a pedestal while those with bad grades get strong reprimands. This, I think, can lead to a strong fear of failure. Rather than taking on the more difficult challenges, children who wish to please their parents quickly learn to opt for those that have the highest chance of success. After all, good grades led to praise whereas failure only means a taste of tsinelas.

Filipino schools just add to the problem. Pressure from both parents and administration make teachers very reluctant to fail students. An industry professional who was offered a teaching job recently commented, "One of the reasons I refused [the job] is that if I fail 80% of the class [who were underachievers], I would be kicked out. Incredible. Raise the standards, and you get the boot. Keep them low, and you stay on forever."

Failure: a key ingredient for innovation

Ironically, the Filipino parent's over-emphasis on success may restrain excellence and encourage mediocrity. It could help to explain many of the challenges our country faces. Maybe rather than being afraid of failure, we should accept it as being one of the key ingredients for innovation. Poor students should fail but we should also reward those who bounce back after hitting the dirt.

According to Randy Nelson, dean of Pixar University, the core skill of an innovator is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Perhaps if we change our attitude to failure, we may help raise a generation of innovators for the Philippines.

Edutopia video

"Pixar University's Randy Nelson explains what schools must do to prepare students for jobs in new media." http://www.edutopia.org/

This was posted in the Phil-UK blog on 8th February 2009.