Energy Sabit

Last January 23, I received a note from Department of Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes regarding our participation in today’s Energy Summit. A few days letter we got a copy of the program for the first day. 

Bayan was supposed to give a 5 minute reaction to the inputs of Pilipinas Shell president Ed Chua. This guy is some character. In a recent Senate hearing, he said that lowering oil prices would contribute to global warming. Why? Because people tend to consume more oil if prices are lower. Whaaat?

The ”mamang tsuper” or the ordinary housewife have no intention of doubling their oil consumption when prices go down. Hell, no. All the consumers want is to save some money from gas expenditures so they can buy more food and other requirements.  

Ed Chua goes on to say that one solution he’s offering is for poor people to use better light bulbs. Yes, for those of you reeling from high oil prices, try changing your light bulbs to the more energy efficient ones. Duh? That way what you spend for in high gas prices, you can recover from cheaper electricity. That’s not such a bad proposition, if only the person saying it was NOT A PRESIDENT OF AN OIL COMPANY!

I had wanted to tell these things personally to the Shell president, but unfortunately, we would not be attending the summit because of the way it is organized. Below is our statement.

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) will not be participating in the scheduled Energy Summit called for by the Department of Energy. We acknowledge the invitation personally extended to our organization by DoE Secretary Angelo Reyes and our inclusion in the Summit program on the first day. However, due to the nature, structure and format of the summit, we respectfully decline the invitation of Sec. Reyes.
 
 
The Energy Summit is being funded and directed by big multilateral lending institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank (WB), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the United States Agency for International Aid. The mere involvement of these organizations as program partners of the DoE is already an indicator of the real thrusts of summit.
 
These are the same foreign banks that pushed the Oil Deregulation Law during the 90’s. These are the same lending institutions interested in exploiting the Philippines potential sources of alternative and renewable energy.
 
 
The theme of the summit, “$100/barrel oil, crisis or opportunity”, intends to take advantage of the current oil crisis so that the Arroyo government can make a sales pitch to big foreign investors who are interested in exploiting our country’s energy sources.
The energy summit is one super roadshow presentation to attract foreign investors in the field of renewable and alternative sources of energy. At stake are P177 billion in potential investments in the renewable energy sector.
 
 
The summit aims to create “opportunities” for the big multinational corporations and monopolies in the energy sector as well as the big foreign banks that will finance the projects. Today, the country’s biggest natural gas exploration is jointly controlled by multinationals Shell and Chevron.
The summit aims to create “opportunities” for the Arroyo government, the principal broker of future energy deals. Even before the Summit, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo already boasted in her trip to Davos, Switzerland of the investments opportunities to be created by the summit.
Bayan has taken the position that the country’s energy sources must not be auctioned off to the highest foreign bidder. These energy sources need to be developed to serve national interest to protect the domestic economy from surging oil prices. Surrendering these energy sources to foreign business interests will strategically weaken the energy security of the country and make even renewable energy less affordable.
 
 
The summit will not create “opportunities” for poor consumers. The summit does not appear to be interested or serious in addressing the main issue of high prices. It views the phenomenon of rising fuel prices as a mere given that no government intervention can correct or mitigate.
The main issues being pushed by people’s organizations and consumer groups include the lifting of the VAT on petroleum products, the review and repeal of the Oil Deregulation Law, and the nationalization of the energy sector, including whatever potential renewable energy sources the Philippines has.
 
The main sponsors or partners of the Summit have gone on record in opposing the lifting of the VAT on petroleum products. This is because the VAT revenues from oil enable the Philippine government to pay its loans to the ADB, WB and JICA. The same revenues enable the Philippine government to continue borrowing from the same lending institutions.
 
 
The main partners of the summit are also against any idea of repealing the Oil Deregulation Law or nationalizing the oil and energy industry.
 
 
The format of the Summit is designed to drown calls for direct government intervention to mitigate high oil prices by shifting the attention of public on the issue of investments in renewable and alternative energy.
 

While we support the need to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy, we believe this should be done in the context of nationalization and not foreign monopoly control.
 
 
Bayan is intent on carrying on the fight to lower oil prices through short-term and long-term means. We will continue to work with legislators, the academe, business groups, consumer groups and other stake holders interested in pro-people reforms. ###

Remembering Edsa 2: One youth activist’s view from the streets

January 16 marks the start of a historic period in Philippine history known as the Edsa 2 People Power uprising which culminated in the ouster of then president Joseph Estrada from Malacañang on January 20. The protests started on the evening of January  16 when youth and students and different groups marched to the Edsa Shrine and held a protest program. Dormers from the University of the Philippines Diliman even marched from their school all the way to Edsa, arriving a bit late but just in time to claim their mark in history as among the first to march to Edsa that night.

 

I joined the protest actions on January 16, joining the march of UP students and teachers that some estimate to have reached 15,000 people. We stayed at Edsa till past midnight only to return early the following day.

 

We were part of the Estrada Resign Youth Movement (ERYM) at that time. There was Anakbayan, LFS, NUSP, CEGP, SCM and other student councils and organizations. We were joined by Mon Pagdangangan (may he rest in peace) and China Cojuangco (who hosted some of the meetings at her parents home in Forbes).

 

Our official ride was a passenger jeep from a driver in Sampaloc who lived beside the Anakbayan HQ. Our cell phones could be described as “pangkaskas ng yelo” by today’s standards. And we didn’t really have a lot of resources except for a portable table, some chairs, and a tent we borrowed from some local politician (God bless him). But we had that fire burning in us, the strong desire for change.

 

We had our speakers in the main program. We did our photo-ops, including the memorable brown envelopes at the steps of the Shrine.

 

We got by because of the support of many friends and allies. We had our field HQ at the 17^th floor of some building in Ortigas through the help of some friends. Nope, not Linden Suites (that’s what Gloria used). We held office in a much older building. We could only use it after office hours of course. We had some late meetings at that place.

 

Black was the official protest color. I did hear some stalls in Robinsons’ galleria running out of black clothes, even the more expensive ones. I never did wear black though.

 

I remember a lot “balimbings” at that time, those who withdrew support from Erap at the last minute and went to Edsa. Some of them were booed by the people. Others were prevented from speaking on stage.

 

I spoke before the crowd on the fourth day, it was almost 6am. I was asked to provide some agitation before the march to Mendiola. At that time, not everyone was convinced we had to march to Mendiola, but a good majority was already raring to go. I could tell from the reaction of the crowd during the speech.

 

We already dispatched an advance team of several thousand activists from various sectors to go to Manila to prepare the people for the coming of the main march in the morning of January 20. That was at the dawn of January 20. The main body of the Bayan forces were already in marching formation from the corner of the POEA Edsa and up along Ortigas Avenue. It was a very formidable and solid looking contingent among the different forces assembled at Edsa on that day.

 

The signal to march was given at 6pm. Our forces were ready and in formation and we started moving. Some smaller group I think identified with Roilo Golez wanted to march ahead of everyone else. Some overeagerness I think.

 

It was a loooong march from Edsa, to Shaw, to Sta. Mesa then Nagtahan, then Forbes then Morayta then Recto. Everyone knew it wasn’t wise to go through San Juan.

 

It was still dark when we marched. The sun had not risen. None of us felt tired. The people of Mandaluyong lined up along the streets were giving us water and food.

 

We marched along Recto to Mendiola. The Estrada supporters scampered. We took Mendiola. We held a program on top of a flat-bed truck. We received news Erap left the Palace. In a few hours, Mrs. Arroyo was sworn in at Edsa. Nope, we didn’t go back to Edsa to witnesses the oathtaking. It wasn’t about GMA to begin with. The Mendiola march was the climax for us. Around 75,000 joined that march with started at 6am and ended by noon.

 

After the rally, I remember resting inside a movie house along Recto, watching the Joyce Jimenez-Rica Paralejo flick “Balahibong Pusa”. I slept through most of it. I also discovered I wasn’t the only activist who thought of taking a snooze in the movie house.

 

Some lessons I learned since that time include:

 

1. There’s no single formula for people power. It’s always about the existing conditions at a given time and how subjective forces interact with these conditions. It is difficult to artificially replicate these conditions in the hopes of getting the same results.
2. From its very name “people power”, we can conclude that the only thing constant in these upheavals are the people. The most decisive force is the people. Mass movement ang kailangan, more than anything. The fact that Malacañang is still terrified sh*tless by the mere mention and hint of people power tells us that this is still the most effective weapon in combating tyranny. What irony though that they are terrified by the force that brought them to power in the first place.
3. It was never about Gloria. To those who say that Edsa 2 was about bringing Gloria to power, please, give us a break. It was never about her. She just happened to be the main beneficiary but we sure as hell did not spend four days shouting at Ortigas just so she could be president. Do we regret what we did? NO. But maybe one regret was the lack of a better alternative at that time. Sure, Gloria turned out to be a really bad president but at that time, people had high hopes and were willing to give her the chance to do some good. She blew are her chances.
4. I don’t really subscribe to the theory of people power fatigue. That is a cynical way of trying to explain why the anti-Arroyo forces have failed to muster the people power necessary to replace Arroyo with a better government. There are many problems facing the anti-Arroyo front, but people power fatigue doesn’t even rank high among these problems. There’s the basic problem of unity and struggle within the anti-Arroyo front, the ability to unite on alternatives, the clashing political and economic interests and so on.
5. The Arroyo government will do everything to prevent a repeat of people power, even if this means widespread bloodshed. We have seen it before. It gives us something to ponder on, and prepare for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UP Centennial and my awakening in the “Bastion of Activism”

When the University of the Philippines centennial celebrations kicked off yesterday, I too shared the joy and excitement of many UP alumni. Of course, technically I’m not an alumnus because I never graduated. Like many activists from my batch, I filed a Leave of Absence (LOA), then after a semester, was considered Absent Without Leave (AWOL). I guess I already exceeded the Maximum Residency Rule (MRR). My student number starts with 92 by the way, and nope, I have no regrets with my decision to drop out (but that’s another long story).

 

I remember with great fondness my stay in the UP, the place where I spent the formative years of my activism. It was a difficult time to be an activist in the 90’s, quite complicated really. It was a time when forces from within and outside the university were questioning the activism of UP. The question frequently asked then was “Has UP lost its soul?”, referring to the activist and progressive tradition that the university seemed to have lost. Some simply considered activism dead, a hasty generalization based on the perception that there were so many cars parked on campus, the “rich kids” were believed to be the new majority in the erstwhile “University of the People”.

 

Time and again, UP students, teachers and community folk proved that activism was alive and well, and in some cases, thriving in UP. Thousands of students and workers marched in 1992 to oppose the 50% tuition fee increase that ushered in the P300/unit rate. (In 2007, tuition was pegged at P1,000/unit). Other significant protests include the Black Saturday rally vs the 1993 oath taking ceremony of UP President Emil Javier (the only time since Marcos when water cannons were used on protesters inside the Diliman campus), the stinging defeat of the Commonwealth Property Development Plan, the 1994 support for the striking workers of SM (scores of UP students and community activists were hurt during the strike) and the protests demanding greater state subsidy for education (1999-2000). There’s also the unforgettable evening march of dormers during Edsa 2 (they marched from UP to the Edsa Shrine on the evening of January 15).  

 

Activism didn’t die in the 90’s. It merely tried to reconnect with its roots, find its place in history, come to terms with some harsh lessons and realities, and tried to move on from there. The activist movement of the 90’s did its share and had significant contributions in the peoples’ struggle.

 

Let me just say that having lots of parked cars at AS didn’t necessarily make the students inherently apathetic. The perceived “apathy” (e.g. students would rather be at the tambayan than join a rally) is partly the fault of the organized activists themselves who probably did not spend much time interacting with the general student population. Blaming the so-called “rich kids” merely fostered a cynical mindset even among the activists.

 

And it wasn’t even an entirely accurate statement to say that the “rich kids” were the majority (that’s what the administration would also say when it tried to justify tuition increases.) I believe that during our time, UP was predominantly middle-class (from lower, middle and upper middle), many coming from private schools, with still a significant number from public schools. Of course there were well off students too during our time, but wasn’t it the same in the 70’s and 80’s? Some of those so-called “rich kids” even ended up going to the mountains to fight for social change.

 

I won’t deny that we had to adapt to actual conditions to be more effective in our work. We needed to be more sensitive to the needs and sentiments of the students. There were some weaknesses on the part of the organized activists. It took some time before these were resolved. We lost a great number of student council elections during that period. There’s some truth in the assertion that some forms of protest and conscientization needed to be more creative (to be able to communicate better to the students), but this shouldn’t mean abandoning militant forms (rallies, marches and demonstrations) which were ultimately the decisive forms of struggle. Being creative shouldn’t mean being reformist or compromising.

 

I remember some folks pounding the point that we have to change the forms of struggle, to be more creative, to “adapt to the changing times.” What they were actually advocating was a change in the way we viewed our times, a change in our analysis of society and the means to change society for the better.

 

More than a decade after that debate, it is plain to see that society hasn’t improved much, being worse now than it was before. Every day under the Arroyo regime seems to affirm the need for collective and militant struggle. Yup, we still need creative forms and means to ignite the people but at the end of the day, militant mass movement pa rin ang kailangan. That much I have learned and to continue to reaffirm.

 

I also learned that the UP student movement was most potent and relevant when it was linked with the people’s movement and struggle. That’s when it made its distinct mark in history. That’s when the UP student movement truly mattered. If UP students didn’t link up with the people, society wouldn’t have cared if we marched and shouted till our lungs collapsed. We would have been looked on as a bunch of self-serving, spoiled brats with annoying tantrums.

 

So what about UP as a bastion of activism? I think this can be attributed to several related factors.  It’s important to note that the university as an institution is still generally pro-status quo. It’s not about to turn the tatsulok  upside down . It is not a revolutionary or radical institution (though some will argue that it is still relatively liberal or progressive compared to many higher learning institutions). Despite these limitations, there are some conditions in the university that allow activism to grow, which is a good thing. For example, there’s something progressive and positive in principles such as academic freedom that allow students and teachers to be critical and pursue activism. The UP may not be a radical institution but it does have radical students and teachers who use the limited space to propagate radical ideas that get amplified in and out of the university.

 

The above point is important because the university doesn’t operate in a social vacuum. The community is still affected by issues such as poverty, lack of government budget, repression, foreign domination and many other issues that can radicalize people. (The issue that made me join LFS was the tuition increase of 1992). They see that their problems in the university are also linked with the problems of society. Students and teachers cannot escape these social realities and so they create venues to articulate and resolve these issues. They discuss, organize and hold demonstrations to air their grievances. They aspire and struggle for change within and outside the confines of the university.

 

Activism is not really inherent in the orientation of the university (contrary to what many scared parents believe, hehe), but due to existing social contradictions (a nation in crisis), and because of some positive conditions that can be found in UP as a learning institution, and because of the efforts of generations of activists before us, UP has come to be known as a “bastion of activism”. Surely, it didn’t happen overnight.

 

We pay tribute and give just recognition to the many activists before us, those who rallied and mobilize during the early years of the university, during the period of war and colonial occupations, during the period of conservatism and McCarthyism, during the First Quarter Storm and the years spent resisting martial law, during the two people power uprisings, and up to the present.

 

Activist or not, I believe most UP students are still proud of this legacy and distinction. (Heck, you can see it even during the UAAP games.) It’s something that is definitely worth celebrating as part of the 100-year history of UP.

More Memorable Moments in the Mass Movement 2007

Here are more memorable moments in the mass movement which should serve to inspire us to do greater deeds in this the Year of the Rat, 2008.

1. The arrest and detention of Prof. Jose Ma. Sison and the ransacking of the houses and offices of activists in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This incident gave rise to a flurry of protest actions here and abroad. One protest in the Dutch embassy in Makati was violently dispersed. We came back a few days later, a bigger rally, armed with a permit from City Hall, and staged the protest in right in front of the Dutch embassy. Joma was later released since the cases filed against him were really weak and unsupported by evidence.

2. Thousands of students walk out of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines to protest a new tuition increase. Though not widely covered by media, this one should be memorable enough for many student activists. The planned tuition hike was stopped.

3. The October 30 Halloween protest at Timog Circle. We haven’t done a lot of these costumed protests recently, but this one may have well been the most colorful prop-action for the year since everyone wore costumes. Very creative ones too. Another broad effort calling for GMA to be scared out of Malacañang. One protester had an axe buried at his back, a reference to extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

4. Langis-tik Man. In one protest against the oil price increases, the mascot Langis-tik Man showed up, complete with green-checkered costume and elongated arms. Photographers are now asking if there will be a “Kamandag” version of this mascot.

5. Any protest that used paper bags and play money – The protest symbol towards the end of 2007 was the paper bag, an obvious reference to the bags used to pay off congressmen and governors in Malacañang at the height of the ZTE broadband scandal and efforts to impeach Mrs. Arroyo.

6. Baywalk protest action – Attended by a broad array of anti-Arroyo forces, the Interfaith Assembly at the Baywalk in Manila on December 14 was the first of its kind to be held in that part of the city. A beautiful sunset was the backdrop of action which was attended by religious leaders and various citizens groups.

One year of not smoking

 

January 1, 2008 marks one year since I stopped smoking.

 

That’s 365 days of not lighting a cigarette and inhaling nicotine.

 

I’m pretty proud of this accomplishment. For those of you trying to find worthwhile New Year’s Resolutions, here’s something that might help.

 

To quit smoking, I had to do the following:

 

1. Look for a material incentive to stop smoking. Nothing beats the notion of getting a reward after a difficult challenge. If  I can stop smoking for a year, I get a reward. In my case, it was a musical instrument. I still don’t know if I will ever get the reward though, but after doing the deed, the reward seems secondary now. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m not expecting to get a reward anymore. I’m just saying it’s secondary now.

2. Make it a moral issue. I made a deal with a friend who lives half way around the globe. The person has no way of checking if I actually stopped smoking and did not cheat for one whole year. Of course it would be immoral for me to actually claim a reward if all this time I was cheating. So this shifts the burden on me, to actually not cheat. It would be no fun, and morally wrong, to get something that I didn’t deserve.

3. Announce it. It’s great to know that everyone is looking if you’ll succeed or not. If you smoke, you’ll be the butt of jokes, so to speak. It will mean weakness on your part.

4. Quit cold turkey. If you really want to quit, it should be abrupt. No transitions, no compromises. Just stop.

5. Stop thinking that you need to smoke. What really helped me was that I convinced myself that I really didn’t need to smoke. After hurdling the “needing”, I felt ok and relaxed. Not even the tension filled moments of work (and believe me it gets really tense) made me want or need to smoke.

 

The first three days of not smoking will have some side effects. There’s a withdrawal phase. You kinda get sick, expel a whole lotta phlegm, feel like having a fever, all sorts of stuff. After the first week, you’ll feel better. Just stop thinking that you need to smoke. Also, I worked out some after I stopped smoking. I started running, jogging. Running makes you not want to smoke. It’s a good antidote.

 

Finally, I keep remembering the last time I got arrested during a rally, in 2004, in Plaza Miranda. At that time, I seemed to be catching my breath while running. I remember a lot of folks passing me by during the violent dispersal. I felt slow, not in great condition. That by itself was another motivation to stop smoking. hehe