Recently, we heard a popular broadcast commentator chide a lawyer-spokesperson of European pressure group Greenpeace . The commentator was apparently disappointed over the absence of any Greenpeace action as alleged Chinese boats engage in the wanton destruction of marine life in disputed portions of the West Philippine sea.
Where are the ships of Greenpeace, the commentator asked the lawyer-spokesperson. He was apparently referring to the famous image of a tiny boat named “Greenpeace” stopping a large sea vessel in a confrontation over environmental issues.
The Greenpeace lawyer-spokesperson could only manage a giggle in response to the question.
The broadcaster, in subtle dismay, could only conclude that the days when Greenpeace stood for real environmental issues against real enemies of nature are now bygones.
In fairness to Greenpeace, to its Philippine operatives in particular, a confrontation with China over the rape of the sea may not be a priority.
Instead, its present priority appears to be its confrontation with Filipino scientists who are doing research on the use of biotechnology in agriculture.
Business ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
If Greenpeace operatives are not confronting China in the West Philippine sea, it is because they are in a confrontation with Filipino scientists and farmers at the Supreme Court.
If Greenpeace activists are not stopping the rape of precious marine life, it is because they are more interested today in stopping Filipino scientists from completing field trials for a biotech eggplant variety.
The other priority is stopping Filipino farmers from planting crop varieties that are naturally pest-resistant and do not require the massive application of chemical pesticide.
Why has this apparently become Greenpeace’s priority?
Some observers say a Greenpeace victory against Filipinos using our own judicial system will send powerful signals worldwide that it still has what it takes to make peoples and governments toe the line.
Others say stopping the growth of modern agriculture biotechnology in the country would be a step towards victory in other countries.
Finally, there are some who say that Greenpeace may not have the appetite for a confrontation with forces from China. These guys are capable of shooting live bullets. Our scientists and farmers, on the other hand, can only manage a whimper in the face of Greenpeace’s unrelenting campaign against their biotechnology initiatives.
Greenpeace won over our scientists and farmers when the biotech war was raging before the Court of Appeals. That win must have given them a very high level of confidence that the Supreme Court battle would be a walk in the park.
Greenpeace must have some solid basis for its confidence. After all, it has reputable lawyers backing its bid to defeat the aspiration of our scientists and farmers in the case now before the SC.
We can only salute Greenpeace. It knows how to fight its wars. It knows how to win.
And it knows that the war and the win is definitely not in the West Philippine Sea where the enemy is real.
Distorted gov’t rules
Harvard University economist Robert Barro estimates that even in a best-case scenario, $1 of government spending will generate between $0.40 and $0.70 of economic growth, which is much less than the amount of growth generated by a dollar that is invested in the private sector. Moreover, if that $1 of government spending has previously been taxed, then the overall effect of that spending is a destruction of $1.10 of economic growth (discoverthe networks.org)
There is therefore no doubt that if our government wants to spur economic growth, it must put in place policies that encourage rather than deter private investments.
Recent actions of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and other government agencies that seem to favor certain private groups are sending the wrong signals not only to our very own private sector, but also to the international community as well.
Take the case of the construction of the common station that would interconnect LRT Line 1, MRT 3, and MRT 7.
SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (SMPHI) has sought a court order against the DOTC and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) for backpedalling on a memorandum of agreement signed in 2009 for the construction of the common station at SM North EDSA. The DOTC wants the common light railway station placed next to the Ayala-owned TriNoma mall in Quezon City.
SMPHI on June 3 filed a petition for injunction before the Pasay City RTC, asking the court to order the DOTC and the LRTA to honor the provisions of the 2009 MOA wherein LRTA agreed to interconnect the proposed common station in front of SM North and name the station after the mall in exchange for a P200 million grant from the company.
An announcement by DOTC as to the relocation of the common station next to TriNoma, claiming costs savings, among other reasons, came as a mystery considering that the SM North Edsa project was duly approved by the NEDA-ICC as a priority infrastructure project in 2007 being part of the national government’s medium-term plan.
The DOTC claimed that the common station was just a mere component of the LRT Line 1 Extension project from Baclaran to Cavite. But how can that common station project which is located in the northern part of Metro Manila be considered part of another project, which is on the southern tip of the metropolis? Those projects are on opposite sides.
Looking at the original invitation to bid for the LRT Line 1 project, there was no mention about maintenance, operation and construction of the common station located in North Edsa. When it was originally bid out, only one bidder participated.
Prior to the second bid, however, provisions for the maintenance, operation and construction of the North Edsa common station were suddenly inserted in clear violation of bidding laws for lack of proper notice and invitation to bid. The insertion mandated that the common station be located in front of Trinoma and no longer in the original location in front of SM North Edsa. The inserted provisions also provide a 70 percent share of the cost for the construction of the common station to be shouldered and effectively subsidized by LRTA and DOTC which clearly gives undue advantage to the concessionaire and prejudicial to the government.
Observers note that the inserted provisions on the common station, especially the mandated location, appears to have been ‘tailor-made’ for Ayala Corp. In addition to reaping the benefits from the operation of the integrated system of LRT Line 1 (including the Cavite extension), the strategic location of the common station will most probably result in higher foot traffic for Ayala’s mall – Trinoma.
Next case in point is that of the CALAX project, which involves the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a four-lane, 47-kilometer closed-system toll expressway connecting the Cavite Expressway and the Southern Luzon Expressway.
Team Orion, the joint venture company of Ayala Corp. and Aboitiz Equity Ventures, has won the bidding for the P34.5-billion Cavite-Laguna Expressway (CALAX) project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) after submitting the highest bid of P11.65 billion, beating the P11.33 billion offer of MPCALA Holdings, a unit of Metro Pacific Investments Corp, and the P922 million offer of Malaysian group MTD Capital Berhad.
Optimal Infrastructure Development Inc., a unit of San Miguel Corp., offered the highest bid at P20.105 billion but was disqualified after Optimal’s bid security expiration date was found short of the requirement.
According to SMC, its bid documents explicitly state that the bid bond is effective for the required 180 days until November 29 and confirmed by ANZ, the issuing bank, for the bid security.
If government wants minor technicalities to be the basis of disqualifications, then it should apply the same rules to other bids as wll.
In the first PPP bidding of the 4-km Daang Hari project, the Ayala group is said to have submitted multiple drawings, when the bidding rules only allowed for one submission. This is not allowed in the bidding rules, but was accepted by the DPWH. Ayala was allowed to proceed with the financial bid opening and outbid its nearest competitor.
Then of course, there is the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) which has sued Bob Sobrepena’s group for non-payment of rentals at John Hay when all the group wants is for government to deliver on its commitments.
Malacañang has likewise withheld action with regard to the award to the Metro Pacific group of the contract to maintain and operate the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) and has instead opted to renew (again) the interim maintenance contract of Metro Pacific unit Toll Management Corp. (TMC).
Metro Pacific was ready to spend billions to seamlessly interconnect NLEX with SCTEX, and to upgrade the latter. But nobody seems to know why Malacanang would rather not act on the contract which has been amended several times to improve government’s take from the project and to reduce its burden in paying for the Japanese loan used to build the tollroad.
Is it simple shortsightedness on the part of our government? Or are our public leaders simply implementing a cleverly designed plan leading to the 2016 elections?
Either way, government is stifling private sector spending (SMC was willing to spend P8 billion more than Ayala for Calax) and this is going to toll heavily on the economy
‘For comments, email at philstarhiddenagenda@yahoo.com
