Of Chinese, racism, and smiling

Filipino street protest against China [Photo source: Los Angeles Times]

By JoeAm

I was sitting in the restaurant. Four Chinese women in their early thirties, I would guess, came in and asked the Filipina waitress for guidance on the menu. These were not the loud, overbearing Chinese who sat next to us at the Waterfront Casino buffet the last time we were in Cebu. “Those rude Cantonese!” I muttered, recalling the opinion of my first ex-wife who was Singaporean Chinese, parental heritage both Szechuan and communist.

The Chinese have plenty of stereotypes amongst themselves.

The four women and the waitress had a friendly and straightforward discussion, and lunch was quickly ordered.

It struck me that there are a whole lot of Chinese who are just like us, out living life with respect and style, with humor, and without judgment.

The rude acts of a few ought not be assigned to them, nor the acts of their overbearing government.

It is hard not to slip easily into bigotry.

Well, I don’t like a lot of whites, either, who are as overbearing as anyone on the planet. That’s why I keep to myself in the Philippines. I don’t share the harsh and easy judgments of a lot of outsiders here and would rather do my own self-discovery.

It has its amusements . . . like the waitress looking at me with some silent judgment, perhaps wanting to protect me from myself as I ordered up the sizzling pork belly, which was basically a platter of tender, tasty pork fat and salty skin that was absolutely delicious. I quickly put the restaurant on the top of my “to return” scorecard and remembered to take my blood pressure medication upon returning to the hotel.

The Philippines under Chinese authority might actually progress progressively if it weren’t for the corrupt, authoritarian ways of the government there that stacks people according to some bigotry-chart of human worth, including blatant racial and religious discrimination. Much as the Duterte government does, in fact.

If I were in the Senate, I’d concoct a bill that assures racial harmony by outlawing rude and disrespectful behavior by anyone toward anyone. Well, that’s so naively idealistic, isn’t it, considering that the Senate is packed with rude and disrespectful people who clearly favor their favorites over everyday Filipinos. And police and security guards who would be empowered to enforce the law are probably not masters of respect and sensitivity themselves. Although I have discovered that if I smile at them, they invariably smile back.

Odd how that works.

Maybe we just need a whole lot more smiles, fewer harsh and easy judgments, and forget the silly laws.


171 Responses to “Of Chinese, racism, and smiling”
  1. NHerrera says:

    It is not true what has been believed by some — that a smile uses less muscles than a frown. This, a result of my googling.

    But if an honest smile makes one feel good, well and good. But there is something wrong with the picture. The problem is everyone hereabouts smile. But there is a whale of difference between a smile of a vendor selling candied fried banana and the smile of that dandy Panelo. But wait; is that a smile we see on Panelo?

  2. karlgarcia says:

    Re: Senate Bill for Racisl Harmony.
    It could be inserted if not yet included in the anti-discrimination bill.

  3. karlgarcia says:

    After. Duterte’s term, can he be arrested for catcalling and harassment even if not done in the streets but Live TV?


    Senate passes measure penalizing catcalling, street-based sexual harassment

    The Senate, with a vote of 21 senators present, on Monday passed on third and final reading a measure that would penalize with fines cat-calling, stalking, cursing, making body gestures or exposing private parts, among others.

  4. edgar lores says:

    A fresh breeze.

  5. tebs c says:

    I surely agree with the “more smiles” effort ☺️

    Sent from my iPhone


  6. Bikol Joe says:

    Thank you, Andy Rooney 🙂

  7. Partly OT: Mainland China may not care..

    Uigurs are very friendly people, but the system wants to destroy their identity – be warned:

    • Glad you recovered. I notice a lot of news these days is delivered by video. I hate the stuff because I can’t easily speed read to the juicy stuff.

      Yes, China may not care.

    • NHerrera says:

      I did not know you were not 100 percent up to it lately, Irineo, if I interpret Joe’s words correctly. I join him in wishing you your usual vigor.

      • He overdosed from watching too many videos is all, he is hale and hearty as far as I know.

        • NHerrera says:

          Good news about Irineo then.

          But like you, in your note somewhere in the blog, I am not too keen watching the time consuming video news — I would rather have the text version. But we are old school. Trump is new school. Sen. Lapid for that matter is also new school. 🙂

    • NHerrera says:

      Irineo, you know this bit more, from the PH history: the spanization of Filipino names during the Spanish Era. The chinesization of Filipino names may be coming? Why not, I can imagine the Chief Comedian in the Senate agreeing. 🙂

    • sonny says:

      Zheng He was Uyghur and probably a Hajj. (Be well, Irineo)

  8. NHerrera says:


    Trump ordered a display of military strength or hardware in tomorrow’s US July 4 celebration mimicking what his authoritarian friends — Putin, Xi, KJU — do in their countries.

    Retired four-star US Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said of this planned July 4 celebration: “Tanks, planes, they are things, they are not the sinew of the nation.” He added: that the US armed forces proved their prowess on the battlefield. They are the real sinews of the nation’s military strength.

    Word association — Sinew. Newly minted Sen Go sponsors the bill to reimpose the death penalty. His version of enhancing the sinew of the country. Small Mind. I would suggest a Genuine Smile Bill to be the better one to sponsor.

    • Yes, indeed!

      The US is going bonkers under Trump. I hardly recognize the place.

      • sonny says:

        “… US is going bonkers under trump … I hardly recognize the place.”

        Arcane metaphor, Joe:

        Leaders as catalysts of change:

        Chemical catalysts are employed to help chem reactants form new chemical products. Catalysts are of three kinds: a) those that participate in the chemical reactions i.e. are consumed by the reaction and become part of the new products; b) those that enable otherwise non-reactive chemicals to interact; the catalyst itself does not participate in the resulting reaction and remains unchanged; c) the third kind of catalyst poisons (stops) the chemical reaction dead on its tracts and effects no formation of new products.

        I wonder which categories our leaders belong to. 🙂

  9. popoy says:

    I read with awe the eche bucheche of modern patriots from US press and local officials for July 4th Celebration in DC. I know what to write but I won’t. Let the links and the news do it loud and clear to
    to those who sings land of the free and home of the brave . . .


    • popoy says:

      Okay, comment and criticize that NOT ONE of the Generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Military is attending the POTUS July Fourth celebration.

      I click my heels and say the Kanos are NOT STUPID to give anyone a chance to decimate all members of COSs in one place and at one time. A valiant leader whether a country or a person for no reason is not sex sick to expose his canon or balls to the general public.

      • Good to know. To me the 4th is a barbecue with family and friends, a local parade, and fireworks. Tanks and troops are simply there to pad the President’s insatiable ego. Wrong kind of patriotism.

  10. edgar lores says:

    Irineo, thanks. Very interesting and harrowing. Big Brother realized.

    • Welcome. Actually just these 30 minutes were enough to give me the chills. Add to that the pattern of lies and evasion in the present Philippines and you know where things might be going. Social credit scores? Think Carpio and Morales denied entry into Hongkong. But I guess the pro-Digong crowd still hope to live like the nouveau riches in Shanghai.

  11. karlgarcia says:

    Me too, I did not know you were sick. I am just glad you recovered.

  12. NHerrera says:


    Ah, the Filipino boat at anchor attacked the Chinese boat and then drifted away as the earth spun on its orbit causing the Chinese vessel not to be able to assist the attacking Filipinos who were fully occupied drowning. The Chinese boat had no radar. Fine investigative report.

    Yes, a report after my own heart. The report has gone scientific — the investigators apparently know what is meant by centrifugal force. The only problem is the application of the physics of it. The heavier iron-clad Chinese vessel with a sizeable contingent of militia, er, fishermen should have drifted more, as it happened, because of the centrifugal force.

    Or am I confused with my elementary physics? Help, Professor.

    [The same physics principle used in the enrichment of Uranium 235 in a centrifuge.]

    • Yes, I did another one wondering when the Mad Hatter will arrive to sip tea with the white bunny. It is surreal, this reality.

      • popoy says:

        In English or Foreign Language:

        Shiha, shiha, shiha (shit happens)!!! Shiiihaaa, SHIIIHAAA!

        in Tagalog or Wikang Pambansa:

        Taenang, taenang, taenang (tae nangyari) !!! TAEEENANNNG!

    • popoy says:

      In grade five after learning some elementary science I like during fiestas to eat cotton candy in the poblacion plaza and I watched how it was made. I thought that’s sugar being subjected to centrifugal force not centrifetal force. About water vehicle crashing into another: for a body in motion there is always –stationary or in motion– an opposite force resulting in collision. Uranium versus cranium, I don’t know the difference. My erroneous aged neurons on physics would not know the consequence of splitting atoms.

      Fifteen years before when Vince Carter missed the last second three-point shot which could have won the game for the Raptors, it just bad luck. In the present when Kawhi Leonard made the last second desperate shot and made it after the ball bounced FOUR TIMES on the ring before it went in, fans says the basketball has magnet for the iron ring or just because of pull of gravity. I thought after watching many replays and after fifteen years of divine watching, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AN ACT OF GOD to make the Raptors win AND after 25 years of trying they won the NBA Championship.

      • I learned centripetal force in physics, but not centrifetal. I didn’t take biology, so might have missed something, as you most assuredly are missing my laughter.

        Congratulations to the Raptors in crushing my wife’s favorite team, causing her to mope about the house for a couple of days. Now they are shattered, and her moping has become a kind of discouraged resignation. Of course, my Lakers appear to be emerging from a decade of doldrums, but I dare not speak too excitedly about that around the house.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Kahwi Leonard is now a Laker.

          • Makes the most sense for him. Coming home. Capacity for ‘load management’. Hollywood money.

            • karlgarcia says:

              Correction, Clippers became stronger with Leonard still home.

              • Yes. Big surprise. Fun times at Staples Center, shared by Lakers and Clippers. Leonard told the Clippers, “Get Paul George, and you get me.” The Clippers gave up a lot to get George because they were getting Leonard, too. Bold move by Balmer’s Clippers who are tired of being LA’s second rate team.

        • popoy says:

          On your two paragraphs above, TSoH here’s a lengthy repartee:
          Centri petal is a flower’s petal originating from the centre. Centri fetal sounds like it is fatal to be at the center of controversy.

          My teacher in high school taught us how to pronounce differently p from f, like PACT from FACT, like the usual common usage of a word by ice hockey players puck instead of a man yelling puck the shit, shit haffens. Man, you just packed yourself, in a balikbayan box. .

          In Ateneo grade school the English teacher emphasises the correct pronunciation of the letters “ch”. Don’t say tsarch, say tserch for the word Church. In Pampanga some old folks might still be saying: the eye ouse in the eye ill (the high house in the high hill).

          In the Tanay side of the Luzon Sierra Madre (where I had my farm practice, required because I was a city boy) the Dumagats and other locals pronounce D as R so that David becomes Ravir; big pigeons baluds becomes balur and in Tagalog they will say: “Ravir kunin mo ang sanrok nakasuksuk sa ringring.”

          Fascincia na fo, por (for) ris (this) dabbish (rubbish). Karl, better not for you to learn from me because I am breaching the age of a teacher’s reason.

          • sonny says:

            Ka Popoy, I was bothered by the fact that some kababayans speak English differently than me. The common attribution of this difference was because of difference in the school (teachers/system) one learns English from. After coming to the US, I noticed while using the dictionary that English has 20 ways to pronounce the vowel sounds compared to the 7-odd vowel sounds our regional languages (Malay) use. One can use the same comparison for consonant sounds. So I concluded this must account for the differences in Filipino renderings of their English speech. One friend called this the characteristic ‘accent’ in our English-speaking communication.

    • kasambahay says:

      ow! that hurts. chinese rammers centrifugal forcing a pinoy bangka inertia at resting at night? no wonder po the report sounded obtusedly bilateral, lol! the rammers should have radar on board and they would have found the bangka much earlier at daylight. and with good visibility, collision need not happen.

      ah, methink in all probability the rammers lost their radar during the collision, nabulabog po and thrown at sea. chinese made kasi at substandard, lol!

      anyhow, our fishermen could not have drifted more, the kapitan was unable to pull up the anchor. moored pa rin sila and stuck.

  13. Sup says:

    The Chinese and Filipino fish will smile soon together when they get the free Jim Beam bourbon… 🙂

  14. Andres 2018 says:

    Nin hao,

    1. Almost 2% of the Filipino people are with Chinese ancestry.
    2. Chinese culture have assimilated with the general Filipono culture wayback in Spanish time.
    3. According to history, the Filipino relationship with China flourished because of trade and settlement, as contrast to Spanish and American which were by conquest.
    4. Filipino-Chinese are one of the major players in business and industry here in the Philippines.
    5. Given the Nos 1 to 4 above, a friendlier approach with China is generally accepted.
    6. Current China went overboard by island reclamation and island militarization in the South China Sea, thus, increasing tensions and negative relations with ASEAN neighbors.
    7. China militarization was to ensure control over the area in response with the western militarization in guise of freedom of navigation.
    8. However, China could have militarized the area without violating the Laws of the Sea by limiting their military construction on islands within their jurisdiction. Developing state of the art submarines and ships to patrol the area also in guise of freedom of navigation, just like the US.
    9. China could win her quest of regional power easily if she will be more friendly.
    10. Digong could have better odds with the populace if he will not show submission with China in his speeches and declarations.
    11. The approach of the Philippines towards China should be not as aggressive like Aquino, and not as submissive like Duterte. More on bilateral talks without sacrificing sovereignty and dignity.

    • NHerrera says:

      Nice. I suppose Vietnam has undertaken for itself a nice balance.

      But I have a quibble on characterizing Aquino’s policy as aggressive. If I recall right, the duplicitous actions of China on the WPS especially as it relates to the EEZ of the PH, was a factor in Aquino’s moves especially considering that PH as well as China are party to the UNCLOS.

      • Andres 2018. says:

        Bringing the case on the court against a neighbor is aggressive by nature because it ended up any possibility of bilateral talk. As i see it, Aquino would have been the perfect candidate to do the talk with China as he have no reason or not obligated to submit with China. He should have exhausted all the means to pursue the bilateral talks. And it would have ended with a fair, balance and friendly overall relationship with China.

        • It’s only aggressive to a nation that does not respect law as a road to peace. Obama talked. “We won’t militarize the islands” said Xi. How do you do bilateral when things like that occur?

          • Andres 2018. says:

            Consider the approach of Mahathir or Trong or Widodo, none filed a case, none submitted. All have stand their grounds with bilateral talks and agreements.

            • NHerrera says:

              The 9-dash line is pure fiction. Do a bilateral on the basis of fiction?

              • Andres 2018. says:

                Do a bilateral on the basis of diplomacy.

              • NHerrera says:

                Hahaha. Sorry, Andres, but that reminds me of the brave words of Ren Zhengfei, the founder and CEO of Huawei who said that Huawei will not be used for spying — that he will not turn over Huawei customer data to the Chinese Government when asked. Really? Let us see what diplomacy Ren Zhengfei will use with Xi Jingping.

              • NHerrera says:

                I believe the insertion of TSH’s tweet is reasonable here:

                Bombshell. Huawei has not been candid. Working level has links to the military and security agencies. All Chinese companies are bound by law to act as spies if told to do so.

            • chemrock says:

              China hasn’t encroached into Indonesian and Malaysian seas.

            • And they shoot or sink Chinese ships fishing in their waters. THAT is aggressive. The basic issue is laws. You either agree they are the means to assure understanding and peace, or power is. I’ll put you into the “power” contingent, along with Duterte and Xi, and you can put me into the laws and peace contingent, with Aquino.

              • Andres 2018. says:

                I think i have not expounded well what i meant with “aggressive” in this context. So let me, aggressiveness means the “degree of threat” of any action against China’s interest. Shooting and sinking of Chinese ships fishing on Indonesia’s waters are aggressive, physically aggressive, but the degree of threat that that action brought against China’s claim is not at all or minimum the most. But, look at the aggressiveness or the degree of threat that an international case will bring against China, a big threat, it invalidates the 9 dash line. And the possibility that the Philippines will tap the MDT with the USA in enforcing the said Ruling. This is the aggressiveness that i meant.

              • Ah, nice explanation. I see the point now. But, still, the aggression is caused by China’s concoction of a broad territorial border, so the response is in kind. One aggression begets another.

              • The threat to defend oneself is as little of a threat as to impeach a President.

                Questioning the 9-dash line is the right of any other nation, as that is a very doubtful claim.

        • chemrock says:

          How did you know there were no attempts to talk?

    • I don’t buy 7, agree with 9, and 11 think it is hard not to be firm (different than aggressive; Aquino was firm) when a thief is on your property and won’t leave because there are no police in town.

      • Andres 2018. says:

        7. Freedom of navigation legitimized the presence of a military fleet on someone’s EEZ.

        9. Cool.

        11. I will copy-paste my reply: “Bringing the case on the court against a neighbor is aggressive by nature because it ended up any possibility of bilateral talk. As i see it, Aquino would have been the perfect candidate to do the talk with China as he have no reason or not obligated to submit with China. He should have exhausted all the means to pursue the bilateral talks. And it would have ended with a fair, balance and friendly overall relationship with China.”

        • 7. Military fleets do not extract resources from EEZs and have full right of passage, anywhere, any time. 12 miles is a different story.

          • Andres 2018. says:

            Yes you are correct. But the simple presence of a military fleet or a battle ship from another part of the world means something.

            • karlgarcia says:

              The last time I checked, South East Asia still existed.

            • It means the international waters are free and open to all, under laws that protect the best interest of all.

              • Andres 2018. says:

                Let me say this way, freedom of navigation means freedom for all. A cargo ship that passes through brings cargo. A passenger ship that passes through brings people. What does a battleship that passes through brings with?

              • Yes, well, they have been passing through those seas since World War II, bringing peace.

              • Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning recently was in the Baltic sea.

                What was your ship doing there? Malay namin kung Intsek ka.

              • kasambahay says:

                ireneo, the chinese navy was also in australia, visiting. the chinese marines were shameless! they were in their full uniforms when they raided supermarkets shelves, their droves buying up tons of baby milk formulas, and quickly carting them back off to their ship.

                chinese marines disregarded the rule of only two baby milk formulas allowed per purchase.

                apparently, baby milk formulas produced in china cannot be trusted, contaminated, e.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Firm is better than weak.
          Let us be clear on FONOP.


          We tried the back channel approach, but since that did not work then we went to court.
          It did not work because there were accusations of treason from one end to being a war freak in another end.

        • 11. Multilateral talks of all others with China would be fair. But fair for China means it’s own terms. Making up for the time when the 8 powers stepped all over your empire and controlled Shanghai? Sending shabu to Filipinos to get even for the Opium Wars? Damn how sick China is nowadays.

          • kasambahay says:

            china po strongly prefers bilateral talks with pinas, and strongly favoring of verbal agreement as well. kaso, with verbal agreements, details are lost in the telling and retelling and then there is confusion.

            may language barrier, there is not one yata in duterte’s admin that can speak mandarin, and xi does not speak tagalog. and the interpreter sounded japanese! lol!

            well, duterte’s admin, they can nod, smile and pretend they all understand, too embarrass to ask questions and reveal their ignorance. and xi must have been smiling his mona lisa smile, again.

            at the time duterte entered into verbal agreement with xi, opening up recto bank for the chinese to do their utmost hideous, duterte did not know then where recto bank is located!

            so true, china nowadays is sick and love dealing with buangs.

    • The percentage of Polish people with German ancestry is higher, one thing used to try to destroy the Polish nation in the early 1940s.

      I am wary when some Pinoys say there are two kinds of Filipinos, the dark ones, whaddya call them, Malays, and the Chinese-looking or Intsikin, with a dismissive tone towards the dark. I have witnessed these sort of Filipinos. And similar ones dismissive of Moros, poor..

      The assimilation policies of Hans Frank’s brutal “General Government” in occupied Poland stacked Poles with those of German ancestry on top, “Germanizable” ones as determined by “racial fitness” examinations, “high and low quality” Poles, Jews, Gypsies.

      What about Philippines, are social credit scores next with Chinoys, especially those who are pro-China, scoring highest, Moros, Lumads, fishermen and urban poor lowest? Anti-China Chinoys, yellows etc. singled out for reeducation, singing “I love China” to get food?

      But maybe it will be a paradise for some, but a place just ruled by order and money, zero soul. Well all except Nancy Binay can use Gluta..

  15. caliphman says:

    The reason China is desperate to avoid a multilateral and prefers a bilateral approach to settling maritime and territorial disputes is it does not want to be bound by international laws that apply to everyone including itself. On one hand, China seeks to portray to the world and other nations as a law abiding member of the global community who can be trusted to adhere to established conventions and agreements that it ratifiied abd signed. This image and reputation has been essential in the expansion of its trade, commerce, and political influence with the rest of the world. It is now caught in a bind ever since its strategic priorities have shifted to portaying to the world and ,more importantly, to its public and political elite that China has emerged willing to flex its economic and military might to primarily advance its own objectives. To its regret, its relatively 9Dash claim is completely in violation of the concept and provisions of the UNCLOS agreement which was laid out many decades ago which it has signed and committed to being bound by.

    That it is now increasingly perceived as international outlaw and a powerfiul bully who is ready to dispense with established iternational agreements, treaties, and legalities in order that in can extract its maximum benefit through one-on-one talks. A multilateral agreement would be detrimental to its strategy of negotiating a case by case arrangement that would conform to the specifics of the dispute and country in question, which is precisely why China is brazenly flaunting the UNCLOS agreement or any other law that would hinder seizing its territorial claims.

    • Andres 2018. says:

      The UNCLOS, first thing, suggest that any dispute should be settled by peaceful means as agreed by the parties involve. That is, exhausting first any bilateral, regional and general agreements available thereon. And if there was no settlement after that, then arbitration.

      Notice that arbitration was the last course of action. Things should have gone this way, first, Philippines and China bilateral talks. Second, ASEAN and China bilateral talks (multilateral since ASEAN is composed of many countries). Third, ASEAN and China with Japan or any country that have an indirect issues with South China Sea. Then the arbitration. That is, if the problem was settled in the “first” approach, there is no more need for the “second” or the “third.”

      • caliphman says:

        When China uses its overwhelming military might to threaten and expel outgunned Filipino cutters and defenseless fishermen from their own EEZ in clear violation of UNCLOS, that cannot be considered peaceful by any stretch of the imagination. When China agreed to ratified UNCLOS as international law they would be bound by, they gave up claims of sovereignity to adjoining waters and seas including save any territorial waters and EEZ’s surrounding its land mass. This includes China’s unsubstantiated 9Dash claim on the vast expanse of ocean including the EEZ’s of other nations it agreed to recognize and respect. There is no dispute when a felon violates clearly established law and seizes by force what he is legally not entitled to. To argue now that felon can justify breaking the law because the victim who has a gun pointed at his head protested in a judicial venue his forced eviction instead of first pleading with the perpetrator would be thrown out in any court.

        • Andres 2018. says:

          Giving up rights and ownership on the waters outside of the country’s EEZ, making it as international waters, is indeed the best solution out there. However, thats not easy. Vietnam, Philippines, China and Taiwan claimed and occupied islands outside of their EEZ, see the Spratlys Group of Island. Looking at it, the situation is very complicated. With that, the mentioned countries are all guilty. And that, basically a dispute. By following the EEZ rule, those countries should dismantle everything out of those islands and rocks. But will they? No they won’t, thats why an agreement between ASEAN and China should be done already.

          • caliphman says:

            Thats what the Arvitral ruling is all abour if you read it closely. Rocks that are submerged at high tide are not lconferred egal rights ts to its own EEZ. That applies to Scarborough. UNCLOS is about sovereignty and rights overs seas and not about rocks or islands.

  16. popoy says:

    I need to be told or should consult word experts. Invasion vis-à-vis aggression, a neighbor trespass against another’s property who went to court. The latter is aggressive and not diplomatic, because he did not negotiate with the trespasser. A neighbor goes poaching on the property of another and got shot, but there was no blaming or demands for negotiation. Invasion should not be met with aggression but with diplomacy. A girl assaulted by a sex offender should not be aggressive but should talk about it with the offender. Can words be made to support insidious wrong righteousness?

    • Andres 2018. says:

      Let me say this, any analogy use to shed light on the South China Sea issue will mostly lead to a wrong conclusion. Why? Let me point out, in your analogy of the trespassing, you labeled the place being trespass us “another’s property.” In the South China Sea issue between PH and China, this “another’s property” specifically stands for the “Scarborough Shoal.” However, Scarborough Shoal is not with the same context as another’s property. A property means that you have an ownership and right over it, that you may kick anyone trespassing your property, that you may close that area and make sure that no one can enter it, and if you go to court, the court will immediately agree with your actions. Scarborough Shoal is not like that. Scarborough Shoal is an EEZ of the Philippines whom Chinese and Vietnamese do fishing on that area by tradition. This is why, i suggest that in discussing issues like this, analogy should be avoided as this issue is “unique” by itself.

      • caliphman says:

        The UNCLOS provisions are very specific that any exception to fishing rights being granted exclusively to the country with the EEZ is conditioned to catch that is in excess of what its fishermen cannot use. Moreover it is also conditioned that such exceptions are in accordance with that country’s local laws. The Philippine constitution and its fishing laws reserve fishing rights within its EEZ exclusively for Filipinos.

        • Andres 2018. says:

          You are correct. To add, UNCLOS also consider the concept of traditional fishing grounds, that if other state’s fishermen are, by tradition, known to fish on that area, the state whom the fishing rights was granted should consider that tradition also.

          • caliphman says:

            Yes it can consider that tradition but it is an exception subject to the above conditions and with the acquiesence of the countey whose EEZ it is. That is a UNCLOS provision and as mentioned above, it is unlawful under Philippine law to cede EEZ fishing rights unless that is amended.

            • Andres 2018 says:

              I agree, for the Philippines to cede its fishing rights is unconstitutional. But allowing the fishermen of other states to fish on some area of PH EEZ who were long been known as traditional fishing grounds is in accordance with UNCLOS.

              Of course, fishermen from other states should abide by the rules set by the fishing laws of the Philippines, this is the condition that the UNCLOS meant to limit the traditional fishing ground concept, not that you will not allow them because the constitution says which destroy entirely the purpose of traditional fishing ground.

  17. caliphman says:

    We already covered that ground. There is a section on traditional fishing grounds in the UNCLOS provisipool ns you might want to read closely. The exception of traditional fishing grounds are do not supercede the exclusivity of the EEZ country’s fishing rights. Any claim of exception is conditional to the available excess catch and compliance with host country law conditions. To overcome the constitutional ban on EEZ rights would probably require a Supreme Court ruling otherwise the guest fishermen would be poaching under the most recent UNCLOS convention.

    • Andres 2018. says:

      In the PH-China Arbitration, why is that the position of the Philippines in Scarborough Shoal was that China violated the traditional fishing rights of the Philippines when China prevented the Philippine fishermen from fishing there on?

      The Philippines could have submit a position that states that China violated the exclusive economic rights of the Philippines while Chinese fishermen are fishing there on. But the Philippines have not submitted such position.

      The Philippines could have fight for its Exclusive Economic Rights rather than its Traditional Fishing Rights, but the Philippines chose the latter. This baffles me.

  18. caliphman says:

    Incidentally, thats why it was crucial that a Duterte-Xi fishing agreement in Philippine EEZ waters be documented in writing in order to be considered legal under UNCLOS if questionable under the constitution.

    • Andres 2018. says:

      Yes, it should be documented, and should limit only to fishing rights, documentation is needed for an agreement. The oil in our seabeds and subsoils is of course ours. And also, does the president have the power to enter into such agreement without the prior consent of the house?

  19. karlgarcia says:

    I learnt a lot again.
    The presentation is about Traditional Fishing grounds.

    Click to access dyspriani_1011_Indonesia_PPT.pdf

    • popoy says:

      Wow, is that a stupid question I asked that generated many intelligent answers? Wow again, based on an erroneous analogy and correct misinterpretation China with so many mouths, more than a billion to feed, can and may be do it also, replicate it with humane concern and finesse to all or any country in similar oceanic situations in the free world like France, UK, and Australia? Should not Philippines with 110 million mouths to feed do the same and expect diplomacy in response? A stupid question indeed because of differences capability, in intent and purpose.

      Where applicable under the same fishing sea situation will China do it to NOKOR, Iran, Russia etc and the rest of the socialist world and anticipate to expect diplomacy? Isn’t it like discussing 1 USD equals 52 pesos, isn’t it crazy to liken the issue into a budget of 52 billion pesos is peanuts because the budget is only 1 billion USD. Ah, the mind flies and soars to the heights of inclination and motivation.

    • karlgarcia says:

      I mean traditional fishing rights.

  20. caliphman says:

    Andres, I do not know if the Philippines did take that position at the Arbitral as my focus was on the final decision. The ownership of the atoll itself is disputed by both countries and it is the fishing rights inside the lagoon and 12 miles around it which would be part of its territorial waters. The UNCLOS and Arbitral addressed the issue if the atoll creates its own EEZ which would overlap the one extending from Luzon. The decision was no so it did not matter if the atoll was owned by China or not. I suspect that since sovereignity over the atoll and consequently its territorial waters was not going to be legally resolved, the concept of traditional fishing grounds might have become the primary basis for legally arguing that Filipino fishermen should be able to fish inside the lagoon.

    As it ended up, Chinese navy and coast guard vessels were used to keep Filipino fishermen away from the fish rich lagoon waters showing its policy of using might whenever its legal right is in question.

    • Andres 2018 says:

      Yes it was the submission of the Philippines. Which the Court did favored, stating that China unlawfully prevented the Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing activities in Scarborough.

      Thats my point through out, that an EEZ can be shared to other states by the virtue of traditional fishing ground alone without the need of the determination of fishing capacity, allowable catch and surplus catch. As we all know that Scarborough Shoal and its territorial seas are within our EEZ.

      On the other hand, if we follow the Constitution that says that the enjoyment of the marine life in our territorial seas, archipelagic waters, and EEZ are exclusive to Filipinos, then opting to fight for traditional fishing rights rather than exclusive economic rights is a violation of the Constitution. Then this lead me into a conclusion that in dealing with its citizens and territories, the Constitution may be absoulte, but in dealing with foreign relations it is not. Philippines may go a bit outside of the Constitution for the sake of diplomatic relations.

      • Micha says:

        “Philippines may go a bit outside of the Constitution for the sake of diplomatic relations.”

        Giving permission to a foreign entity to take resources from your recognized exclusive territory is not conducting diplomatic relations, especially if said resources are in short supply and considered staple food requirement of your own people.

        The failure of a chief executive to protect the interests and security of your own population against a hostile or aggressive intruder is called treason and cowardice.

        • Andres 2018 says:

          What is your thought of “traditional fishing rights”?

          • Micha says:

            Said territory had been defined and recognized by an international arbitration body. Exclusivity trumps tradition in this case. Otherwise, why bother calling it exclusive?

            • Andres 2018 says:

              As already mentioned in my other comments, with respect to Scarborough Shoal, why did the Arbitration affirmed the Philippine submission that China violated the Philippine traditional fishing rights in the Scarborough which the Arbitration could rule that the area is exclusive to the Philippines as the Scarborough Shoal is within PH EEZ?

              • Micha says:

                I haven’t read the details of the ruling. My concern is that you seem to be implying that since it was only traditional rights that was affirmed by UNCLOS then we can be more lenient or accommodating of foreign intruders, specifically China.

                Is that what you’re saying?

              • caliphman says:


                Andres, I have no idea where you got the notion that there was a PhilippIne submissook n to the Arbitral court complaining that its traditional fishing rights were denied by China at Scatborough shoal. The Philippines had 15 submissions 7 of which the Arbiral ruling came out in favor off. All of this had nothing to do with tradiitional fishing rights but sought clarification on what UNCLOS marine rights were applicable to vsrious rocks and outcroppings claimed by China.

                Furthermore you keep insisting that traditional fishing tight rights prevail over EEZ exclusivity righs which is simply false. I do not know how to make this point any clearer than what I have already stated in my earlier comments above. Either you paste links to authoritative articles subtantiating these false and misleading statements or pethaps put furthet study on what the Arbitral ruling was all about.

              • Andres 2018 says:


                The UNCLOS advocate settlement of disputes in a peaceful manner as agreed by parties thereto. Nothing in UNCLOS prohibits the parties to enter any agreement outside of what the UNCLOS provides. If allowing foreign fishermen on our EEZ would mean a more peaceful South China Sea situation, then why not? I just want to let you know that “exclusive” in EEZ does not mean absolutely exclusive as there where exemptions. Caliphman agrees that exemption thereto is a “conditonal” exemption of surplus on allowable catch. Mine includes traditonal fishing rights.

              • Andres 2018 says:


                Its the Philippine Submission No. 10

                “premised on the fact that China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from carrying out traditional fishing activities within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal.”

              • NHerrera says:

                Andres, I believe your further comments may be strengthened if you consider consider the suggestion in the last paragraph of

                caliphman on July 6, 2019 at 12:22 pm,

                otherwise, I am afraid you may be labelled as parroting the China line or at least labelled as clutching at straws to support your argument.

              • Andres 2018 says:


                For the traditional fishing rights

                UNCLOS Article 51, Paragraph 1:

                “Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect
                existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters.”

              • Micha says:


                To be clear, whose traditional rights are you referring to here in support of your specific contention,?

              • caliphman says:

                Here are the 15 positions submitted by the Arbitral court. Do you see anything referring to traditional fishing rights being drnied by China? Notice that position 10 refers to traditional fishing activities and not traditional fishing rights. Of course the use of the latter term latter
                term is superfluous and doess not make any sense since positions 2,3,8 and 9 claim that Chiba has no marine rights at Scarborough and it is the Philippines that does. Ot is not necessary to assert Philippine tradition fishing rights in their own EEZ where they already have those same rights exclusively. For you to say that the Philippine primary submission has to do with the issue of traditional fishing rights is a misreading of a position 10 and exagerrating its importance in the 15 submitted by the Philippines to the Arbitral court. See the list below.

                The same is true with your referring to UNCLOS articke 52 as support that traditional fishiing rights somehow supersede the exclusive rights granted to country EEZs. The whole article refers to archipelagic waters and not EEZ’s if one reads the whole chapter carefully. So that reference is completely irrelevant to your thesis. Finally, the prefix “without prejudice to article 49” which lays out a country’s marine rights in its own archipelagic waters or those within its territorial land masses means that traditional fishing rights do not preempt those former rights.

                Please get your facts right and if you do not mind, since so much effort went into checking them, can you at least state what conclusions or inferences were you trying to draw from these?

                2. The Parties’ Positions

                The Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that:

                (1) China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

                (2) China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;

                (3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

                (4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;

                (5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;

                (6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;

                (7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

                (8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;

                (9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;

                (10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;

                (11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;

                (12) China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef

                (a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;

                (b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and

                (c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

                (13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;

                (14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:

                (a) interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;

                (b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;

                (c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and

                (d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and

                (15) China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.

  21. Andres 2018. says:

    For Caliphman and all interested:

    I have created another comment thread since the first one will not allow me to have the “reply” feature:


    My arguments:

    1. Exclusive economic rights on our EEZ have exemption on its exclusivity:

    1.1. Surplus on allowable catch. (This is in agreement with Caliphman)
    1.2. Traditional fishing rights. For reference, UNCLOS Article 51, Paragraph 1:

    “Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters.”

    2. In the Arbitration Philippines VS China, Philippines opted to defend its traditional fishing rights rather that its exclusive economic rights in the Scarborough Shoal. For reference, this is Philippine Submission No. 10:

    “China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from carrying out traditional fishing activities within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal.”

    • Micha says:

      That’s just fragmentizing the context of both the petition and the ruling. It could just as well be true that the Philippines did, in addition to its exclusive claim, also invoked its traditional right. Or that the latter merely reinforces the validity of exclusiveness.

      But all that was made moot by Rodrigo Buang when he refused to acknowledge and execute the lawfulness of said ruling.

    • caliphman says:

      As per my comments above and the article link from Karl’s most recent post, the establishment of a country EEZ extinguishes any raditional fishing rights within the zone.

      The tribunal said “traditional fishing rights” of private individuals are different from the “historic rights” of states, which China asserted over almost the entire South China Sea. The tribunal declared the “nine-dash-line claim” of China in favor of freedom of navigation in one of the world’s busiest trade routes.

      “In the exclusive economic zone, in contrast, traditional fishing rights are extinguished,” the ruling said.

      Article 51 of the UNCLOS has nothing to do with traditional fishing rights in an EEZ setting since the whole chapter is in connectiion with archipelagic waters.

      Tbese are nothing but fake facts presented to support bogus contentions.

      • Andres 2018 says:

        Actual reading of the part of the Arbitration Rulling, will shed light that the concept of EEZ does not completely extinquised the traditional fishing rights. There was an exemption, and though not required, the state can continue to recognize the traditional fishing rights on its EEZ, and that recognition is commendable. The article that was linked mentioned only a sentence of the paragraph of the Rulling, here is the compete paragraph:

        804 (b) In the exclusive economic zone, in contrast, traditional fishing rights are extinguished,
        except insofar as Article 62(3) specifies that “the need to minimize economic dislocation
        in States whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone” shall constitute one of the
        factors to be taken into account by the costal State in giving access to any surplus in the
        allowable catch. The Tribunal considers that the inclusion of this provision—which
        would be entirely unnecessary if traditional fishing rights were preserved in the exclusive
        economic zone—confirms that the drafters of the Convention did not intend to preserve
        such rights. The Convention does not, of course, preclude that States may continue to
        recognise traditional fishing rights in the exclusive economic zone in their legislation, in
        bilateral fisheries access agreements, or through regional fisheries management
        organisations. Such recognition would, in most instances, be commendable, but it is not
        required by the Convention, except to the extent specified in Article 62(3).

        Further reading of other paragraphs will explain that prior to the Convention, fisheries zones consider the traditional fishing rights. What i said is not false at all, it was rather superseded by the Convention as articulated in the Arbitration Rulling, thanks to the enligthening articles as linked. Initially i said that traditional fishing rights are respected in EEZ as it was respected in archipelagic waters. Archipelagic waters confers sovereignty and sovereign rights, while EEZ confers only the later. Archipelagic waters is way above compared to EEZ in terms of jurisdiction and rights, yet, archipelagic waters respects the traditional fishing grounds. Why cant the EEZ? But the Rulling have decided, so that was it.

        Considering all this, as conclusion, exclusive in EEZ is not at all absolute. The two exemptions are the surplus on allowable catch and traditional fishing rights. The surplus on allowable catch is a conditional exemption that is realizable only when the state have determined its maximim fishing capacity, allowable catch, and a surplus on allowable catch. The traditional fishing rights is a self-imposing exemption as it depends on the state if it will consider it or not as per its legislation.

        Now, in application with regards to the current issue, can Philippines allow foreign fishermen on its EEZ? Yes, subject to the conditions as discussed above.

        • If the Philippines changes its Constitution it can, much like it already has allowed foreign mining companies to carve their way through Philippine mountains, destroying even more agricultural land, even poisoning watersheds, increasing flood and erosion risk.

          Short-sighted profiteering by some is destroying the livelihood of future generations. So after Villars, SM and mining, fish dry the seas so every kilo of food will be imported in the future. The poor will starve if they are not killed before that. The coming hell.

          • Andres 2018 says:

            With regards to South China Sea, ASEAN and China should enter into an agreement that will prioritize the preservation of the living marine resources there on, setting aside all the on going disputes on boundaries. South China Sea afterall is a single ecosytem.

            • I think ASEAN would be stronger if it would negotiate as a bloc towards China, not each country individually.

              The EU has been practicing this towards both its ally USA and the threat of Russia, not always successfully as both superpowers try to weaken the bloc. Makes sense to read Macchiavelli to know how survival works in the real world, it is definitely not through submission but also not they defiance.

            • kasambahay says:

              preservation of living marine resources, sabi ni andres, is what china is supposed to be entering into. that’s not the case though for china is not all about the ecosystem, but all about big time exploitation of the ecosystem. the killing of giant clams that took years for pinoy marine biologists to seed, the hectares of dead clams littering ocean floor, the over fishing of the reef with 600 chinese fishing trawlers plying in one go, and on a good day, thousands of chinese trawlers on endless fishing mania. and now the blasting of missiles at sea. exploitation and aggression, china is specialist at both and must be curtailed.

              asean should be more cautious about china now more than ever. china is making marine graveyard by the hectares, the giant panda needs to be castrated, lol!

              • Andres 2018 says:

                China imposes a 3 month fishing ban every year since 1995 on South China Sea. What can you say?

              • kasambahay says:

                it would take more than 3months fishing ban for china to correct the harm done to marine life. those giant clams took years to grow get to their size and it only took a lot less time for the greedy chinese to kill the lot.

              • kasambahay says:

                anyhow, that 3months fishing ban is misleading. chinese fishing armageddon need to rest and restore their very unkind spirits. gotta tune up their engines, check the condition of their boats, do repairs and secure parts, ensure the armada is in top form. and gotta spend all that ill gotten money too, shopping on the mainland and buying up gizmos, buying supplies as well and ready for the next bout of illegal fishing. absolutely!

        • caliphman says:

          Let me put it this way so its clear. No matter how one tries to spin the legal language of the relevant UNCLOS law and the Arbitral ruling, they both grant the country whose EEZ it is exclusive legal rights to fish in the zone. Traditional fishing rights do not allow any other country legal grounds to demand to be allowed continued fishing in that zone.as you were originally contending. That is entirely at the option of the country with the EEZ if it is not in violation of its own laws. EEZ fishing exclusivity righrs is not diminished by UNCLOS or the Arbitral ruling since any exceptions are entirely at the option of EEZ country. As a consequence any traditional fishing rights that might have allowed another country to continue fishing not in its EEZ has had those rights extinguished. That is why there is no legal basis for stating earlier that traditional fishing rights was central to the Philippine submissions or the Arbitral decision. If this or any other provisions in the Hague treaty or ruling continues to baffle you, its possible but perhaps being a legal expert is not the best career path or blog role for you. Sorry to say but this subthread is exhausted, at least I am from trying to clarify all these misleading snd just erroneous assertions.

          • Andres 2018 says:

            My basis was mostly archived knowledge and the inference that EEZ is essentially the same with archipelagic waters with regards to traditional fishing rights. And since after discussions we come into contact the Rulling itself that clarrifies that issue then that solved it. Without the explicit discussion as per Rulling, that issue would remain as cloudy as ever.

            I did not advocate that the Philippines centered traditional fishing rights in its all submission. I explecitly said that that traditional fishing rights was the argument used by the Philippines with regards to Scarborough Shoal, which is correct as Scarborough Shoal have territorial seas, that if that part of sea becomes a territorial sea then that would no longer be considered as part of someones EEZ.

            This blog is a discussion blog afterall. And i raised the topic not to mislead but to discuss. I did not get my arguments out of my magic box, but from documents available. Sorry if you found the dicussion exhausted by i found it educational.

            • caliphman says:

              Sorry but you need to reread my posts listing the 15 Philippines pusitions and the subsequent one pointing out that the term traditional fishing activities is not the same as traditional fishing rights which is a legal concept, neither of which was the main line of argument in the Philippine submissios. What you find my trying to correct your misvlncepthg ions educatilnal but given your obtuseness, I find it repetitive and stupid as may others. Have a nice day.

  22. karlgarcia says:

    Here is a link from Rappler that says both China and Philippines can fish on Scarborough


    And an expert said that no agreement was needed for the Philippines to fish there.


    • Andres 2018 says:

      So, in the Scarborough Shoal standoff USA middled between China and Philippines? And the result was that Philippines leaving the area while China retained?

      What the F..! This two bullies are playing with us!

      *patriotism intensifies*

      • karlgarcia says:

        We could hire an American international lawyer that does not mean US meddling to me.
        Oh you said middling,all lawyers “middle” on clients behalf. Joke only.

      • caliphman says:

        Not quite. That post in Trumpian terminology is fake news.According to Karl’s linked article, the real Scarborough story is summarized as folliws:

        The ruling suggests that the Philippines did not have the standing to arrest Chinese fishermen in the shoal in April 2012, during the incident that prompted Aquino’s battle with China.

        The Aquino administration lost effective control of Scarborough Shoal in April 2012 after a tense standoff with China that was prompted by Philippine Navy’s arrest Chinese fishermen in the area. Chinese Coast Guard ships immediately responded to assist its citizens, leading to the standoff. (READ: Timeline: The Philippines-China maritime dispute)

        The Aquino administration lost effective control of Scarborough Shoal in April 2012 after a tense standoff with China that was prompted by Philippine Navy’s arrest Chinese fishermen in the area. Chinese Coast Guard ships immediately responded to assist its citizens, leading to the standoff. (READ: Timeline: The Philippines-China maritime dispute)

        China’s actions suprised the Philippines, which had long occupied Scarborough Shoal. Its navy has traditionally arrested poachers in the area.

        The Philippines sought the assistance of its treaty ally US, which was believed to have brokered an arrangement with China for both countries to withdraw from the standoff. The Philippines withdrew its warship, but China did not and has since occupied the shoal.

        The Philippines continued to engage China, but Manila eventually lost hope in the talks and filed the case in April 2013. The Aquino administration then decided that a favorable arbitration ruling is its only hope to leverage with China.

        • Andres 2018 says:

          “The Philippines sought the assistance of its treaty ally US, which was believed to have brokered an arrangement with China for both countries to withdraw from the standoff. The Philippines withdrew its warship, but China did not and has since occupied the shoal.”

          What made the Philippines withdrew its warship? It was most likely in accordance with the advised of the broker, the USA.

          China did not withdrew as agreed, a violation of the brokered agreement. USA should have done something about this betrayal by the Chinese at this point forward if USA is indeed a friend of the Philippines. I can picture out the grief of the then Pres Aquino with the result of ths middling which resulted to a lost of the effective control of SS. No wonder Pres Duterte do not thrust USA at all.

  23. popoy says:

    okay, ok, Okay, OKAY. Hello? HELLO? My teacher in Grade 1 (1946) told us many of whom don’t even have bakya to wear and went to school barefooted, told us do unto others as others do unto you. Do not do to others what you do not want others do to you. We were five to seven years old. We are not countries. There was then NO ECHE BUCHECHE of REASON regardless of being pro bono or paid for. Grade One unpaid for classmates might say Let the Philippines fishermen do to China’s blah, blah fishing grounds what Chinese fishermen have been doing. If China is doing the right thing, Philippines should also do the right thing. .

    But that is the most simplistic, narrow and shallow advice given to seven-year olds, professional pundits will insist. Well, what can you expect from an honest, utterly dignified, incorruptible teacher? Our teacher possibly, probably was not intelligent enough to see that a bad thing can be made to appear as a good thing. It’s complicated but not as complex as diplomatic foreign relations.

    Why can’t countries hurt by US economic sanctions do the same to the US? Example: If a national of country X is arrested by country W, country X can arrest also two or more aliens from country W. Or they can just raised tariffs against each other. Or one country can say to the other: Okay, okay, just don’t make war with us, we don’t have the capability, we don’t want many people to die. Never mind what Bill the Bard of Avon said: Cowards die many times before their death.

  24. popoy says:

    We of grade school pupils’ minds should not be expected to learn from history. Despite the twist and turns deftly made by charlatans. Grade one pupils should NOT be told that many wars like WWI and WWII and many revolutions DECIMATED the bad guys. Make War not Make Love with the bad guys is what history should not be telling grade school pupils, but it should be the battle cry of college students patriots when their country reaches the threshold of being a vassal country. Sigaw ng Bayan many years ago: Makibaka, Huwag Matakot.

    • popoy says:

      TSoH bloggers with patience may want to read the above
      as an eche buchechero’s wannabe poetry:

      A Bloody Ditty

      We of grade school pupils’ minds
      should not be expected to
      learn from history –despite
      the twist and turns
      deftly made by charlatans.

      Grade one pupils should NOT
      be told that many wars
      like WWI and WWII and many
      revolutions DECIMATED the bad guys.

      Make War not Make Love
      with the bad guys is what
      history should not be
      telling grade school pupils, but
      it should be the battle cry
      of college students-patriots
      when their country reaches
      the threshold of being
      a vassal country.

      Sigaw ng Bayan many years ago:
      Makibaka, Huwag Matakot.

  25. popoy says:

    OOT — Because I read first the comments of paid for or pro bono trolls before I read to validate a particular breaking news, it just happens I got a new additional item for my Vol 2 “Up Close and Personal” . . .


    After I was born at the hour
    Of rampaging rains of summer
    My Inay told everybody that
    My Itay did not say;

    When I finished agriculture
    Instead of law my Itay
    Who’s an abogado
    My Itay did not say;

    And when I retired poor
    Without pension My Itay
    Already with his Maker
    Probably did not tell Him

    Only few Filipinos perhaps know
    Why the PC was demilitarized into PNP
    Why a Police General became a Police Director
    Why critics and social reformers did not say

    Then I read in the news that a kid
    can die being In the wrong place and time
    After being shot in a crossfire
    because it’s a case of MERELY

    And in many past elections many voters
    Bought and unbought voted to govern them
    A shipload load of mediocrity in lawmaking like
    Comedians, actors, boxer, soldier, who ever because

    When square pegs snugly,
    comfortably fits into round holes
    Instead of sinkholes
    In Philippine culture and polity

    Please Pardon the fowl language.
    Didn’t JoeAm said some readers can’t help but
    Giggle while reading some pieces here written
    By a student of poultry husbandry?

    • I think Duterte wanted to already has restored military ranks to PNP, recently. Just like he wants to restore mandatory ROTC.

      • kasambahay says:

        dont want to be disrespectful, really I dont but here goes: duterte is supposed to keep the military lean and in top fighting form, able to deploy at a drop of a hat. not desk bound and pushing mont blanc pens, world travelers, spoiled with fat pay complete with double the usual dose of housing. two houses as pabahay for the generals and higher ranking cohorts, and barely no houses left for the minions of lower rank. resulting in scallawagings galore. with the higher cost of living these days, it’s no wonder po, a growing number of lower ranking polis are into sellling drugs na just to make ends meet.

        • karlgarcia says:

          We lack men. The problem is not with their salaries, it is the pensions that equal their last salary. It will drain the treasury.Some generals do not avail of the housing.
          Other than that you are spot on.
          I have echoed my father that we have to many generals, I called it the star syndrome.
          Gone are the days when being a colonel is enough.

    • kasambahay says:

      ay, popoy, good on yah, mate! good on yah. actually, I say, the pebble is the shit that happens, biggest shit ever, a walking, talking shit, lol! the turd is no longer iyakin, got his lacrimal glands surgically worked over yata at hindi na bumubuhos. gotta have his voice worked over as well, whines like an adolescent girl, e. the man got excess pubescent estrogen yata, bet it’s the side effect of the steroid he’s taking. his urine must be color of copper.

      he’s so like his boss, both shitty in thoughts in words and in deeds.

      lovely poem by the way.

      • popoy says:

        Good Day, Gooddie Mate. Thanks. There was a time when Rizal Buslines conductors from Manila to Pillilia will know the destination of passengers from Cainta to Tanay and give them tickets based on their accents. I will liken the Paranaque accent to the Welsh accent, soft and sweet. I just can’t understand what Scots are saying.

        Shit happens is the new lingua franca of politicians. It is like Oh Wow, shit happens. when that candidate gets elected, Oh Wow, Shit Happens. Gaining fast big ground is Bitch referring to both persons and events. Bitches won the elections. The results from computers is a bitch. Bad on ya bitch. Thanks Kasambahay.

  26. caliphman says:

    USA USA! USA 2-0 over Netherlands. 2peat Womens World Cup…YES!!!!

  27. caliphman says:

    USA USA! USA 2-0 over Netherlands. 2peat Womens World Cu koip…YES!!!!

  28. NHerrera says:


    That is the phrase that will forever define Senator Dela Rosa. And so will many officials of the Current Administration.

    I was reading a novel a few days ago and these words, though ideal, rings very true to me:

    Qualities not often found together:
    – intelligence;
    – courage;
    – common sense;
    – sensitivity.

    Good morning, everyone.

    • NHerrera says:

      Intelligence, Courage, Common Sense, Sensitivity

      Why is it that these four are found more often in our women that in our men?

      Probably a quirk of nature — the wrong placement of “balls.”

    • edgar lores says:


      • NHerrera says:

        Hi edgar.

        I got a note last week from my daughter in Melbourne about the cold winter in Oz. That in contrast to the sweltering heat of our summer. It has cooled down somewhat though in the last few days because of the start of the rain. It is not enough however; my experience is that it needs successive substantial rains — 2 to 3 days — to cool down the “oven” of the concrete.

        One good thing about the cold is that one has the relative advantage of just carrying appropriate warm gear to comfortably warm oneself. Not so in the summer heat when one is walking about. Poor guys in Beijing — regulations has been ordered preventing the use of the so-called Beijing Bikini.

        G’Day to you!

  29. NHerrera says:


    I enjoyed reading this article, The most notable lines from Michelle Obama’s deeply personal Essence interview written by Paul LeBlanc of CNN:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: