Coups of Time Past (or What Antonio Trillanes Should Have Read First )

Randy David talks of authoritarian transitional coalition government, Francisco "Dodong" Nemenzo reflects on military insurgency and adventurism, Patricio Abinales explores the possibilities and limits of the military imagination, Carolina Hernandez compares participation in coup d'etat to rupturing one's hymen, and Alex Magno speaks of neofascists.

For a blast from the past, read this issue of Kasarinlan on military adventurism when it was still a tragedy and not yet a farce.

Sotto to Go?: Repealing Republic Act 53 or the Press Freedom Law (Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2007)

December 03, 2007 (Monday)
1:00-3:00 p.m.
Conference Room, Balay Kalinaw
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

In its commitment to contribute to meaningful dialogues in the search for alternatives and viable policy options, the Third World Studies Center's Policy Dialogue Series 2007 focuses on key policy issues that determine the trajectory of the 14th Philippine Congress. The series brings to fore major multisectoral policy concerns vis-a-vis the executive's and legislature's policy agenda and, more importantly, to come up with policy proposals for a more responsive new legislature. This year’s Policy Dialogue Series is co-sponsored with the Office of the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

“Sotto to Go?: Repealing Republic Act 53 or the Press Freedom Law” is the last installment in the three-part series In Session: Legislations in the 14th Philippine Congress. Amending Republic Act 53, otherwise known as the Sotto law, was initiated during the 13th Congress by Cebu legislator Raul del Mar. The current law provides print journalists the shield from divulging their sources. His proposal was to expand the coverage of protection to include broadcast and new media journalists. Revival of its amendment in the 14th Congress, however, has a different intent–to compel a journalist to reveal her sources on the leak on the proceedings of a Senate executive session investigating the controversy-ridden NBN-ZTE broadband deal. In its existing form, the law is wanting in protecting media practitioners using platforms that were still nonexistent when the law was crafted. But a suspect motive for tinkering with the law
necessitates a critical discussion on how to remedy a deficiency while shielding the outcome from possible perversion.

The third and last installment of the PDS 2007 intends to provide space for critical discussion on the following questions: What provisions of the law need to be repealed or amended? What possible mechanisms can be proposed to preclude the law from being perverted by personal and/or political interests?

PROGRAM

12:30-1:00
Registration

1:00-1:05
Welcome Remarks
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Director,Third World Studies Center
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

1:05-1:10
Introduction of the Discussants and Format of the Dialogue

Sotto to Go?: Repealing Republic Act 53 or the Press Freedom Law

1:10-2:00

Danilo A. Arao
Assistant Professor
Department of Journalism
College of Mass Communication
University of the Philippines-Diliman

2:00-2:45
Open Forum

2:45-3:00
Last Comments from the Discussant and Synthesis


Moderator

Aries A. Arugay
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman


EDITED PROCEEDINGS

DANILO A. ARAO (Assistant Professor, College of Mass Communication, University of the Philippines [UP]-Diliman): This presentation is an update of a position paper I submitted to the Office of Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. early this year regarding his proposal to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act (RA) No. 53, also known as the Shield Law.

As the invitation of the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) came a little late, I did not have time to visit the bills and index divisions of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. To prepare for this presentation, I only made a quick perusal of the website of the Philippine Senate a few hours before this forum. I apologize in advance if I do not have information on related bills at the House of Representatives, particularly the one filed by Rep. Raul del Mar.

I also tried looking for bills or resolutions that have been filed by senators regarding the proposal to repeal RA 53. As of this writing, I have not found any. Apparently, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile only made a pronouncement in early October 2007 that he is in favor of repealing or amending RA 53. This was in reaction to a reporter’s refusal to reveal the sources of her information in a story she wrote regarding a close-door session of the Senate in its investigation of the Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company Limited (ZTE) contract.

COMMENTS ON SUBSTANCE

Based on my limited research, I found out that Senate Bill No. (SBN) 2477 which was filed during the 13^th Congress – the bill that I commented on early this year – has been re-filed without any changes by Sen. Revilla last June 30 as SBN 165.

Aside from this bill, Senators Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, and – perhaps the soon-to-expelled – Antonio Trillanes IV, also filed three other bills which are essentially the same as the one filed by Revilla. The only notable exception is that Senator Estrada’s bill only covers print and broadcast journalists and excludes on-line journalists.

Bills	Author	Date of Filing	Status
SBN 165	Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr.	June 30, 2007	Read on First Reading and Referred to Committee on Public Information and Mass Media on July 31, 2007
SBN 251	Sen. Mar Roxas	June 30, 2007	Read on First Reading and Referred to Committee on Public Information and Mass Media on August 6, 2007
SBN 349	Sen. Jinggoy Estrada	July 2, 2007	Read on First Reading and Referred to Committee on Public Information and Mass Media on August 7, 2007
SBN 757	Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV	July 3, 2007	Read on First Reading and Referred to Committee on Public Information and Mass Media on September 3, 2007
Source of basic information: Philippine Senate website

In any case, the four pending senate bills which seek to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 53 (Shield Law) are beneficial to broadcast and on-line journalists since they will now be protected from unduly revealing the sources of information they used in their reports.

RA No. 53, as amended by RA No. 1477, states that “the publisher, editor, columnist, or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearing in said publication.” The only exception is when “the court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.” Clearly, only print journalists are protected from revealing their sources of information.

When RA No. 53 was amended in 1956, then Sen. Vicente Sotto saw the need to change the phrase “interest of the State” to “security of the State” so that certain interest groups could be prevented from using nebulous phrases like “interest of the State” to compel journalists to reveal their sources. At that time, journalism was still assumed to be mainly for the print medium given that radio and television journalism were still starting in the Philippines. The Internet, on the other hand, obviously remained a pipe dream then.

At present, journalism has taken on a multi-media character to include not just print but also radio, television and on-line. It therefore makes sense to amend old laws that still make journalism synonymous with print in order to adjust to the changing times, particularly developments in information and communication technology that affect the practice of the journalism profession.

The teaching of journalism is currently geared towards producing graduates who can straddle different forms of mass media. As such, laws on mass media like RA No. 53 should therefore consider such multi-media orientation so that journalists can be better protected, and press freedom better promoted and upheld.

Sen. Revilla and the three other senators should therefore be commended for their efforts to amend RA No. 53 to expand the protection from unduly revealing sources of information to those in broadcast and new media. Other members of the Senate should show their unwavering support for press freedom and the rights and welfare of journalists by voting in favor of the proposal to amend RA No. 53.

COMMENTS ON FORM

However, the proposed amendment to Sec. 1 of RA No. 53 (as amended by RA No. 1477) can still be further improved by simplifying the sentence construction. For purposes of discussion, allow me to cite the provision in SBN 165.

From: (based on SBN 165)

To:

Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, a duly accredited journalist of any print, broadcast, Internet, or wire service organization, including the publisher, station owner and/or manager, bureau chief, editor, news editor, writer or reporter, correspondent, opinion columnist or commentator, cartoonist, photographer, or other practitioner involved in the writing, editing, commenting of the news for mass circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news item, news report or information appearing or being reported or dissiminated (sic) in said media, which was related in confidence to such journalist or practitioner unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.

Section 1. Without prejudice to liability under civil and criminal laws, a journalist employed by any print, broadcast or new media organization – including but not limited to the publisher, station owner and/or manager, editor, reporter, correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, photographer, art director, layout artist, webmaster and other practitioners involved in the writing, editing, design and layout of news – cannot be compelled to reveal the source of information used in his or her reports disseminated through the said media which was related in confidence to such journalist unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.

Reasons for the proposed changes:

1. The phrase “duly accredited” is too broad and could be interpreted as licensing of journalists, a measure that is inimical to press freedom.
2. A wire service organization does not need to be a separate category since it can fall under print, broadcast or new media, depending on the organization. Reuters, for example, straddles print, broadcast and on-line journalism.
3. While there is no need to make exhaustive the examples of journalists, there is still a need to include those involved in the design and layout of print and on-line publications. The phrase “included but not limited to” can provide more flexibility in defining the various roles that a journalist plays in a media organization.

OPEN FORUM

J. Prospero E. de Vera III (Associate Professor, National College of Public Administration and Governance, UP-Diliman): I would like to make one or two comments. The first one is on the proposed amendments. There is mention of a layout artist, cartoonist, webmaster, photojournalist, I wonder, how you would define their sources of information and why they should be protected from executive provisions and legislative officials? The other one is, I wonder if there are cases already, testing the definition of “security” or “interest of the state” in situations where members of the media were forced to reveal their sources. I remember that in the Senate, senators have been very circumspect about making media practitioners reveal their sources. In the last investigation of the ZTE scandal, Jarius Bondoc was asked to reveal certain information which was used as basis to write his columns. When he was asked to reveal his source of information, Jarius said, I wish I could give the information but the source of information does not want to be identified. The Senators did not push the issue. They simply respected the fact that the columnist did not want reveal who the source was. I do not know if this is the first time that the Senate did not insist. What I’m pointing out is that when we proposed amendments to the law, I did not know the context in terms of the several types of information and several types of sources and how to test whether jurisprudence actually protects it.

DANILO A. ARAO: Regarding the proposed inclusion of the layout artist, cartoonist, and webmaster, I think there is still a need to have them covered in the protection of the Shield Law in a sense that, to be honest, politicians can be onion-skinned even when it comes to cartoons. They take offense. I think for some reason sense of humor has been lost on them. Also, there are cases where cartoonists do research and look for sources of information whenever they depict a certain character. So, while I concede that the Shield Law will benefit the writers more than anyone else, it might be good if cartoonists, webmasters and layout artists can also be protected as a precautionary measure for whatever creative means some politicians or interest groups may do to harass journalist. So, it is more of an allowance that we are trying to provide for the cartoonist, the layout artist, and the webmasters.

Now, with regard to the test case regarding the definition of “security of the state,” I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall way back in 1956, Sen. Vicente Sotto was compelled to make the necessary amendment from the “interest of the state” to “security of the state” because at that time journalists were being sued left and right. They were being coerced by various interest groups to reveal their sources of information using as an excuse RA 53. That would partly explain why Sen. Vicente Sotto at that time was forced to make the changes.

With regard to this jurisprudence, I apologize, I cannot comment on that because I do not have the necessary legal acumen to give a more appropriate assessment of the definition of “security of the state.” However, from what I recall from way back in 1956, that was done to guard against the abuses made in misinterpreting RA 53. From 1956 up to 2007, there were instances when journalists had been coerced into revealing source of information but not through RA 53. It was through the potent weapon of a magistrate. I am talking about the judge’s power to cite people for contempt for the flimsiest of reasons. I recall Ramon Tulfo, for example, being cited for contempt several times by judges. This was for his refusal to reveal sources of information in the columns he wrote. So, right now the practice of the powers that be is not so much as to use RA 53, particularly the phrase “security of the state,” as an excuse to reveal sources of information. Rather such measures are being done through the power to cite people for contempt. Even if we are able to make the necessary amendments to RA 53, we still have to contend with this particular thing. The law is not an automatic guarantee that journalist will be protected because the power to cite people for contempt by judges by for the flimsiest of reasons can still be done. Honestly, I do not have any answer as to how we can make those necessary amendments. Maybe Prof. de Vera can have some answers.

J. Prospero E. de Vera III: I asked the questions because when were drafting the anti-terrorism law, the Human Security Law as we call it, nobody could define what terrorism is. It is a very slimy, difficult term. So, what the law did was to identify actions that would cause terrorism, but it never defined terrorism. In the same, “security of the state” is also very difficult to define. So then, part of the amendments to the law should be to identify the actions that would undermine the security of the state. Let us say that, unless this actually happens then the media cannot be forced to reveal their source of information.

Another amendment could also be to create the mechanism to define who will determine whether this action, as enumerated in the law, is actually present. Since if you just define what constitutes undermining the security of the state and then you let Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr. define it, obviously he will define it differently from the media. There has to be some independent third party institution that will determine whether that information actually could undermine the security of the state. Maybe that can be incorporated in the proposal.

Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem (Director, Third World Studies Center): I have three questions. I was wondering about what happened last Thursday, November 29, 2007, at the standoff between Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and the government forces at the Peninsula Manila hotel in Makati City with regard to the issue about media rights. Does that bill cover it? Because I saw two aspects in relation to this: on the one hand, the police announcing that ABS-CBN for example, knew that the mutiny or coup, was going to happen; the second is that it also goes beyond that, it goes to the rights of media reporters to cover situations like this. Do you think it can have an effect on the bill, with regard to this aspect? And for the third one, when we were having the cheaper medicines bill discussion, it was noted that no one in Congress was particularly against it. However, everyone knew that the power of the pharmaceuticals was there. Are you encountering the same issue or problem with passing this bill? Do you find anyone saying outright, we are not for it or is there a power as strong as the pharmaceuticals that is delaying it, this media bill?

DANILO A. ARAO: Very interesting questions. Actually, I think that there is no senator who has expressed opposition to the proposed amendments for very obvious reasons. Just like the cheaper medicine bill, these are seemingly harmless provisions that will uphold press freedom. Besides I am sure that you know how journalists are very, very sensitive when it comes to measures that may be inimical to press freedom. No senator in his or her right mind would clash with journalists on this issue because it is something that seeks to update a very, very old law. Now, having said that, it still makes you wonder why this did not pass in the previous Congress. I think I will agree with Dr. Tadem that there are moves to sweep this particular bill under the rug. I noticed that in the concept paper that it is classified as an administration bill and that it is something that is being rushed. However, from my information at the Senate, that is not the case. I do not know about the House of Representatives. This in part explains why we need to engage in legislative advocacy, to ensure that at least the bill will pass and go through the necessary process so that it will be passed and approved into the law.

As I presented a while ago, these bills have been filed as early as June 30 and July 3. Those are the date ranges. Now the year is about to end, but they are still pending at the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media. Again, it makes you wonder why. It is possible that senators may not be opposed to it, but they do not see it as a priority.

Now, will the event that happened last Thursday be used as an excuse to kill these particular bills? Well, the good news is, I don’t think so. But the bad news is that it is still possible for the government to think of more creative ways to suppress press freedom through extralegal means, for example, the arrest of journalists and media workers, about 17 of them, during that Manila Peninsula siege or standoff. What happened there was that journalists were arrested for the simple reason that they were there. Some of the journalists who were there were former students and I am in close contact with them. I am sorry if I am digressing a bit from our discussion, but some of those journalists actually wanted to get out of the Manila Peninsula, there were those who wanted to obey the police. They wanted to get out but they were prevented, allegedly, by the Magdalo soldiers of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV. The police apparently did not heed or pay close attention to the explanations made by these journalists. So, that is the first point. The second point, which I think is more important, is if you start arresting journalist who cover conflicts, hostage-taking situations or any other event like that, it clearly shows that you are discouraging them from doing so in the future. It is very much like the killing of journalists, it sends a chilling effect on the practice of the profession.

I believe that even if President Macapagal Arroyo has warned the police about arresting and handcuffing journalists, the message has already been clearly sent. This administration, particularly the police and the military can do whatever they want. We are not yet even talking about of the legality behind the curfew. It may not have any bearing on the case that is pending, but through extralegal means, it appears that the Macapal Arroyo Administration is, flexing its political muscles to suppress press freedom. That is something that we have to watch out for. That is something important.

With regard to the third point, is this something related to the Shield Law? Does the event, somehow, have a bearing on the Shield Law? I think that, again, the police and the military are seemingly ignorant of the Shield Law. Right then and there, the police and the military decided to confiscate the video clips and other equipment, particularly of ABS-CBN. The network appears to have caught the ire of the police and military for the simple reason that they were the first to set up and they were among the first to be there at the scene. There were accusations that they had inside information. I can safely say this, because as I told you I have sources at ABS-CBN and some of them are former students. It just so happened that they were doing their jobs, they had the necessary technical expertise, and they had the necessary technology. I am sure you are aware that only ABS-CBN and GMA have roving vans in the country. They are the only ones who have the capacity to do live broadcast.

The violation of RA 53 happened because the military did not just ask the journalists to reveal their sources; it was taken away from them. These are supposed to be private properties. They are not supposed to do that even if they are the police and the military. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they were trying to investigate or get details and that the footage, the video clips are important sources of evidence. There is a way to compel networks to provide the police and military with the necessary video clips. They can go to court and can compel the networks to surrender the coverage. What we want is to go through the legal channels and not to violate the law, particularly RA 53.

Gladstone Cuarteros (Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, UP-Diliman): How important is this issue for journalists? We know that in legislative advocacy some constituency is needed for legislation. Is there a group trying to sway the legislators and what are the opinions of broadcasters or groups of journalists?

DANILO A. ARAO: Is this being given importance? Honestly no, it is not. We think that it is important but the problem is, under this administration, there are no guarantees. We have a law but it is interpreted to suit the interests of the powers that be. I am sorry if I sound a bit self-repeating but even if RA 53 has been amended to cover all parts of media, what guarantee does it give? Honestly, I cannot answer that. We have an administration that seems to flex its political muscles every now and then to either perpetuate itself in power or to pursue whatever interest they may have in mind. The imposition of the curfew is one of them. The imposition of Presidential Proclamation 1017 way back in February 2006 resulted in the cancellation of my radio program in DZRJ. It is illegal to be canceling radio programs but it happened. These are instances where you wonder if the passage of the law can really guarantee anything. Still, we need to push for such laws because it gives us more political mileage in terms of arguing and fighting for our rights as journalists or as ordinary citizens who would want to more freely express our opinions and our stand on present issues and concerns.

I am not aware if the likes of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) has taken a position regarding this. I do know that the National Press Club (NPC) and the KBP are engaged in legislative advocacy for a different bill. I do not know if this might be of interest to the TWSC, but there is a pending bill on the right to reply. In essence, the bill seeks to provide equal space or equal airtime to aggrieved parties. We oppose it. Even the College of Mass Communications stated its opposition against it and we are one with the KBP and the NPC in blocking that particular bill. It was filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel in the past and I think it was shelved in the previous congress. I do not know if it will be re-filed by another senator, but it is something that we are watching out for.

I am a member of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and I know it is supportive of this particular move to expand the Shield Law. Although I have to admit that the NUJP now has even bigger problems. I am sure you know that there are journalist being killed left and right—the NUJP has it at around 56, others at around 30. Regardless of the number, we feel that the killing of journalists is of paramount concern. I am not saying that amending RA 53 is not important, but the extralegal mechanism being resorted to by the Macapagal Arroyo administration is really taking its toll on journalists. To cite some examples, there was no legal basis for arresting journalist at the Manila Peninsula but it still happened. There was no basis for Executive Order 464, but it is there. There was no basis for Presidential Proclamation 1017 but, again, it is there. So, there are a lot of things that journalists are concerned with right now.

Madeline QUIAMCO (Associate Dean, Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication): I came because I have an on-going study on policies on information access and I have done research on 13^th and 14^th Congress bills. As Prof. Arao said there was actually no information access bill that passed the 13^th Congress. What the Information Committee told us was that they were very busy with the hearings they were not able to process the 58 bills or so that had been filed. The 14^th Congress has just started and they said there are now more information access bills that had been filed than in the whole of the 13^th Congress. What bothers me is that one congress is three years, if a bill does not become a law after three years then, it is out. It has to be filed again.

You mentioned earlier of the right to reply that, I think, journalists are opposing. I think there is a need for Senator Pimentel to make changes so that it becomes more palatable to journalists. This bill, if it becomes a law, says that you have every right to request time to defend yourself. It is as simple as that. It can of course be used in other ways, but the point is journalists will now have to be more careful, even if it’s just a blind item.

DANILO A. ARAO: I just have a short explanation with regard to the right to reply bill, why I am opposed to it. It is not that I oppose the principle. Everybody has the right to reply and they should be accorded with the necessary opportunity to have their letter to the editor or whatever statements they have, aired or uploaded in the case of on-line publication. Our main point of contention is that we cannot provide equal time or equal space to the so-called aggrieved parties because you will end up imposing objectivity. It is very much like the Code of Ethics. You do not have to legislate it. We are for self-regulation in media. There are concrete mechanisms wherein aggrieved parties who were not accorded the necessary privilege by the newspaper or the TV show or the radio show or an online publication to seek redress for their grievance. For example, the Philippine Press Council (PPC) can actually coerce—I am using the term quite loosely—a newspaper that refuses to publish the letter to the editor of an aggrieved person to publish it. It can tell this particular newspaper that, if they do not publish the letter, all of the other member newspapers of the PPC will publish it.

Self-regulatory mechanisms should be given the chance to work so that we can really ensure objectivity in the media profession. Once you impose that, once you legislate that, you can come up with very, very extreme cases. For example, there is a newspaper account, a headline, where I was identified as an instructor at UP although I am an assistant professor. I want to be given that privilege, even if it is a very minor correction. Under the right to reply bill as formulated by Senator Pimentel, the statement that I am an assistant professor, will be put on the headline again the next day, even if it is a very, very inconsequential comment. Do you get what I mean? There is room for abuse. Now, I am making an extreme case to show scenarios that might happen if you end up imposing basic principles in journalism. Having the right to reply bill does not guarantee professionalism. You cannot impose professionalism.

What the Senate can do, perhaps, would be to create an atmosphere that is conducive for self-regulation in media, an atmosphere that promotes and upholds press freedom. That particular bill can compromise press freedom instead of uphold it because it leaves room for much abuse. Very much like what Prof. de Vera said a while ago regarding “security of the state,” there is that possibility of abuse in the right to reply bill as formulated right now. I am not familiar with whatever palatable packaging is being made by Senator Pimentel, but we will be open to presenting our position if and when their amendments are being made. Right now, we have decided to oppose the bill as formulated.

J. Prospero E. de Vera III: The reason why Senator Pimentel filed the bill is not really because he is an aggrieved party, although he is attacked all the time by the media. It is really a response to a lot of other people who are complaining, especially those who are less politically visible, those less articulate who claim that when they reply, when they are aggrieved, the letter is published in page 28, for example. This happens even if it is the case that the attack was published in page 2. We receive a lot of complaints from groups, especially those that are more politically marginalized. However, I do agree that maybe the journalists, the media has to sit down with the Senator, and if this can be done through self-regulation, then we have no objection to it at all.

Of course we would prefer that it be self- regulated, but you also have to understand that media organizations also have business interests. One cannot really isolate the fact that there are business interests involved. Some columnists, unfortunately, can also act on behalf of influential economic interests. So, there is a journalist who attacks Senator Pimentel at every opportunity, every day and we note that. Yet, you can only reply so often to the attack and sometimes we just bear them and hope the public knows better. That is really the context of it.

DANILO A. ARAO: I’d like to follow up on what was said earlier. I think the bigger problem is not so much the forcing of the media to reveal their source of information. The bigger problem is getting information. The freedom to information law is really the one that we are hoping would be pushed aggressively by media organizations. Unfortunately, the support we were expecting was not given. There was no strong snowballing effect to force legislators to act.

A lot of people do not know that there is an executive order signed by Pres. Ramos, that this is still alive until today. It requires government offices to provide information. However, a lot of government offices do not even know that there is such an executive order, or say that they do not know. You notice that through the law corrupt executive officials can really put a thousand obstacles in the way of getting access to information. If you can not even get the actual contract or a deed of sale, how can they extract accountability from executive officials? The bigger question to be looked at is the whole concept of right to information to help the media also in getting information for their report.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Despite the many issues confronting the media right now, the most recent being, what happened last Thursday, the arrest of journalists. We hope that the bill seeking to amend the Shield Law will be given the attention that it deserves. I do understand that among all forms of advocacy, legislative advocacy is that particular field that is not given much attention. However, we should try our best to push our senators to make the necessary changes to the Shield Law and monitor, as Prof. de Vera said, other bills related to the promotion and upholding of media rights; the rights and welfare of journalists, in particular. There are so many issues that we are confronting right now and we should study them because what is at stake here is not just the right of journalists, but press freedom in general which is supposed to be the backbone for democracy.

New Globalization: Challenges to Asia (A Lecture)

November 29, 2007 (Thursday)
2:30-4:00 p.m.
Third World Studies Center
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City


Program


2:00-2:30
Registration

2:30-2:35
Welcome Remarks
and Introduction of the Speaker
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Director
Third World Studies Center
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

2:35-3:30
New Globalization: Challenges to Asia
Swaran Singh
Associate Professor for Disarmament
School of International Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University

3:30-3:55
Open forum

3:55-4:00
Last Comments from the Lecturer



Moderator
Ranjit Rye
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
College of Social Science and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

The Quality Affordable Medicines Act of 2007 (or of 2008? 2009? 2010?) (Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2007)

November 26, 2007 (Monday)
2:30-4:30 p.m.
Conference Room, Balay Kalinaw
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

In its commitment to contribute to meaningful dialogues in the search for alternatives and viable policy options, the Third World Studies Center's Policy Dialogue Series 2007 focuses on key policy issues that determine the trajectory of the 14th Philippine Congress. The series brings to fore major multisectoral policy concerns vis-a-vis the executive's and legislature's policy agenda and, more importantly, to come up with policy proposals for a more responsive new legislature.

“The Quality Affordable Medicines Act of 2007 (or of 2008? 2009? 2010?)” is the second installment in the three-part series In Session: Legislations in the 14th Philippine Congress. It seeks to elicit insights from various stakeholders on the implications of the proposed bill on the Philippine commitment to the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, the policy amendments that the passage of the bill will entail, and the mechanisms to guarantee and expedite the passage of a people-centered medicine bill.

PROGRAM

2:00-2:30
Registration

2:30-2:35
Welcome Remarks
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Director,Third World Studies Center
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

2:35-2:45
Introduction of the Discussants and Format of the Dialogue

The Quality Affordable Medicines Act of 2007 (or of 2008? 2009? 2010?)

2:45-3:00
Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel
Representative, AKBAYAN Citizen's Action Party
House of Representatives
Author of House Bill 954 or Cheaper Medicines Bill

3:00-3:15
Blas Viterbo
Deputy Chief of Staff
Office of Senator Mar Roxas II

3:15-3:30
Jorge Judan
President
Philippine International Trading Corporation

3:30-3:45
Gene Nisperos
Secretary-General
Health Alliance for Democracy

3:45-4:15
Open Forum

4:15-4:30
Last Comments from the Discussants and Synthesis


Moderator

Ma. Anna Rowena G. Layador
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

Regaining Ground?: US Military Presence in the Philippines 15 Years after the Closure of the Bases (A Public Forum)

20 November 2007 (Tuesday)
10:00 a.m.-12:00 noon
Bulwagang Recto, Faculty Center
College of Arts and Letters
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

Background

On November 24, 1992, the last of the US troops left Subic Naval Base–ending nearly a century of US military presence in the Philippines.This followed the vote by the Philippine Senate a year earlierrejecting the extension of US basing in the country.

Fifteen years after, the United States, with the consent of the Philippine government, succeeded in stationing a US military unit in Mindanao indefinitely, sending thousands of troops for weeks at a time in recurring year-round exercises in various places all over the country. This has expanded the roles US troops are allowed to assume to include so-called “non-traditional” threats, and established a new category of low-key US military installations whose existence and locations have yet to be revealed by the government.

All these come at a time of great geopolitical shifts in the region: the United States has taken on a more assertive, more unilateral foreign policy stance, shifting its attention to Asia from Europe during the Cold War; meanwhile China, which has been singled out by the US as its greatest potential rival, continues to emerge as a rising power. Other states in the region are finding themselves having to respond to a quick-changing international environment.

This forum provides an opportunity to pause and evaluate the larger questions posed by the country’s relations with the United States.

- What drives US military strategy in the Philippines?
- In what ways and how has the US re-established its presence in the
Philippines?
- What are its implications domestically?
- What are its implications to the country’s relations with China and
other neighbors?

The forum will also be the formal launch of Focus on the Global South’s new special report, ‘At the Door of all the East’: The Philippines in US Military Strategy. Limited copies of the report will be given to the first 50 participants to confirm attendance.

RSVP: Lou (Focus) at 433-0899; Bien (TWSC) at 920-5428

The 2008 Budget: Whose Pie Is It Anyway? (Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2007)

November 19, 2007 (Monday)
2:30-4:30 p.m.
Conference Room, Balay Kalinaw
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City



In its commitment to contribute to meaningful dialogues in the search for alternatives and viable policy options, the Third World Studies Center's Policy Dialogue Series 2007 focuses on key policy issues that determine the trajectory of the 14th Philippine Congress. The series brings to fore major multisectoral policy concerns vis-a-vis the executive's and legislature's policy agenda and, more importantly, to come up with policy proposals for a more responsive new legislature.

Entitled The 2008 Budget: Whose Pie Is It Anyway?, the first installment of the three-part series In Session: Legislations in the 14th Philippine Congress will focus primarily on the question of making the process for drafting the national budget a participatory exercise. It seeks to elicit insights from various stakeholders on the following questions:

1. Does the proposed national budget meet your sector's needs for 2008?
2. Did your organization actively engage Congress in drafting the budget?

The Third World Studies Center would like to invite to the dialogue those who are willing to share their insights on these questions.

Program


2:00-2:30
Registration

2:30-2:35
Welcome Remarks
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Director,Third World Studies Center
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

2:35-2:45
Introduction of the Discussants and Format of the Dialogue

The 2008 National Budget: Whose Pie Is It Anyway?

2:45-3:00
Emilia T. Boncodin
Professor, National College of Public Administration and Governance
University of the Philippines-Diliman
and former Secretary, Department of Budget and Management

3:00-3:15
Leonor M. Briones
Professor, National College of Public Administration & Governance
University of the Philippines-Diliman
and former National Treasurer

3:15-3:30
James Miraflor
Researcher
Freedom from Debt Coalition

3:30-4:15
Open Forum

4:15-4:30
Last Comments from the Discussants and Synthesis


Moderator

Celito Arlegue
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

China and India after Decolonization: Implications for Southeast Asia

CHINA AND INDIA AFTER DECOLONIZATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA


PRASENJIT DUARA
Professor and Chair
Department of History
University of Chicago

November 19, 2007 (Monday)
10:00 a.m.-12:00 noon
Bulwagang Sala'am
Romulo Hall
Asian Center
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City


ABSTRACT
India and China had rather different historical relations with Southeast Asia for over two millennia. Although India had played an important cultural role in Southeast Asian society, it had a small presence in recent centuries. China had been, until recently, a much more powerful political presence. As the new national movements in the two societies began to converge towards a common horizon in the early twentieth century, their subsequent national histories marched to a remarkably similar rhythm. Both also sought to exercise their leadership over the emergent nations in Asia and Africa in post-WWII period.

The initial rivalry between the two for regional leadership, which culminated in the Bandung Conference in 1955, gave way to pre-occupation with domestic issues. It was not till several decades later that a renascent China was able to have a major influence in Southeast Asia. It is only recently that India has also turned its attention to the Asia Pacific region.

The paper tries to tell the story of what happened in the intervening years in the relations between the two over the issue of Asian leadership. It outlines how the Chinese leadership was effective in actually utilizing a Westphalian-type, Panchasheela model of international relations to further its interests among its neighbors, while also being able to confine India to South Asia. Improvement in the relations between the two nation-states in recent years and the concomitant growth in the status of India in Asia has led to considerable economic and political opportunities for Southeast states and people.

PROGRAM

09:30-10:00
Registration

10:00-10:05
Welcome Remarks
Aileen S.P. Baviera
Dean
Asian Center
University of the Philippines-Diliman

10:05-10:10
Introduction of the Speaker
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Director
Third World Studies Center
College of Social Science and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

10:10-11:10
China and India after Decolonization:
Implications for Southeast Asia
Prasenjit Duara
Professor and Chair
Department of History
University of Chicago

11:10-11:50
Open Forum

11:50-12:00
Last Comments from the Lecturer



Moderator
Eduardo Gonzalez
Professor
Asian Center
University of the Philippines-Diliman

Of Miracles and Middle Forces: The Social Construction of Middle-Class Consciousness in the Philippines, 1970s-2000 (A Roundtable Discussion)

CELSO M. VILLEGAS
PhD Candidate, Brown University, USA and
Visiting Research Fellow, Third World Studies Center

25 October 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 noon
Third World Studies Center
Lower Ground Floor Palma Hall
University of the Philippines-Diliman


ABSTRACT
This talk presents an alternative perspective on middle-class formation in the Philippines, focusing on the social construction of public narratives that relate the history and destiny of the "middle class" to democracy. It will elaborate how and why Filipino scholars, pundits, and ordinary citizens alike understood the major shifts in democratic governance in the past thirty years -- Martial Law, EDSA I, and EDSA II -- as being the products of "the middle class"; and how the cumulative processes of discursive adaptation, social distinction, and political struggle resulted and reinforced a pervasive concept of middle-classness built on interrelated notions of "values", a dialectical tension with consumer culture, and a vision of the class as a maker of modernity. To illustrate this, the talk will present an analysis of explicit references to the "middle class" in the print and digital media, in political statements, and in social science discourse.

_______________________________
Celso M. Villegas is a PhD candidate from the Department of Sociology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA and Visiting Research Fellow at the Third World Studies Center. He is conducting fieldwork for a comparative study of middle-class formation in the Philippines, Ecuador, and Venezuela. He is the co-author (with James Mahoney) of "Historical Enquiry in Comparative Politics," recently published in the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press).

Development and Security in Southeast Asia, vol. 1-The Environment (A Kasarinlan Review)

David B. Dewitt and Carolina G. Hernandez, eds. The Environment. Vol. 1 of Development and Security in Southeast Asia. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003. 269 pp.


First published in Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 19, 1 (2004): 209-215.

After reading the volume on the environment of the three-tome Development and Security in Southeast Asia (DSSEA), and chapter after chapter of policy recommendations, one starts to wonder whether these recommendations are for real or just snake oil slathered on the pages of this book.

DSSEA claims that it “has at its core the question of the relationship between government and civil society in their efforts to define and to pursue security, broadly defined” (3). This three-volume work also “posits a tension between how government and its instruments understand and pursue security and how people and the communities that they comprise understand and seek their own particular security interests” (3).

For this volume on the environment “each of the chapters examines the environment, development, and security linkages…These include the overlap of human security and development, the environmental crisis as ‘slow-motion’ security threat, the differing perceptions of such ‘slow-motion’ threats, and the different uses of the environment and security linkage by different actors” (21). Eight case studies focusing on Indonesia and the Philippines with the Southeast Asia as the broader context comprise this volume. These case studies deal with the following topics: hazardous waste and human security in Southeast Asia, state responses to environmental insecurity in Southeast Asian forests, a Philippine community’s perspective on development and (in)security, human and ecological security in the context of mining disputes in the Philippines, food production and environmental security in Indonesia, state capacity and industrial pollution in the Philippines, the textile industry in Indonesia, and climate change and security. Besides probing the environment, development and security linkages, these case studies were also meant to address DSSEA’s two other goals. One of which is “developing enhanced theoretical and conceptual understanding of these complex linkages to further our knowledge and to improve our abilities to develop practical instruments in support of improved human well being [sic]” (3). The other one is to use this “acquired knowledge and information for empowerment and change” (3).

In sum, the book argues this: have enough social capital, enhance the state’s capacity to deal with environmental problems that threaten it and endanger human security, aim for sustainable development, then everything will be all right with the world. How tenable is this proposition?
Much of the weakness of this book is a result of its uncritical deployment of particular concepts like sustainable development, social capital, and human security. The Brundtland Commission’s articulation of sustainable development and Robert Putnam’s definition of social capital were repeatedly quoted in the book’s different chapters as if they were part of a papal encyclical that should be uttered, obeyed, and never questioned by the faithful. These instances raise serious doubt on DSSEA’s goal of coming up with an enhanced theoretical and conceptual understanding involving the environment-security-development nexus.

In the introductory chapter it is stated that for “the DSSEA program, development makes sense only when understood in terms of sustainable development, a comprehensive concept with ecological, economic, social, and political dimensions” (10). And precisely what is sustainable development? To answer this, the book falls back to the original Brundtland Commission formulation: “a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, direction of investments, orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, 9). Then the book tried to improve on this definition by saying that sustainable development “encompasses the creation of domestic and inter-state institutions that have the specialized knowledge and skills to regulate, to manage, and to facilitate stable political pluralism, economic development, and social equity” (7). It added that “unsustainable and mismanaged economic activities which degrade the environment, aggravate human relations, and exacerbate intra-state as well as inter-state relations can lead to social upheaval, challenging the security of the individual, of the community, of the country, and potentially the region” (8). Superficially, this makes perfect sense; it is as convincing as a glib slogan. And there lies the problem, for as one author asserts: “The Brundtland definition is not really a definition; it is a slogan, and slogan, however pretty, do not make theory” (Banerjee 2003, 151-152).

The sustainable development articulated by DSSEA and subscribed into by the various case studies is part of the current discourses of sustainable development which “despite highlighting issues of poverty and equity… do not criticize the structural conditions that characterize the increasing intrusion of capital into the domain of nature, which results in the capitalization, expropriation, commodification, and homogenization of nature” (Banerjee 2003, 160). In its policy recommendations, the most that this volume has done concerning the issue of capital is to say that “there is a need to recognize the environmental and security implications of global economic linkages” (29). After recognizing it, what now? The volume did not explore this issue. How different indeed is sustainable development from plain development? The volume did not even pose this question. It simply said that “the model of development on which rapid economic expansion of SEA has been articulated is not sustainable because it involves dynamics of social and political inequality bound to cause its demise over the long term” (4). It failed to provide any powerful critique of sustainable development. Its silence validates this critical assessment of this particular concept:

The main shortcoming of the mainstream approach to sustainable development is that it is driven by the rapid accumulation requirements of the capitalist economy, which means that it is about sustaining development rather than developing sustainability in the ecological sense. The priority is to ensure that environmental conditions are managed so as to ensure maximum long-term capital accumulation (which necessitates rapid economic growth). In this respect, neoclassical environmental economics gravitates toward a weak sustainability hypothesis at best. Here it is assumed that in most cases, human-made capital can substitute for natural capital, so that in all but few cases, there are no real limitations to expansion imposed by the environment. Market mechanisms can be adjusted to ensure that environmental factors are taken account of, with no real alteration in the fundamental character of the capitalist economy. (Castro 2004, 220)

Social capital was another concept used in this book that was not critically engaged. The concept of social capital runs throughout all the specific projects pursued within this research program (3). Yet nothing was done besides quoting Robert Putnam’s definition of social capital and its slight variations from other authors. In this volume, social capital is defined as “a type of social connectedness that facilitates the development of trust, cooperation, identifications, and norms of interaction, which in turn are crucial for decisive action—such as promoting economic growth or managing environmental resources” (63). Again, nothing seems to be wrong with this—not until one starts to question social capital’s basic assumptions and the implications of its usage in policy formulation.

Here is an incisive critique of social capital:

Whether it concerns a social or a spatial category, in some applications of social capital there is a tendency towards blaming the victim. Individuals, neighbourhoods, villages, regions, countries are underdeveloped because supposedly they do not have the ‘right’ kind of social capital.…The victim-blaming approach also has to do with neoliberal triumphalism. The West/North was right after all, wasn’t it? Modernity did bring the right kind of social capital and trust, didn’t it? But what about path-dependence then? Following social capital’s own logic, wouldn’t path-dependence point to a responsibility of the former colonial powers for the plight of the Third World? Well, not necessarily, as one might go back way before the beginning of colonialism towards the ‘real’ traditional cultural roots which have survived (resisted) the colonial impacts [sic] and are the real culprits for the present stagnation. Following this line of reasoning colonialism and imperialism are relegated to the sideline in explaining the current plight of the Third World in exchange for a path-dependent explanation which goes back to the precolonial times. (Schuurman 2003, 1000)

This limitation definitely showed in the case studies. The chapter that dealt with hazardous waste and human security in Southeast Asia was mum on the toxic legacy of American military bases in the Philippines. Except for the chapter on mining, all the other case studies just gave a wink and a nod to the colonial and neocolonial context of ecological degradation in the region. This is of course perfectly in line with the DSSEA’s thrust: to strengthen social capital in order to stave off any environmental crisis in the region which could imperil sustainable development. Why blame the colonial masters for the current mess when it is easy to heap all the responsibility on the poor, undisciplined native?

More perceptive and critical authors have also raised the issue that the stress on social capital is linked to the neoliberal’s continuing attempt to emasculate the state (Fernando 2003, Schuurman 2003). The book did not bother with this issue as made evident by two of its policy recommendations. One policy recommendation reads: “State capacity needs to be enhanced to deal with environmental threats to human security” (28). The next one states: “Support for NGO and community activities needs to be enhanced” (28). Is there a contradiction in this? The current dominant discourse on sustainable development also affects how social capital will be deployed. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), an integral part of civil society—“an arena that both reflects and shapes social capital” (63)—is now being viewed in a different light:

The current positioning of NGOs in sustainable development coincides with the withdrawal of the state from its conventional role in social development and its replacement by the private sector. It was widely believed that the NGOs were capable of effectively responding to the weaknesses of the state and the private sector. Contrary to expectations, investments by NGOs have by no means compensated for what society has lost due to the withdrawal of the state from social development, nor have they shielded social development from the negative consequences of private sector-led development. Instead, NGOs have evolved as institutions that discipline social order to function according to the dictates of neoliberal institutions. In this process, NGO activities have contributed toward the decapitation of the state in areas where it has historically performed well, particularly for the marginalized segments of the population. (Fernando 2003, 18)

The book espouses the view that in strengthening the social capital the state will also be strengthened. This is a perspective that did not factor-in capitalism’s and neoliberalism’s uncanny ability to hold hostage both the state and the social capital. As mentioned above, the ploy to strengthen social capital can be linked to efforts to weaken the state. Hence, “the challenge is not to abandon the state as irrelevant but to liberate its power from being determined by the dictates of capital” (Fernando 2003, 23). For if capital remains supreme, “sustainable development [will be] managed in the same way development was managed: through ethnocentric, capitalist notions of managerial efficiency that simply reproduce earlier articulations of decentralized capitalism in the guise of ‘sustainable capitalism’” (Banerjee 2003, 173). However, how do you exactly liberate the state from the clutches of capital in order to save the environment and give human security to the people? Again, the book never bothered with such a question.

Consistent with the book’s stance not to interrogate a concept when it can pass it off as something new, this book brandished human security the same way it does with sustainable development and social capital—uncritically. In this book, human security is defined as “human well being [sic] and the attainment of basic needs such as access to sustainable livelihoods, health, food, shelter, and human rights” (34). Human security, the book qualifies, “overlaps significantly with current popular broader definition of ‘human development’” (34). To demonstrate this overlap, the same phrase used to define human security was used to mean human development (21). Such is not a case of overlap but of interchangeability. If one concept can stand for another, why bother to use the two of them?

However, more important than the question of using the precise term is the question of how human security was put into use in delineating the breadth and depth of the book’s arguments and recommendations. As mentioned before, in its list of overall policy recommendations, the book calls for enhancing the state’s capacity to deal with environmental threats to human security. But in its definition it says that human security is concerned with the human well-being and its attainment of basic needs; therefore, human security is not just for particular subjects of certain states, it is for all. If the state will remain the main actor in providing human security, then the state will be ensuring only the human security of the people within its borders even with the “pressure and participation from the global community and local communities” (28). To say that human security can still be achieved if only the states will simultaneously pursue human security is to go beyond what can be realistically expected.

The book has clearly shown that environmental threats transcend national boundaries as in the case of global climate change, thus it follows that cooperation at transnational and international levels is needed. Human security calls for “reconceptualizing the nature of international co-operation” (Ney 1999, 20). Did the book tackle this crucial issue? It did not. If human security in the context of environmental threats will simply be dependent on the state, should it even be called human security?

By not thoroughly working on the assumptions that underpin the concepts used in framing the study, the book ended up with incoherent policy recommendations. The conceptual tools used by the book ended up blunt and conventional thus reducing any sense of novelty that could be had from the case studies. And by being blunt and conventional, this volume managed only to scratch the surface of a highly complex issue.—Joel F. Ariate Jr., University Research Associate, Third World Studies Center.


References
Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies 24 (2): 143-180.

Castro, Carlos. 2004. Sustainable development: Mainstream and critical perspectives. Organization and Environment 17 (2): 195-225.

Fernando, Jude. 2003. The power of unsustainable development: What is to be done? Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 590: 6-34.

Ney, Steven. 1999. Environmental security: a critical overview. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 12 (1): 7-30.

Schuurman, Fran. 2003. Social capital: The politico-emancipatory potential of a disputed concept. Third World Quarterly 24 (6): 991-1010.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Development and Security in Southeast Asia, vol. 2-The People (A Kasarinlan Review)

David B. Dewitt and Carolina G. Hernandez, eds. The People. Vol. 2 of Development and Security in Southeast Asia. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003. 248 pp.

First published in Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 19, 1 (2004): 216-221.

With the Cold War over, contemporary Southeast Asia is now beset with new anxieties generated by its shifting development and security concerns. After the 1997 economic crisis, the governments and populations of the region became united in “rethinking” what should constitute economic progress in a “redefined” stable environment. The main challenge that Southeast Asia confronts and needs to overcome is the trade-off between development and security and the (mis)handling of progress vis-à-vis sustainability.

The same concern is advanced by the book, Development and Security in Southeast Asia. Unified by its fundamental shift in development thinking and security approach, this three-volume book examines how state-society relations is affected by and entwined in the complex security-development nexus. The research rests on the assumption that there is a gap between how the governments and societies in the region perceive, understand and obtain security. Given this gap, it is a comprehensive attempt to reconcile such disparity by fostering awareness on the experiences of Southeast Asian communities. The book engages governments and nongovernmental agencies to consider issues such as social equity, people empowerment and environmental conservation and regeneration as essential parts of any development project. The book’s six case studies in four Southeast Asian countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand—intend to capture the complex linkage between development and security in terms of a wide gamut of issues such as migration, ethnicity, gender and employment. Brief, critical summaries of these studies conclude each chapter.

The strands of uncertainty and insecurity attached to the development in Southeast Asia have positioned the issue of migration at the forefront. The people’s search for an enhanced well-being and their dissatisfaction with their worsening quality of life has caused transnational and extraregional movements. Foremost of these is the increasing recurrence of labor inflow and outflow toward and beyond national borders that are oftentimes illicit in nature. This widespread phenomenon, along with its relation to the development-security linkage, is comprehensively analyzed by Jorge Tigno in his research on “Migration, Security and Development: The Politics of Undocumented Labor Migration in Southeast Asia.” The study is limited to the transborder mobility of migrants in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. It focuses on the issues surrounding the clandestine migratory movements of low-skilled labor in the said areas of the region such as its “constructed” contribution to economic decay, social instability and insecurity of host countries. In discussing at length illegal recruitment as a factor to both undocumented labor migration and the problem of identity, state resistance and policy restrictions against foreign workforce, and the existence, significance and expansion of social networks ensuing from migration, the study then is an extensive attempt to identify the causes of extra-legal immigration of workers. It also explains the discrepancy between state-society discernment of this phenomenon.

On the other hand, while it entails a viable framework for understanding the plight of overseas employees in the countries mentioned, the analysis is concentrated on their “perceived” impact on the development and security only of receiving countries. The research should have included an extensive discussion on the effects of labor flight on the sending countries themselves. With Southeast Asia as one of the main exporters of clandestine workers, it is therefore also significant to trace and indicate what the source governments do and should do to secure the well-being of their overseas nationals and how this human resource flight threatens their own socioeconomic progress and security. Nevertheless, this paper provides well-built arguments in characterizing the state’s role in the persisting social stereotypes of foreign migrants and their activities, as well as in proposing what initiatives it should take with the help of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in changing these perceptions and redefining its own policies. Above all, this sets off the initial stage from which to study further the links between transborder flow of low-skilled labor, security and development in both national and regional levels and in political, economic, social and even cultural terms.

Ruth Lusterio’s research, “Perceptions of Women Migrant Workers from the Philippines and Indonesia,” highlights the role of women as an active party to the dynamics of security and development. It rests upon the assumption that the feminization of overseas employment bears serious implications on both the individual and national levels of security. Tracing the factors that push women to seek job opportunities abroad, the study emphasizes how this increasing phenomenon is, itself, a security issue brought about by the search for other venues that could cater to a more developed and enhanced well-being. In contrast to the previous case study, migration here is analyzed as an “internal” security concern, largely affecting the source or sending countries themselves. Its findings suggest that while women employment abroad is both a source of foreign exchange and a remedy to domestic unemployment, it also causes a great deal of personal, socioeconomic and even psychological insecurities that cannot be ignored in any pursuit of sustainable development. This reflects the two-sided response of both the Filipino and Indonesian female workers themselves, arguing that their occupations overseas have both negative and positive effects. In addition, the research suggests policy options in seeking long-term solutions to this ironic trend, reaching out to various sectors, especially the government. With all the empirical data presented, the study is a meticulous attempt to understand the concerns of female migrant workers and to identify how their problems can be resolved through collaboration between and among official agencies, NGOs and the private sector. This case study has particular relevance to the fate of many women overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), especially the domestic helpers and entertainers whose myriad of problems remain unattended or unresolved.

The impact of economic crisis, along with political instability and social turmoil, on the workers’ security in Indonesia is analyzed in the chapter “Security Implications of the Economic Crisis for Indonesian Workers” by Tubagus Feridhanusetyawan. The study focuses on how the labor sector had been largely affected by the drastic and painful changes in the Indonesian economy and polity, with the adjustments in employment trend and income levels as the main parameters for measuring security. In attempting to identify the security implications of the economic drought in 1997, its effects on workers are examined from both micro- and macroperspectives at the aggregate and individual levels. The strength of this paper lies in this dual approach, where its clearly constructed conceptual framework effectively explains the direct outcomes of the economic crisis in the national economy and individual households as well as its implications on the macro- and microlevels of security in the country. The author likewise discusses other issues such as the decline in employment rate, the absence or ineffectiveness of social programs as safety nets for laborers, the intensifying migration and labor flight, the worsening poverty, the reverse transformation of the labor market, and the food crisis, which are altogether understood as end-products of the economic downturn and as additional sources of national insecurity. At the individual level, on the other hand, workers’ insecurity is said to be derived from the instability of employment status and the drastic reduction in wages and income thus weakening their purchasing power. Through the survey data, the findings of the study suggest that the actual effect of the crisis is in the decline of the workers’ real income, which thus necessitates a rethinking in policy orientation. The primary recommendation is for governments to embark on employment creation programs by encouraging the booming sectors to expand their hiring and to provide income support packages as safety nets through the help of NGOs.

That industrialization is part and parcel of development and the modernization process is indubitable. However, it is not without side effects that governments should push for it devoid of caution. The negative externalities of industrialization, as manifested in the labor sector of Indonesia are discussed in Muhammad Hikam’s “Industrialization and Workers’ Security: A Political Perspective.” The paper examines the local workers’ labor and living conditions under the New Order regime in Indonesia, which spearheaded the rapid growth of the country’s industrial sectors. Presenting the gap between the actual situation of workers and the aggregate economic development, it questions the nature of labor policies implemented by the said regime in nurturing and further enhancing the security of the workers. It posits that the insecurity of the work force is, in fact, derived from the labor laws and government provisions themselves that perpetuate the abysmal living conditions of the workers. Examples cited are the wage policy and labor union laws that have negative implications not only on the workers’ socioeconomic status but also on their basic human rights. The research findings suggest that the apparent success in the modernization of Indonesia sacrificed the security of the labor sector, not only because of the adoption of an inappropriate model for development as enshrined in the New Order’s labor laws and regulations but also due to the wrong perceptions of labor relations and priorities. This chapter actually intends to target both the present and future administrations of Indonesia to consider a new approach to industrialization and empower its rather inactive civil society. Furthermore, it urges the workers to establish strong links with other sectors in the society not only to advance their cause but also to help transform the country’s politics into a more citizen-based undertaking.

The chapter “Stockbrokers-turned-Sandwich Vendors: The Economic Crisis and Small-Scale Food Retailing in Thailand and the Philippines” by Gisèle Yasmeen presents another example of the oftentimes contradictory relationship between development and security. It highlights the increasing emergence of microenterprises in the region as one response to financial insecurity in a period of considerable economic development. It illustrates the growing employment trend in Thailand and the Philippines, where people engage in various income-generating activities. Focusing on small-scale food retailing, the study reveals that despite the rapid growth in the region from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, many firms had laid off workers, who in turn put up their own eateries and vending operations to earn small amount of profit on a daily basis. The growth of self-employment in Southeast Asia’s food sector is thus attributed to the mounting need for income security. In addition, the author gives attention to the high levels of women participation in microeconomic activities and the impact of industrialization on female self-employment. The last section of the case study points to policy alternatives that should be considered in recognizing and safeguarding the rights of those in the informal sector, especially women vendors and displaced workers, with the premise that such segment of the economy is not only an important source of livelihood but also fosters network building in the form of food cooperatives and microentrepreneur organizations, giving voice to the larger vulnerable work groups.

Conflict alleviation, being another core component of the development-security nexus, constitutes the main theme of Jacques Bertrand’s “‘Good’ Governance and the Security of Ethnic Communities in Indonesia and the Philippines.” He starts off by establishing the significance of conflict resolution and peace-building in any long-term development and security objective of a given society. Looking at conflict in the level of ethnicity, the author examines the relationship between political systems and the level of security they can guarantee to ethnic communities. With a focus on the religious dimension, the paper covers only Indonesian and Philippine experiences in Muslim-Christian enmity. The author is to be commended for his intelligent selection of these two cases because aside from the fact that both countries’ populations are divided into Muslim and Christian blocks and that both suffer from the discordant interaction of the two groups, Indonesia and the Philippines differ in their government types, which therefore gives a clear illustration of his main thesis about the sufficiency of “good governance” in responding to community threats brought about by ethnic strife and religious rivalries. In addition, arguing that improvement in governance and democratization per se do not necessarily address hostilities originating from cultural, racial or religious diversity and hence the insecurity of communities, the paper offers an alternative approach in resolving ethnic tensions.

With the six case studies, this book stands out as a comprehensive survey on the nontraditional security challenges encountered by both Southeast Asian governments and societies. The research emphasizes the need for a strong and effective partnership between the people and the government in fostering a stable, secured and economically fit environment. However, the study seems to discount the youth as a major actor in the present security-development drama. The youth comprise a significant portion of the region’s population and are part of the most vulnerable sectors in society. They are major contributors to development since young people nowadays, especially in Southeast Asia, are already engaged in small-scale enterprises, usually as vendors or dealers if not as undocumented migrants or victims of illegal recruitment. Also, the youth are the most affected by the mismanaged and inadequate development and security measures of governments since it is their generation that will have to endure and suffer from these unhealthy policies. Nevertheless, serving as a bridge to further similar academic undertakings, there is no doubt that this book extends a sense of optimism and confidence that the region can surpass these new exigent realities with the right combination of development strategies and security goals.—Sarah Jane Domingo, Master in Asian Studies student, Asian Center, University of the Philippines-Diliman.