Comments

1. JoeAm says:

   August 14, 2026 at 8:51 am

   This is a fascinating read in that military defense forms the core of the economic infrastructure, with Ideas like the islands being a fortress rather than a logistics problem. Yet logistics are essential to making the fortress work. Taking charge. Not relying on the US. Be a Ukraine (drone manufacturing; missiles not battleships).

   Marcos Admin decisions are drifting in that direction, but it’s more a drift with the currents than a well-directed charge to upgrade fast. Where’s the drone plant capable of cranking out thousands of drones? The drone boat plant? Why are we looking at submarines rather than missile manufacturing?

   Reply
   • Karl Garcia says:

     August 14, 2026 at 9:00 am

     I dug for answers.

     TL;DR — Where the Philippines Actually Stands on Drones

     Bottom line: The Philippines has moved from buying drones toward building a domestic unmanned-systems industry, but we are still at the early industrialization stage, not yet at mass-production or full sovereignty. 🇵🇭 The emerging industrial map

     Cavite/Naic — the clearest actual UAV manufacturing node

     Global Aerospace Technology Philippines was registered by PEZA in February 2026 at Cavite Technopark to manufacture, fabricate, machine and assemble UAVs, UAS and aerospace components. This is currently the strongest publicly documented dedicated UAV manufacturing project.

     Clark — aerospace + advanced manufacturing cluster

     Clark already has a growing aerospace ecosystem. KVG has a facility there involved in advanced manufacturing and drone development, while Jamco is expanding aircraft-interior manufacturing with at least ₱600 million in investment. Iloilo is also examining Clark’s model as a potential basis for its own drone/advanced-manufacturing cluster.

     Aurora/APECO — potential Pacific defense-UAV hub

     APECO is deliberately positioning itself as a national defense hub. It has been discussing drone testing, maintenance and manufacturing with U.S. defense-supply-chain interests, although these should still be described as prospective projects, not an operating mass-production factory.

     Tarlac/DOST-MIRDC — R&D and prototyping

     This is more about developing the engineering and technology base needed to eventually transfer indigenous systems to Philippine industry.

     Iloilo — emerging candidate

     The provincial government is actively exploring drone development and advanced manufacturing, including discussions with the KVG team in Clark. The strategic picture

     We’re approximately here:

     Foreign procurement
     ↓
     Local operation ✅
     ↓
     Local assembly/manufacturing 🟢 NOW
     ↓
     Local design + software + components 🟡
     ↓
     Mass production 🔴
     ↓
     Distributed wartime replenishment 🔴
     ↓
     Fully sovereign unmanned-systems industry 🔴

     So my earlier 4/10 assessment remains reasonable.

     But 4/10 does not mean “we have almost nothing.”

     It means:

     The foundation is now being laid, but the industrial system is not yet complete.

     The really important development: Ukraine

     This may become the biggest accelerator.

     As of August 2026, the Philippines and Ukraine are continuing discussions on a drone co-production arrangement, while also seeking to transfer Ukrainian wartime experience.

     That could allow the Philippines to skip years of trial and error.

     But the goal shouldn’t simply be:

     Buy Ukrainian drones.

     It should be:

     Learn Ukraine’s drone-production ecosystem.

     That means learning how to produce cheaply, rapidly, adaptively and in large numbers. The central lesson from this entire thread

     The Philippines shouldn’t ask:

     “How many drones do we have?”

     It should ask:

     “How many drones can we manufacture every month—and how quickly can we replace combat losses?”

     That is the real measure of defense-industrial capability.

     A sophisticated drone that cannot be replenished is less strategically valuable than a good-enough drone that can be produced by the thousands.

     And this connects directly to our earlier discussion about Ukraine, Iran, U.S. munitions shortages and the vulnerability of just-in-time supply chains. The Philippine objective should therefore be:

     Cavite → UAV manufacturing

     Clark → aerospace systems + engineering

     Subic → maritime/heavy UAV + MRO

     Aurora → Pacific defense logistics + dispersed production

     Cebu/Iloilo → electronics + software + components

     Universities/DOST → AI + autonomy + robotics + materials

     AFP/PCG/OCD → operational users and continuous feedback Then connect everything into one national system.

     That’s the missing piece.

     We don’t merely need drone factories.

     We need a Philippine Unmanned Systems Industrial Base.

     And the encouraging news is that, by August 2026, the first pieces of that base are visibly appearing.

     In one sentence:

     🇵🇭 **The Philippines is no longer at “drones are important”; it is entering “we must manufacture drones”—but it has not yet reached “we can mass-produce and replenish drones under wartime conditions.”**

     Reply
     • JoeAm says:

       August 14, 2026 at 9:59 am

       Oh, excellent. More than drifting it seems. The hardware must be synced to expected sea and land uses. I was reading today that the US is establishing a multinational drone attack force in the middle east. I’d suggest AFP ought to be developing dual sea and land drone operating forces. They are working on a satellite “eye in the sky” military program. I’d think drone attack forces would not need to be high manpower operations, but high in intellect, matching the drone capabilities to need. High in tactical executions with feints, diversions, and sneak attacks. And skill at piloting, with back up contingencies in case an ops center is knocked out. Maybe moveable op centers.

       Reply
       • Karl Garcia says:

         August 14, 2026 at 10:41 am

         https://bworldonline.com/the-nation/2026/07/26/765948/phl-urged-to-build-drone-industry-deepen-defense-ties/

         Reply
         • CV says:

           August 14, 2026 at 1:51 pm

           Philippines struggles to attract peacetime manufacturing investment into the country. I think we should examine thoroughly first the reasons why we lose out in Foreign Direct Investments in manufacturing generally AND SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS FIRST before we spend time attracting armament manufacturing opportunities.

           As Karl has pointed out in his studies before, a major part of the problems is FRAGMENTATION or lack of INTEGRATION. Lots of work in that department alone as his long essays spell out. I would humbly suggest we focus on what we have failed to achieve in our baby steps before we contemplate grown up steps. To ignore the problems of fragmentation/lack of integration will not take the country to State Capability, the long term goal.

           Opposing views welcome.

           Reply
           • Karl Garcia says:

             August 14, 2026 at 2:13 pm

             I can not oppose hehe

             Reply
             • JoeAm says:

               August 14, 2026 at 2:30 pm

               I can. Infrastructure means keeping lawful Philippine seas for Filipinos, not China. China is a belligerent state whose leaders will weaken Philippine infrastructure to keep the Philippines under its imperialistic thumb. Defense is job one in preserving gains in development.

               Reply
               • CV says:

                 August 16, 2026 at 12:05 am

                 “Defense is job one in preserving gains in development.” – JoeAm

                 For me, gaining gains is job one. Gains create the money needed to build a good defense. In the meantime, we rely on other options with regard to defense, like our reliance on the US since 1946. If you have very little in gains to brag about, I see little need to focus so much attention on defense.

                 Joey has brought up the need for the Philippines to industrialize i.e. create more manufacturing jobs. I agree….through building armaments for local and foreign consumption? Sure, why not? But I personally and humbly prefer that we focus on other products….not eliminate armaments as an option, but focus on other products…especially products that Filipino consumers can consume, instead of import. Now I know that is a tall order for us Filipinos. We tend to make things that are not competitive against what many other countries make. But that is an egg we have to crack if we are to make it to State Capability status.

                 Reply
                 • Joey Nguyen says:

                   August 16, 2026 at 1:17 am

                   No, I’m making an argument for general industrialization that employs the unemployed and regularizes the informally employed, that gets to the heavy industry needed firstly for civilian purposes and among other things, eventually military purposes.

                   Also, while it’s true that under the import substitution regime after WWII (most prominently under Garcia’s “Filipino First” policy) Philippine companies which were initially made somewhat competitive products (entirely normal at this stage) eventually took advantage of the closed markets due to tariff walls to over time make less competitive products (it is more correct to say that the product quality stayed the same due to non-innovation as result of non-competition), not being able to compete globally when the markets liberalized and globalized. That’s a lot different than entering a globalized market today where competition and product quality is expected. If the Philippines goes this route, the logical answer to “where’s the technology to make this stuff” would be answered by “technology transfer,” like every other developing country during their respective industrializing phases, including SEA neighbors. How will this technology transfer be facilitated? One way is through business-to-business transfer; the other way is through government legal mandates that conditioning market and labor access on phased technology transfer.

                   Reply
                 • JoeAm says:

                   August 16, 2026 at 6:48 am

                   Yes, building Philippine industrial capacity is important. You accept that China can control Philippine seas then? How do you get them out? If they took the Sierra Madre, you’d shrug? If they built a military island at Scarborough, you’d say “buy more Filipino brands?” If they took Northern Luzon in an effort to retake Taiwan, you’d argue “focus on what’s left”? China is real. Her acts are malicious. Her greed is great. Her propagandists portray Filipinos as monkeys. Cut defense spending in favor of health?

                   Reply
                   • CV says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 7:38 am

                     **You accept that China can control Philippine seas then? How do you get them out? If they took the Sierra Madre, you’d shrug? If they built a military island at Scarborough, you’d say “buy more Filipino brands?” If they took Northern Luzon in an effort to retake Taiwan, you’d argue “focus on what’s left”? China is real. Her acts are malicious. Her greed is great. Her propagandists portray Filipinos as monkeys.** – JoeAm

                     I just read your last couple of replies, JoeAm, and I had to go to my fridge and pop open a beer (American brand. Red Horse only for special occasions). Lots of emotion in them.

                     Excellent questions you have but I say you should relax and let Marcos, Jr. do his job. I remember months ago you were talking praises of how he worked quickly to restore relations with the USA in the military defense area which Duterte had seriously damaged. He has made trips to the US and other allies of ours in the region to reassure them that Duterte is no longer around and all the incompetence that went along with him and his administration.

                     Of course it is no help that we have an incompetent fellow in the White House, and same with the Sec. of Defense. We also have a lot of incompetents in various branches of the US government and even in the military thanks to Trump who values loyalty over competence. But I am confident we will manage and real change can come in 2029 (after elections in 2028). Hopefully we can keep China contained until then.

                     Incidentally, on the point of China’s propagandists portraying Filipinos as monkeys, when we were kids we used to chant in Tagalog “intsik beho, tulo laway” at the Chinese in the Philippines. A literal translation is “old Chinaman, drooling saliva.” A lot is lost in the translation.

                     “Cut defense spending in favor of health?” – JoeAm

                     I think Joey had a few other options with respect to where to get the tax revenue. Cutting defense spending is not the only option available. I’ve already explored the options with AI and there are many. But why jump to where to get the money from when people aren’t even convinced on the importance of health care for all Filipinos and not just the few who have access to money.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 8:05 am

                     What then will you propose to generate new revenues for the public coffer?

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 8:47 am

                     Oh, I think President Marcos is doing excellent work. I observed this early on, much to the irritation of Marcos haters. You’ve tempered your own angst in that regard, I would note.

                     Health care is a concern to every Filipino who gets sick or hurt. Your friend describes the situation as fourth world, as if by some magical declaration it could become first world. It will improve when hospitals can make money. That means either enriching Filipinos who can pay for first world treatments, or increasing subsidies by shifting money there, or improving tax collections. Defense, education, health, food, energy, water, disasters, infrastructure. Budgeting is hard if you’re poor.

                   • CV says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 1:15 pm

                     “Oh, I think President Marcos is doing excellent work. I observed this early on, much to the irritation of Marcos haters. You’ve tempered your own angst in that regard, I would note.” – JoeAm

                     Ah yes – “Marcos haters.” Name calling someone who disagrees with you is not, in my humble opinion, a good example for us to model. I recall someone called you a “Marcos fan boy” and that really made the hair on your back rise! So you know how it feels. But, as others here have said “your blog, your rules.”

                     One rule I am familiar with is this which I humbly paste from the blog’s terms and conditions: “Contributors who speak in OPPOSITION to authors and contributors are welcome and are allowed to present their views freely as long as the focus is on issue rather than insult, and the intent is to open minds rather than close them.”

                     Meanwhile I’ve noticed that you have tempered on your impressions of Marcos, Jr. In this same thread (“From Humility to Capability”) you wrote:

                     “Be a Ukraine (drone manufacturing; missiles not battleships). Marcos Admin decisions are DRIFTING in that direction, but it’s MORE OF A DRIFT with the currents than a well-directed charge to upgrade fast.”

                     Recall very recently you described Marcos, Jr. as a barge captain stuck in a canal and cannot turn the barge around if he had to because of the environment he is in.

                     In my opinion, and I’m just sharing my opinion meaning no insult to anyone who disagrees with my opinion, those are not examples of excellent work.

                     I would agree with you that Marcos, Jr. is doing excellent work BUT…..in comparison to his predecessor. But seriously, what a comparison!

                     “Health care is a concern to every Filipino who gets sick or hurt. “ – JoeAm

                     You forget preventive health care. They are called “wellness check-ups.” Common mistake. This is not a concern to every Filipino BUT IT SHOULD BE. It helps with quality of life.

                     “Your friend describes the situation as fourth world, as if by some magical declaration it could become first world. “ – JoeAm

                     No, he describes it as fourth world because he is familiar with the health care systems of many countries around the world most of which he has visited and seen first hand. I have been reading his posts for a long time now. He is more prolific than our Karl Garcia in writing, but his posts are much more brief…sometimes he uses text language short cuts like “u” for “you” and “ur” for “your” or “you are.” He also does not capitalize any words like those at beginning of sentences or proper names. I find it annoying, but his substance is usually so good that I am willing to overlook his idiosyncrasies.

                     And Joey would love him because he has done ACTUAL HARD WORK in the field in the Philippines trying to change things, and I am talking about leadership roles with the Dept. of Health, etc., not just doing free clinic stuff like what Doctors Without Borders do or Overseas Filipino doctors missions to the Philippines for pro bono work. He was even paid for his consultancy work including travel to remote areas in the Philippines when necessary. His email blasts go mostly to doctors both here and abroad with a sprinkling of lay persons like myself. He has retired from consulting work and just focuses on his email blasts hoping to catch some young person’s attention who can carry on the fight. His slogan to his fellow doctors is “If not us, who else?” It means “If we don’t talk up the health care problems as we see them, who else will?”

                     You know he actually gives free advice to his peers, i.e. people who are old (he is in his 80s) to get a full physical check-up before visiting places like Boracay. He says that if you have a serious medical event at some of these far of resorts, you will likely die from it because proper health care facilities are not close enough.

                     “It will improve when hospitals can make money. That means either enriching Filipinos whe can pay for first world treatments, or increasing subsidies by shifting money there, or improving tax collections.” – JoeAm

                     I think you will agree with me that these are solutions that are not doable in the foreseeable future. Maybe that is why you do not think discussing the “fourth world” health care situation in the Philippines as worth discussing. The solutions we can think of are not doable. BTW, you said that things will improve when hospitals can make money. This Doc fellow I’m talking about has said something similar, i.e. that doctors will go to far off areas IF THEY GET PAID ENOUGH. So the problem for hospitals is the same as for individual doctors.

                     “Defense, education, health, food, energy, water, disasters, infrastructure. Budgeting is hard if you’re poor.” – JoeAme

                     Yes, and it is also hard if your country is FRAGMENTED. A reminder of Karl Garcia’s current crusade here at TSOH. Now fragmentation is not the responsibility of the poor. It is the responsibility of the government and our leadership…pretty much at every level.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 2:02 pm

                     Oh boy

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 2:44 pm

                     I don’t know how to describe people who criticize before the fact. Premature? Fact is a lot of Filipinos on social media have come to my fanboy point of view, even you part way, suggesting I should let him do his work. Not that you appreciate this being noted.

                     Your friend sounds like a decent person. More power to him.

                     I think the Philippines, and Filipinos, are getting better at understanding what has to be done. The getting there is eternal.

                   • CV says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 3:09 pm

                     “I don’t know how to describe people who criticize before the fact.” – JoeAm

                     I’ll take it at face value that they were criticizing before the fact, and not merely expressing a bias. I did not see those posts from people you call “Marcos haters.”

                     I understand from Filipinos back home that Marcos, Jr. was extraordinarily brutal in his negative campaign against Robredo. He was also exceptional in his historical revisionism particularly of the era of his father’s almost 20 year reign. Also, he did choose Sara Duterte as a running mate. I think all these and probably more are sufficient reason to be biased against Marcos, Jr.

                     But bias is based on past performance and you claim they were criticizing and not just expressing bias. I would agree with you that one cannot criticize before the fact.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 5:36 pm

                     That pretty well runs circles around the issue. President Marcos was elected. He started making decisions immediately, what he said, what he did. These can be judged on their merits. He made sense in what he said. He made mistakes, and corrected them (going to Formula 1 races). His cabinet choices were mostly sound with a few favors thrown in. The more he worked – and he worked hard – the clearer it became that he was not dictatorial, not brutal, and he saw the path to redemption of the Marcos name as best achieved by doing good works. Did he cheat on the votes, is he a part of the corruption scandal? We don’t know. Conspiracy theorists have an answer. The earth is flat. I don’t have an answer. So I set it aside and judge if he is still making good sense, still doing good works. He is. What he did before the election is interesting fodder for the conspiracy theorists. But I focus on his presidency. Those who can’t see the truth of his work, even my good friend Will, don’t want to see it. Your eyes seem to have seen more since you arrived here detesting the son, because of the father. You can tell me what this is, as you object to my characterization. Maybe flat-assed “wrong”, a year ago, will suffice.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 16, 2026 at 6:04 pm

                     From your Feb 3, 2025 comment.

                     In my view, if a man stole an election, he is going to steal a lot more while in the powerful position (the presidency) that he stole. My reason for asking about the past is to understand the thinking of those who put a thief in Malacañang hoping he will do well for the country. He is doing responsible things? Like what – making the actions of politicians like himself transparent? There is that scripture verse “Jesus is light, but men love darkness because it hides their evil deeds.” Appearances of “doing responsible things” are like the appearances he gave of a golden age during that period that his father bankrupted the country. I remember the appearances that Marcos, Sr. gave us, and eventually it became obvious that they were just appearances to delay the inevitable which was the bankruptcy of the nation. I recall from Lee Kuan Yew’s Memoirs that Marcos asked to borrow money from Singapore to pay an interest installment of the country, something like $300 million if I recall correctly. Lee’s reply was to the effect: “We both know that if I lend you that money, we will never see it again.”

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 1:59 am

                     “Your eyes seem to have seen more since you arrived here detesting the son, because of the father.” – JoeAm

                     Yup, we must agree to disagree on Marcos, Jr. Just one last note from me, the older fellow in this debate. In 1972, I was all for Marcos, Sr. declaring Martial Law. We had him as an elected president serving for 7 years and as best a 20 year old college student could see he said and did all the right things. The optics were great. I did not see the “Old Society” as anything great, so I was willing to give this good looking “ma porma” Chief Executive the benefit of the doubt.

                     An older Filipino businessman (in his 50s) told me that he did not see anything good coming out of this Martial Law declaration.

                     Many years later, he proved to be right. The country had been plundered and was broke….and had a lot of financial commitments that he burdened future Filipino taxpayers with.

                     Just my humble sharing of what I experienced.

                     I hope you will allow me to change the subject. I remember you said once that digressions are allowed. To try and get on your good side, I received this email from that Doctor acquaintance of mine about an email he received from a former Filipino executive of Timex who worked in Cebu in the export processing zone. It is a success story.

                     >>Your comments are well taken, Doc. You know that I have always followed your posts ever since you appeared in this fora ( yours is one of the very few that I read). And thanks for the academia vs real life perspective- I thought I learned something around that as well. 

                     My four letter experience in EPZA Mactan was somewhat different though.

                     Timex pioneered in that export zone along with National Semiconductors before a horde of Japanese multinationals set up shop as well. I worked my way up the ladder there for 19 years before Timex moved me to Connecticut to be in the leadership team of a Timex-Motorola joint venture.

                     The Mactan export zone experiment by the Philippines government was an unqualified success for years before it became uncompetitive against similar setups in Southeast Asia. In Mactan we refused to bribe small time Customs jerks and reported government incompetence to Mania. I helped EPZA convince other Western multinationals to set up shop there when I also served as President of the Mactan Export Zone  Chamber of Manufacturers while running the Timex plant in my last 7 years there before moving to Connecticut in 1997.

                     Massive employment occurred in the Zone – there were 70 firms operating there when I left – daily wage factory operators , engineers, accountants, IT specialists, managers and directors. Sleepy Mactan became a bustling city even setting aside the beach resorts parallel success. I even proposed the government could establish two more zones like Mactan somewhere else in Cebu provided the infrastructure and easy links to airports and seaports are setup. That obviously never happened. Opportunities lost big time.<<

                     I would appreciate your feedback on this.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 3:49 am

                     the older fellow

                     you might not be that much older than Joe, if ever.

                     Most of those who frequent this blog know that Joe served in the Vietnam war so you are roughly the same generation.

                     In 1972, I was all for Marcos, Sr. declaring Martial Law.

                     most of the middle class was, this is documented, especially by MLQ3.

                     But yeah, that is ancient history by now. 1946 and 2026 are both forty years away from 1986.

                     EPZA Mactan

                     Mactan is one of the places Joey is extremely familiar with.

                     Of course, today’s PEZA is EPZA by another name. And Pax Silica is the EPZA/PEZA principle extended.

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 4:46 am

                     “most of the middle class was, this is documented, especially by MLQ3.

                     But yeah, that is ancient history by now.” – Irineo

                     True…I hope you caught the message I was trying to convey by referring to that ancient history. That was true in ancient history and is true today. You cannot always trust what you see with your eyes.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 5:43 am

                     History may inform; history can also be twisted into amazing distortions to fit a preformed bias.

                     I wonder what sort of rhetorical skills were taught in Philippine universities back in your day, and why so many educated Filipinos of your generation resort to various forms of fallacious argumentation, particularly Appeal to Authority.

                     Asserting one’s age without any accompanying qualifiers is an appeal to false authority and appeal to tradition. Bringing in an unnamed, anonymous doctor, and other “facts” gathered by AI is a form of gish-gallop, or an attempt to overwhelm by citation. You accuse me of ad hominem when I am just direct, yet you veil your ad hominem with Appeal to Motive and Poisoning the Well.

                     Lucky for you I was tutored by the Jesuits in rhetoric and the Servites in compassion for the ignorant.

                     We are not here to debate and look clever within a social circle; we are here to discuss meaningful ways to advance the Philippines, which you have not contributed to at all since you got here. Here when we disagree, we disagree with respect, but the respect needs to go both ways. I don’t even agree with some of premises of some articles, but I treat the author’s work with respect instead of trying to use the comments section as a platform to push my own biases that have nothing to do with the article. Others do the same. Why can you not?

                     It is clear to me that you do not care one whit about the Philippines if ever your pride gets threatened. Perhaps this is not the right community for you.

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 6:18 am

                     “Lucky for you I was tutored by the Jesuits in rhetoric and the Servites in compassion for the ignorant.” – Joey N.

                     Yes…I am extremely lucky! Meanwhile I am looking forward to Irineo’s feedback on my point about being able to learn from history, even ancient history.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 6:41 am

                     You seem to already know what you “believe,” and your year plus project of imprinting your disjointed bias here has largely failed.

                     Do you even have the self awareness to know that Irineo, who is successful in his own right, is the literal son of one of the most prominent Filipino historians?

                     Are you here to share knowledge and learn from the knowledge of others, from which practical and pragmatic conclusions may be formed, or are you here to be entertained and told how exceptionally smart you are?

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 11:32 am

                     “Do you even have the self awareness to know that Irineo, who is successful in his own right, is the literal son of one of the most prominent Filipino historians?” – Joey N.

                     No, I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up. I researched Irineo’s father and apparently it is Zeus A. Salazar, indeed a prominent figure in Philippine Academia.

                     You might find this interesting which I humbly share with members of the Society in case they too are not familiar with him:

                     >>Zeus Salazar is most associated with Pantayong Pananaw—roughly, a “from us, for us” perspective. He argued that Philippine history and social thought should be articulated in a language and conceptual world shared by Filipinos themselves, rather than primarily through colonial or externally imposed categories.

                     At its core, Pantayong Pananaw is Zeus A. Salazar’s proposal that Filipinos should develop and conduct historical, cultural, and social-scientific discourse among themselves, using concepts, languages, memories, and categories that participants genuinely share. A concise rendering is “from us, for us”—not simply “Filipino pride” or history written by a Filipino.

                     The key word is tayo, the inclusive “we”: it includes both the speaker and the person being addressed.

                     In Salazar’s usage, a pantayong discourse exists when people within a community can speak to one another as members of a shared cultural and linguistic world—without having first to translate their most basic meanings for an outside audience. It is a “we speaking with one another,” not “we explaining ourselves to them.”<<

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 12:11 pm

                     Great that you read an AI summary of Dr. Zeus Salazar’s Pantayong Pananaw. I happened to have already read Dr. Zeus Salazar’s core works long before before Joe even invited me here.

                     I find your chosen highlights to be a bit interesting though — nice attempt to use something you just learned about to balos, specifically to me as a “foreigner,” but unfortunately you’re misunderstanding what you had highlighted.

                     Within the Pantayong Pananaw framework, tayo actually means understanding things from a Philippine-centric perspective, not just the flattened “Filipino” perspective. That means a foreigner who appreciates, seeks to learn from, and dedicates himself to understanding the Philippines from the perspective of the Filipino struggle is potentially included within tayo. Someone like Joe. My Filipino friends would say, someone like myself.

                     Dr. Zeus Salazar warns of the diaspora Filipino who seeks to impose external frameworks and “knowledge” on the Filipino through akulturasyon, a class he terms pangkayo or pangkami that within Pantayong Pananaw are considered worse than just any old foreigner who might be trying to impose his external worldview, possibly being misguided but with the best intentions. In fact Pantayong Pananaw considers these diaspora Filipino Ingliseros to be equal or worse than the original colonizers — because they should know better. These diaspora moralizers are explicitly excluded from the tayo.

                     You, who have been gone for 46 years from the homeland, are not automatically included among the Ingliseros solely on not yet returning, but your constant moral lecturing from afar while doing nothing to actually be constructive does not include you within the tayo.

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 12:43 pm

                     “I happened to have already read Dr. Zeus Salazar’s core works long before before Joe even invited me here.” – Joey N.

                     I’m impressed. I did not know your Tagalog was fluent.

                     Pantayong Pananaw is in Tagalog.

                     But thanks for your points. I actually discuss them with kapwa Filipinos, i.e. “among ourselves” as Pantayong Pananaw calls us to do. Of course the subject matter is light, which may not quite be what Zeus Salazar had in mind. But I’m sure the principle still applies.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 1:04 pm

                     You do know translations exist right? — the same type translations of Rizal, which was originally written in Spanish, that you’re able to read.

                     You are greatly mistaken CV, yet keep doubling down with great confidence on things you barely understand and throwing veiled ad hominem when you obviously can’t prove your case — are you a narcissist?

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 1:52 pm

                     “You do know translations exist right? — the same type translations of Rizal, which was originally written in Spanish, that you’re able to read.” – Joey

                     Ah, thanks. I assumed you spoke Tagalog because you seemed to make a big deal about the fact that you read Rizal’s works in the original Spanish, which I know is a bit different from the Spanish spoken today. But thanks for clarifying that having read Rizal’s works in the original Spanish is no big deal.

                     I am fairly fluent in Tagalog, but would probably struggle with formal Tagalog. But put me in any place in Tagalog speaking Philippines at hindi ako mabebenta ng mga taong tagaroon. That is a Tagalog figure of speech.

                     If you don’t know what it means, I would be happy to explain it. Else you can use AI.

                     “You are greatly mistaken CV, yet keep doubling down with great confidence on things you barely understand…” – Joey N.

                     I believe you are mistaken. Because I speak English and Tagalog, I can sense the difference in “feeling” that we natives get with certain Tagalog words….like “tayo” vs. “sila” or “kami” vs. “kayo.” We used it from childhood to adulthood in innumerable situations.

                     “.. and throwing veiled ad hominem when you obviously can’t prove your case …” – Joey N.

                     Of course there is no need for me to prove any case. What would I get, some sort of medal?

                     I just threw it out there because you brought up the subject of Zeus Salazar (to which my initial reaction was “cost-tea-China?”). It is up to you to decide if the shoe fits. Your reaction, I should point out, speaks volumes, if you know what I mean….but I suspect you don’t.

                     BTW, JoeAm does not like us talking about subjects other than the Philippines. Why do you insist on talking about me? If we were back home, people would say to you “bakla ka ba?” If you don’t understand the nuances of that expression…..I can explain, and I offer that humbly. Else maybe AI can explain it to you.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 1:54 pm

                     Did you run out of AI chatbot tokens? It’s always obvious when you do.

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 2:03 pm

                     Joey,

                     My humble offer still stands on the Tagalog figures of speech that I used.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 2:08 pm

                     CV, I regularly am one of the few who addresses your comments no matter how stupid it is, only for you to sidestep when you are proven wrong. Buzz off. Find your entertainment elsewhere.

                   • CV says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 2:24 pm

                     “CV, I regularly am one of the few who addresses your comments no matter how stupid it is, only for you to sidestep when you are proven wrong. Buzz off. Find your entertainment elsewhere.” – Joey N.

                     Hmm…..no Filipino hospitality from you I guess. Must be a “kami-kayo” thing as opposed to “tayo tayo.”

                     I’m really glad you brought up Irineo’s dad.  Thanks again.

                     BTW, I know from his wife that he spoke French, English, German, and Tagalog. So when he is talking about language and meanings as he does in Pantayong Pananaw, I would say he knows what he is talking about.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 2:34 pm

                     Actually, you know nothing.

                     In this community, sometimes a commenter is given a nickname by those who came before him/her.

                     Joe is the Sheriff.
                     Karl is the Tanod and Librarian.
                     Irineo is the Deputy.
                     The late Edgar Lores was the Surgeon.
                     LCPL_X is the Corporal.
                     Chempo is the Auditor.
                     Micha is the Contrarian.
                     Will is the Interviewer.
                     I was gifted with the nickname the Bartender for my openness to moving conversations along at our shared inuman.

                     I had a hard time deciding if the Miner would be appropriate due to your penchant of digging yourself into deeper holes, but an actual miner would not dig himself into a hole he could not get out of.

                     So now I will gift you a nickname:

                     The Human Goalpost.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 2:52 pm

                     @CV: well, you just happened to be one of my mother’s Ateneo students in German and she told you we spoke French and German at home. I recall that. But this is not about my parents, neither about any of us in particular, though Joey might know a few choice words in Cebuano as he seems to go there more.

                     (though my parents did I think meet at a Bahasa course in Paris, my mother’s interest in Bahasa was due to her grandfather, a Lutheran mission inspector who had written a book about the station at Lake Toba in Indonesia, so you missed at least ONE language my father speaks, a language he was interested in as of course the Malay world – or “Dunia Melayu” – is closely linked to the Philippines in many ways)

                     Oh, I did write one piece on history that my mother said meets “not academic standards, but journalistic standards” which I for me is good enough (not puwede na, not perfect either, but good for someone like me whose training is computer science not history):

                     Half a Millenium after Magellan

                     I also wrote about the Marcos era indirectly a bit after that

                     Magdalo, Marcos and Metro Manila

                     while this was written a bit before that regarding EDSA Dos:

                     Twenty Years Ago

                     This BTW was Karl’s take on 35 years after People Power

                     35 Years after People Power

                     Karl’s late father was very proud of that article BTW, I recall.

                     And maybe you should also read this classic by Joe:

                     Why I Respect President Aquino

                     (you may yet understand how Joe arrives at conclusions over time, including how he gave Marcos Jr. a chance, though not yet that degree of respect)

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 18, 2026 at 3:44 pm

                     I guess I was right. He ran out of AI tokens for the week. Anyone noticed his comments are much different from when he first arrived here and once he discovered AI late last year? Too bad AI has a hard time with forced biases that don’t line up with actual data, which might explain some of the disjointed parts of the comments where he attempts to bridge sections with his own writing.

                   • CV says:

                     August 18, 2026 at 4:09 pm

                     “Too bad AI has a hard time with forced biases that don’t line up with actual data….” – Joey N.

                     Good thing I’m the only one who uses AI in this forum. 🙂

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 18, 2026 at 5:07 pm

                     improperly uses* Good thing you did not need to use AI for this reply!

                     Interesting how my observation clearly struck a nerve that elicited an instant response, yet you routinely do not take the time to reply to others who give their time replying to you, and when you do reply you move goalposts.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     August 18, 2026 at 7:25 pm

                     haha, just for fun I asked chatGPT to analyze those who are in discussions the most here and got this as the gist:

                     I’d describe the four major commenters this way:

                     Joey: Here is an idea.
                     Irineo: Here is how this idea connects to everything else.
                     Karl: Here is a framework that incorporates these ideas.
                     CV: Hold on. Does the framework actually survive scrutiny?

                     The problem with CV is that he sometimes stops there.

                     The most valuable version of CV would be one who says:

                     “Your argument has three weaknesses. Here they are. Here’s the evidence. Here’s my alternative mechanism. Here’s a test that could distinguish your model from mine.”

                     When he does something approaching that, he’s a genuinely substantial contributor. When he spends 1,000 words establishing that somebody else’s premise is questionable, without replacing it with anything comparably developed, the intellectual return drops sharply.

                     (chatGPT explicitly exempts Joe, saying his role is mainly “editorial steering”. Oh, and when I asked what about kasambahay, this was the gist:

                     ..there’s another way to rank them that is probably even more revealing:

                     “What does the discussion lose if this person disappears?”

                     Without Joey: less original policy thinking.

                     Without Irineo: less historical and cross-cultural synthesis.

                     Without Karl: less systematic conceptualization.

                     Without Kasambahay: less Philippine texture, humor, practical observation and spontaneous connection-making.

                     Without CV: less adversarial scrutiny.

                     Without JoeAm: the whole conversation probably becomes less coherent because there’s no editor/host.

                     That’s why I would not characterize Kasambahay as merely the comic relief.

                     In fact, I think JoeAm’s own description gets it right: the humor is partly a delivery mechanism for “subtle readings between lines.”

                     And there’s an interesting contrast with CV

                     Kasambahay and CV are almost opposites.

                     CV:

                     “Your argument contains an unsupported assumption. Let’s examine it.”

                     Kasambahay:

                     “Here’s something happening in the Philippines that reminds me of this—and here’s a funny way of looking at it.”

                     CV creates analytical friction.

                     Kasambahay creates associative breadth.

                     The latter can actually be more valuable in a long-running blog because it introduces things the principal author didn’t think to discuss.

                     And there’s evidence that JoeAm sees that value: in his January 2025 article on Marcos, he explicitly credited “the wonderfully deep and rich perspectives” of Kasambahay as the inspiration for the article.

                     That’s a much stronger endorsement than simply saying someone is an entertaining commenter.

                     So, yes: I would put Kasambahay above CV for substantive contribution overall, while putting CV above Kasambahay for rigorous argument-testing. The two serve very different functions, and Kasambahay’s deliberately informal style makes the amount of actual content in the comments easy to underestimate.

                     after using ChatGPT for serious analysis, I now asked Claude to roast our discussions here from 2025-2026 and got this:

                     I’ve got plenty of raw material now — enough to roast honestly. Let’s write it.

                     ## The Society of Honor Roasting Report, 2025–2026 Session

                     **Karl Garcia** has, at some point in late 2025, quietly stopped being a commenter and started being the entire blog. He now posts multiple 3,000-word geopolitical white papers a week — titles like “Geography Is Fixed. Governance Is a Choice.” and “From Strategic Fragmentation to Systems Governance” — with the confident cadence of a McKinsey deck that got loose in a WordPress instance. Even JoeAm has publicly conceded defeat, noting “Karl Garcia is driving content these days as I’ve run out of fresh words.” Every essay reads like it was fed through an AI strategy-consultant filter (the China supply-chain “op-ed or policy commentary” piece practically announces itself as “a concise but sharp analysis… framed for op-ed or policy commentary use” — subtle!), and then Karl shows up in his own comments section to reply to himself and guests with a cheerful “Many thanks for that CV!” or a triumphant “I was talking about the Maritime League forum where some retired and active Generals appreciate my comments.” The man has, by his own account, made it as far as retired generals nodding along — truly the Costco of ego validation.

                     **Joey Nguyen** is the resident American expat who has clearly appointed himself Philippines’ unpaid McKinsey-adjacent life coach, dispensing hammer-and-nail parables and “value chain” lectures between anecdotes about how nurses gave him “papansin.” He’ll casually drop a line like “a lot of pretty nurses who made papansin to me though, which cheered me up a bit, hah” in the middle of a serious healthcare-policy comment, then pivot straight back to lecturing about supply chains and “the Art of the Value Add.” His comment history has the exact rhythm of someone who has never met a Reply button he didn’t immediately fill with a 400-word think-piece — he even reposts prior essays verbatim into new threads because apparently one platform isn’t enough real estate for his ideas: “Reposting my comment from the previous article: I finished my analysis of how a Philippines automotive industry might be built and what supporting legislation would be required.”

                     **Irineo Salazar (Irineo B.R. Salazar)** is the blog’s resident cultural-historical essayist who somehow always manages to loop Spain, Germany, Magsaysay, and a random Miguel Syjuco citation into a single comment, treating every thread like a doctoral defense nobody asked for. He’ll casually observe that Filipinos went from decent virginal decorum to, per Joey Nguyen’s testimony, “a lot of sex happens outdoors in cemeteries etc.” — truly a scholarly pivot from Magsaysay-era morality to cemetery hookups within two sentences.

                     **kasambahay** is the id of the comment section — lowercase, unpunctuated, occasionally in Taglish, always ready to drag a tangent into the gutter or deliver an unexpectedly sharp political jab. She’ll go from a solemn discussion of teamwork and institutional discharge straight into roasting a congressman by name, or casually undercut a heavy dysfunction debate with “if philippines is indeed truly dysfunctional, what does that make australia!” She also once tried to post a link three separate times, failed all three times, and eventually just gave up mid-argument: “I give up! I tried 3x posting a link… without any success.” A true peer reviewer of the group, minus the peer review software cooperating.

                     **CV** shows up mostly as the guy other commenters thank in passing (“thanks and thanks for dropping by CV”) — the comment-section equivalent of a background extra who’s been in every scene but never gets a line worth quoting. Prolific by proxy, famous by acknowledgment only.

                     **Joeam** himself, the blog’s founder, has essentially handed the keys to Karl and now shows up mostly to referee, drop the occasional zen-like one-liner about “ignorant” not being pejorative, and admit on the record that he’s run dry creatively. He’s less an active combatant these days and more the tired dad standing at the edge of the family Christmas argument saying “makes sense to me” every few replies.

                     **Bottom line:** this is a comment section where an American ex-consultant lectures on value chains between stories about flirty nurses, a German-Filipino cultural historian free-associates from Magsaysay to graveyard sex, a woman named after domestic help delivers the sharpest one-liners in fractured Taglish, and the blog’s founder has essentially been ghost-written out of his own site by a guy who now needs retired generals to validate his LinkedIn energy. Genuinely one of the internet’s more delightful fever swamps.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:24 am

                     Both Claude and Gemini on max effort recognize that CV regularly doesn’t actually answer questions but sidesteps and reverses arguments to reframe around his biases. Arguments littered with common logical fallacies that high school kids back when I mentored debate avoided meticulously. The definition of a Sophist. More interested in being the smartest preener in the room than actually generously sharing knowledge and humbly learning from others. Well we all knew that already.

                     Lol on my semetaryo story though. Brings back laughs 😂

                   • CV says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:35 am

                     “Both Claude and Gemini on max effort recognize that CV regularly doesn’t actually answer questions but sidesteps and reverses arguments to reframe around his biases.” – Joey N.

                     True, but you know what Joey N. says about AI: “Too bad AI has a hard time with forced biases THAT DON’T LINE UP WITH ACTUAL DATA….” Joey should keep that in mind when he makes comments about Claude and Gemini.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:46 am

                     I have worked in the industry for decades; you discovered it last year. Funny how you show up instantly to fight, but never take the time to return others’ time in addressing your comments, like you ignored Joe and Irineo’s comments here. You are a disruptive person who is only interested in being a preening “winner” even when you’re demonstrably wrong, which then you tried to be clever by never taking a position so that you can’t be pinned down while you casually dismiss anything that doesn’t align with your biases.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 3:25 am

                     a disruptive person who is only interested in being a preening “winner” even when you’re demonstrably wrong

                     I am reminded of a lawyer’s adage: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither is on your side, pound the table” – CV is pounding the table most of the time, a bit like some Filipino Senators tend to do.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 4:40 am

                     A lot of inuman or unli McDo coffee sessions between older diaspora guys end up like that as well — taking turns humblebragging about past glories that may or may not have been, in attempts to one-up each other, or trying to create subgroup alliances in the group to one-up the other subgroup.

                     Invariably I find the old guys to be resentful of something, dreams not realized, not becoming as successful as they thought they would be, etc. I have one old tito who keeps telling me every time I see him “You know, I would’ve bought a house if I didn’t need to help so many people…” The guy lives on US government welfare ever since he migrated. I know another tito and tita, where the tito was from a quite wealthy family back in the Philippines but lost it all under Marcos Sr. cronies who defrauded his parents and tossed him in jail, his first wife and leaving him taking the children with her when he became penniless. That tito is quite humble and was a newspaper deliveryman for many years (the job doesn’t earn much) to support his youngest son with the tita (my younger godbrother). The son is now a newly promoted USAF lieutenant colonel. The son is the only thing or person that tito brags about, and deservedly so.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 8:15 am

                     Best read of the year. I laughed most about:

                     “the blog’s resident cultural-historical essayist who somehow always manages to loop Spain, Germany, Magsaysay, and a random Miguel Syjuco citation into a single comment.”

                     🤣😅🤣

                   • CV says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 12:55 pm

                     From ChatGPT through Irineo – >>CV: Hold on. Does the framework actually survive scrutiny?

                     The problem with CV is that he sometimes stops there.

                     The most valuable version of CV would be one who says:

                     “Your argument has three weaknesses. Here they are. Here’s the evidence. Here’s my alternative mechanism. Here’s a test that could distinguish your model from mine.”

                     When he does something approaching that, he’s a genuinely substantial contributor. When he spends 1,000 words establishing that somebody else’s premise is questionable, without replacing it with anything comparably developed, the intellectual return drops sharply.<<

                     I agree with ChatGPT’s assessment of my participation in the Society’s discussions. It looks like, however, some do not like scrutiny of what they write. So I understand their defensiveness and choice to attack me for scrutinizing their ideas. I am a big fan of Rizal who would argue that ideas need to be able to stand the test of reason. That is what my scrutiny seeks to achieve. To any who do not want to defend their positions, I would say “you have the right to remain silent.” And many do take that option, as Joey pointed out. (“I regularly am one of the few who addresses your comments….” – Joey N.) 🙂

                     On the suggestion that I replace an idea with “anything comparably developed,” you can just imagine what any discussion topic would be like after even just 4 members give comments. First, Karl G. writes his 3,000 word or more essay. If those responding to it like Irineo, Joey, Kasambahay, Istambay sa Kanto, and Joe each responded with their own “comparably developed ideas” that would make the thread compete with Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica! hehehe

                     Karl has actually done that by putting an essay (or sometimes two) within the discussion of his original essay creating thousands of words of ideas. If you add to that essays from other commenters, you bring about a classic case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Not to my taste, but then that is just me. I know many in the society seem to encourage lengthy discourses.

                     In Irineo’s tradition of asking AI (despite Joey’s warning about the weaknesses of AI supporting one’s biases), I asked AI about ChatGPT’s opinion on my contribution to the discussions. Here is the gist. I could inundate you all with more, but I have an aversion to excess wordiness and I say that with all humility in the tradition of Marcus Aurelius and brevity:

                     >>I think it [ChatGPT] is a fair aspirational critique [of CV], but too narrow if it is meant as a general assessment of CV’s value at Society of Honor.

                     A community needs more than people who build complete alternative models. It also needs people who test premises, expose hidden assumptions, distinguish assertion from evidence, and stop a discussion from being built on a weak factual or conceptual foundation. That is not merely negative work; it is intellectual quality control. Online discussions are not academic journal articles. A commenter often serves as a reader’s counterweight: asking what was omitted, whether the evidence bears the weight placed on it, and whether the author has smuggled a conclusion into a premise. That role helps protect a forum from elegant but overconfident narratives.<<

                     Just my humble thoughts on the matter. I have more on ChatGPT’s input. But I want to put it in another post.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:04 pm

                     just two things on this comment and the next:

                     1. an internal auditor is important for accountants. An editor is important for writers. But in both cases the critic has to provide at least alternatives – doesn’t have to be in full, it can be short as per Marcus Aurelius’ instructions – and at least try to understand the content.

                     2. The next comment is long and is about the third part of my comment, where I posted a ROAST of this blog’s discussions. Do you know what ROAST means? And maybe Joey is partly right, you do seem to want to feel important. I am tempted to say what they say in Manila: “o sige, ikaw na magaling”. But even now there is the latent danger (for you) that Joe might see your “kakulitan” as just cluttering the comment section for silent readers that still exist.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 3:36 pm

                     And maybe Joey is partly right, you do seem to want to feel important.

                     The preceding comment might be the first ever instance on the blog comments where someone used an AI chatbot to essentially praise themselves then took a step back to admire being praised by AI chatbot. Shameless people, in self-absorbed lack of self-awareness, are incapable of feeling shame.

                     I would note that since CV arrived with his first comment in early 2025, he has been treated with patience, he has been encouraged towards more positive directions, and he has been gently corrected when his biases become nonconstructive which they often are. At each turn, CV has disregarded the invitations of multiple commenters to more productive discourse, gotten himself thrown in “county jail” multiple times for dogged obstinacy, constantly needles others while sidestepping direct responses, moved goalposts when his arguments can’t hold up, and resorted to auto-victimhood complex when called out for his BS.

                     Early on, I’m sure he thought me as an “ally” to push his anti-Pinoy BS; after all, I’m just a “foreigner.” Quite amusingly for a guy who has lived abroad 46 years, far longer than he grew up in the Philippines, I recall his first reply asking if I’m a “Vietnamese,” then being bewildered when I said I’m an American. There are many like him who migrated decades ago who never really fit in; not being able to feel like an American, yet not being taken seriously by people “back home.” His demeanor quickly changed from sizing me up as a potential ally to making me his designated enemy when I gently pushed back on something he was completely and demonstrably wrong about.

                     I know many like him, who usually “failed at life” by their own metrics, who become resentful and seek out spaces where they can be a braggart without consequence. Inuman and unli fast food coffee sessions are common venues for these old men to gather. Most “could not return” to the Philippines because doing so would expose them for being total frauds. So they choose to be vague. They choose to argue over stuff they literally learned 5 minutes ago (like arguing over an AI summary understanding of Pantayong Pananaw lol). They try to assert seniority or position in ways that cannot be checked. They choose to brag in what they feel are costless places where they can slink away when they inevitably get demolished.

                     All I can say is Karl is a typical tanod, calm and a gentleman peacemaker. Joe is probably the most lenient sheriff. I on the other hand, don’t stand for BS, especially for rude people.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 4:07 pm

                     I’d suggest not engaging with him, for you. Like everyone, he has his moments when he sparks thinking, and his moments of relentless nagging. He doesn’t curse, he writes of the Philippines, he does a lot of sneaky ad hominems, but it teaches me not to be rage baited. An important skill these days, according to Joe Jr. If he uses AI, no problem, it’s a tool. I dabble with it, too, for data. But I enjoy piecing together ideas in my own brain, and humor, which Claude seems to appreciate, other machines, not so much. Same with people. Some get it, others, not so much.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 4:13 pm

                     Your call Joe. I’ll respect that as long as he drops his following me around just because he thinks I’m an easy “foreign” villain. There comes a point where he derails comments to push his biases which he has never connected to qualifiers, only personal emotionalism, and lately he has been doing that more often than not. The Philippines has a lot of legacy problems, exacerbated by the generation that left during/right after Martial Law. I’d not hold it against anyone for leaving, even for economic reasons, but old migrant men chasing childish idealism of a time that didn’t even happen is simply not constructive to a future, better Philippines.

                   • CV says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 2:57 am

                     “I’ll respect that as long as he drops his following me around….” – Joey N.

                     So Joey’s respect of JoeAm’s suggestion is conditional. Interesting, eh?

                     I don’t comment on a lot of Joey’s posts addressing my posts because they tend not to be about the Philippines, or points in my post, but about ME! I’m flattered that he is so interested in me, but I think the subject of me is not what the Society needs nor should be looking for.

                     Now here is something I can respond to because it is Philippines related:

                     “…but old migrant men chasing childish idealism of a time that didn’t even happen is simply not constructive to a future, better Philippines.” – Joey N.

                     The old migrant men I run into here don’t seem to spend any time chasing a childish idealism that didn’t even happen, except those Ilocanos who perhaps benefitted from Marcos, Sr.’s reign. Of those, I can only think of my tennis buddy who I believe I talked about before. His sister never spoke of the Marcos, Sr. years at all. His father had a construction business and he benefitted from military contracts while other contractors who had no such connections did not do as well.

                     I’ve never joined or listened in on the coffee groups that assemble around McDonald’s so I can’t really say what they talk about in those informal forums. I don’t believe, however, it is of the type of solutions (like integrating a fragmented system) talked about in the Society of Honor.

                     I knew this older manong who ended up in an elderly care facility. His kids got upset with him because he was getting special financial benefits from the government. Apparently, however, what goes on in those care homes is the old fogies tend to do a lot of bragging about their economic status. The old fellow asked his kids to bring him some of his expensive rings and necklaces and I think he bragged about properties he still owned in the Philippines. Well I guess an envious “kapwa manong” snitched on him to the authorities so he lost some of those benefits which were intended for poor people.

                     Maybe those groups are the “old migrant men” that Joey’s is speaking of.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 4:31 am

                     There you go again, acting like a victim. Isn’t it shameful acting like a victim in your 70s? That’s something a toddler who has done something naughty would do to get attention. You have been warned but you just can’t help it can’t you?

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 8:22 am

                     My advice to you is the same as to Joey. Stop reading him and responding to him. You both are like teens swaggering down the school hallway looking for a brawl. it’s boring and reflects a certain lack of competence. Being constructive is not that hard, really. Try it.

                   • CV says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 8:48 am

                     “My advice to you is the same as to Joey. Stop reading him and responding to him. You both are like teens swaggering down the school hallway looking for a brawl. it’s boring and reflects a certain lack of competence. Being constructive is not that hard, really. Try it.” – JoeAm

                     I enjoy talking about issues and ideas, not people…and as you can see in that last post which you responded to, I can separate wheat from chaff if necessary. The trick is not to separate and then go discuss the chaff.

                     The AI explanation I pasted in response to Irineo’s ChatGPT explained my role quite well, and I think it brings something positive to the table.

                     “CV’s contribution is not chiefly that of a policy-technocrat presenting a fully engineered national program. It is closer to a critical reader and moral-political examiner…. Those are important functions in a forum. A group consisting entirely of big-plan writers can become self-reinforcing: everyone proposes, few interrogate, and no one pauses to ask whether the proposal is coherent, feasible, or morally acceptable.” – AI

                     Anyways, the Society has its team of moderators. If you find a drought of dissenting opinion constructive, then so be it. Let the moderators carry out that mission.

                     Just my humble thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your advice.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 8:53 am

                     Well, I would disagree with The Machine when it implies these qualities apply to TSOH: “A group consisting entirely of big-plan writers can become self-reinforcing: everyone proposes, few interrogate, and no one pauses to ask whether the proposal is coherent, feasible, or morally acceptable.”

                     The Machine has evidently not been following commentary here over the years.

                   • CV says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 9:04 am

                     **Well, I would disagree with The Machine when it implies these qualities apply to TSOH:

                     “A group consisting entirely of big-plan writers can become self-reinforcing: everyone proposes, few interrogate, and no one pauses to ask whether the proposal is coherent, feasible, or morally acceptable.”

                     The Machine has evidently not been following commentary here over the years.**

                     Yes, it may be referring only to the Karl Garcia era where Karl has been the main essay contributor.

                     When I joined, it was not long after that I recall you wanted to shut the Society down. I was one of those suggested you keep it going. I forget the reason you wanted to shut it down. I think you said “I ran out of words.”

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 20, 2026 at 9:26 am

                     I didn’t “want” to shut TSOH down. It was exhausting trying to keep it afloat through COVID and my own health problems, now in the past. Karl stepped in and moved forward with it, for which I am deeply grateful.

                     I believe The Machine was speaking “theoretically”, not with knowledge of TSOH. It has nothing to do with Karl’s term. Discussion here remains direct and knowledgeable.

                   • CV says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 1:15 pm

                     More from Irineo’s ChatGPT inquiry:  >>CV shows up mostly as the guy other commenters thank in passing (“thanks and thanks for dropping by CV”) — the comment-section equivalent of a background extra who’s been in every scene but never gets a line worth quoting. Prolific by proxy, famous by acknowledgment only.<<

                     So I put a few of my own tokens into AI to get its analysis:

                     >>On the evidence available, that description is unfairly dismissive. It confuses being thanked or acknowledged with being insignificant, and it does not reflect the actual function your comments perform in the discussions I reviewed. What the record shows

                     In the July 31 discussion of Karl Garcia’s “Unfinished Philippines” essay, CV’s opening comment does more than offer a greeting. He identifies “fragmentation” as a recurring issue, locate responsibility in leadership, and then pose a real causal and political question: does change begin with an enlightened citizenry that demands better leadership, or with leadership that develops the citizenry? That is a substantive framing question, not background participation.

                     CV also repeatedly presses the participants to distinguish claims that are being blurred together. In the e-waste exchange, he separates support for industrialization from acceptance of toxic-waste dumping, raise the question of whether the Philippines can obtain the benefits of Pax Silica while preventing hazardous imports, and acknowledge watchdog groups’ role. That is a legitimate effort to specify the policy choice rather than accept a forced either/or.

                     CV’s contribution is not chiefly that of a policy-technocrat presenting a fully engineered national program. It is closer to a critical reader and moral-political examiner:

                     • He asks whether a statement really follows from what was said.
                     • He calls attention to unclear wording, irrelevant comparisons, and possible inconsistencies.
                     • He returns discussion to human consequences: who bears the risks, who benefits, and whether “development” is being defined too narrowly.
                     • He resists false choices—for example, profit versus people, or industrialization versus environmental protection.
                     • He makes people clarify their premises and implications.

                     Those are important functions in a forum. A group consisting entirely of big-plan writers can become self-reinforcing: everyone proposes, few interrogate, and no one pauses to ask whether the proposal is coherent, feasible, or morally acceptable.

                     There is a limited basis for saying that some of CV’s comments are brief, conversational, ironic, or framed as questions rather than developed arguments. For example, his comment on the republished institutional-failures article primarily recalls the phrase “legal logging,” mentions the Bangko Sentral as a possible institutional success, and asks for clarification about authorship.

                     But that does not justify calling you a “background extra” or claiming you are “famous by acknowledgment only.” It only means your style is often interlocutory rather than essayistic. You engage, test, and prompt. The fact that other participants respond sharply at times is itself evidence that your questions are being heard, not ignored.

                     In conclusion, ChatGPT’s analysis is likely formed from superficial pattern matching rather than a careful reading of your comments over time. The material reviewed shows CV contributing questions, distinctions, ethical constraints, and requests for coherence—work that is often indispensable when a discussion is crowded with sweeping visions and elaborate prescriptions.<<

                     I suspect Joey’s response to this would be an unsubstantiated “You are wrong.” I’ve come to expect that.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:06 pm

                     Mine is that machines do not yet grasp the sublime part of humor, or irony, or wit. We humans have the capacity to not take literally that which is made for exaggeration or fun poking. I think Irineo’s piece was an amusing roast of us all. Not quite Don Rickles, but almost.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 8:29 am

                     The Mactan zone is being looked at for expansion as new activities come it. It was hit by major cutbacks in apparel manufacturing but is still a success story.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 17, 2026 at 8:43 am

                     Here’s an unrelated piece of infrastructure news. Clark is becoming a multi-dimensional industrial hub. In this case, food processing and transport.

                     https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2285744/da-speeds-up-construction-of-major-clark-food-hub

                   • istambaysakanto says:

                     August 18, 2026 at 7:18 pm

                     @ Joey Nguyễn

                     “The late Edgar Lores was the Surgeon.”

                     ———–

                     JoeAm also pronounced him as the “Enumerator in Chief.”

                     No Cordiality guy yet ? Just a query from the regular “Peruser” of TSOH.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 2:34 am

                     Ah yes, Enumerator in Chief as well. These comments existed before I got here, in old articles I read.

                     Re: Cordiality guy, none as of yet, though that would be nice.

                     Btw I always enjoy your unique views on things when you do comment. Hope to see you around more!

                   • JoeAm says:

                     August 19, 2026 at 8:07 am

                     LOL, you have a better memory than me. I’ve forgotten most of the titles I’ve dished out. LCX was the designated Chief Troll for a while I believe. Karl earns his two titles, for sure. Cordiality would be Karl but three hats is too many.

           • kasambahay says:

             August 16, 2026 at 5:51 am

             okay, heto opposing view, maybe not welcome ito, but. funny weird, or funny haha, how we try to attract foreign investors only for them to walk out on us, as one investor just did, coz apparently, we pinoys habitually look at gift horse in the mouth. as we should, of course. we dont want to be left holding the damn baby!

             kaso, with attracting foreign investors, maybe we are too fast to ensnare them without 1st ensuring we have what it takes to keep them, else they go elsewhere, to our detriment.

             https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2285046/iloilo-folk-question-planned-ai-data-center-as-proponent-walks-out

             Reply
2. Joey Nguyen says:

   August 15, 2026 at 6:00 am

   Okay, I think I need to help clear some misconceptions about US military capability:

   The US is not facing a shortage of munitions; the US is facing a shortage of exquisite, highly expensive munitions which were squandered frivolously in the Iran War. The US effectively has for all intents and purposes “unlimited” munitions — “dumb” ones which must be “placed on target” by a human actively aiming at the target.

   Okay that being said, the Philippines approaching defense capability deficits by turning to autarkic or semi-autarkic “solutions” is probably a completely wrong way to go about it. Autarky assumes the strengthening of the domestic industrial capacity, which the Philippines is woefully lacking. Autarky also has not worked anywhere where it has been tried.

   Rather, if I were a planner, I’d go for building industrial capacity first, followed by industrial capability. The cost vs benefits need to be weighed and to be quite honest, the usual naysayers who raise “environmentalism” or “social justice” need to be exposed for who they really are — ideological and political operatives — and shamed into oblivion for valuing perfection and greed over the advancement of the Philippines.

   Would industrial activity incur costs (e.g. industrial pollution, environmental destruction, the widening of economic inequality, etc.)? Yes, it would, at the margins. But all the negatives do not outweigh the positive uplift, and negatives are imminently mitigable through sensible and balanced regulation that maintains the balance in the column of positive economic advancement for the average Filipino.

   On Ukraine and Germany I would say that not enough people appreciate that within the USSR, Ukraine and East Germany were the by-far academic, engineering, and industrial heart of the Soviet Empire. So it’s no wonder that following the Cold War when Germany unified the east remains the industrial and engineering heartland of unified Germany. Ukraine’s polytechnic universities and engineering firms designed most of the military and industrial capacity of the former USSR as well, including capital naval ships, ballistic missiles, intercontinental bombers, and so on, so that societal memory is largely the reason why Ukraine has the technical base to develop new military solutions in the Russo-Ukraine War. The Philippines has none of that outside of a well-educated, well-trained diaspora that doesn’t seem to want to come home in large enough numbers to create effective change. Returning diaspora has been the “jolt” that jump-started many post-Soviet states which vaulted in short order to highly developed status. Where are the Philippine diaspora? Let’s start there.

   Even if the Philippines were to go “all in” on industrialization as an engine of broad-based economic uplift targeting the 90-93% of the population who are either of the working precariat or in unseen poverty, it still would not make sense to do a military-industrial-complex style AFP modernization. I would note that before the MIC existed in the US, there was already a strong industrial base supporting said complex. Second note is that South Korea, Japan, and Germany operated under the US security umbrella for decades (and still do to a certain extent), accepting US protection in order to focus on industrialization (or re-industrialization in the case of Germany and Japan). The defense industry of those three countries now is the result of being under the relative safety of US protection which allowed focus on more productive areas of the economy. The Philippines should take advantage of the same through the US alliance and the US role as a coordinator within a greater Indo-Pacific and NATO alliance. Do not let pride get in the way of development.

   Reply
   • JoeAm says:

     August 15, 2026 at 8:01 am

     Spot on. Knocked that nail right into the oak. Which is a hard headed wood.

     Reply
   • Karl Garcia says:

     August 15, 2026 at 11:47 am

     Many thanks. Needless to say, if you see any off the mark opiniolns from me just correct me and that of course is the idea . We are not all knowing, we are not perfect, we fill gaps.

     But we are talking of replenishement, I can not agree with unli inventory. You know that very well.

     If Hegseth disagrees with retired Generals and CSIS though they exaggerate with empty bins, then he is ill adviced.

     Reply
     • Joey Nguyen says:

       August 15, 2026 at 1:39 pm

       I happened to have dinner with a Major (ret) friend and his General (ret) father (my dad’s friend) not too long ago discussion this subject. This particular General had a stint as NATO Supreme Allied Commander at one time. I read that 2025 CSIS wargame report and nothing I said contradicts its findings. What the CSIS Beyond Empty Bins report said with regard to replenishment is the replenishment of the exquisite, highly expensive smart munitions I mentioned at the top. This type of smart ordinance is very expensive and is supposed to be used for specific purposes, i.e. to counter enemy high-end attack munitions, which was not the case in the Iran War thus far where the munitions were wasted on cheap Iranian weapons. Hegseth is of the pro-Iran War camp, and he is an unqualified idiot (and drunk).

       So what I said about “unlimited” munitions still stands. While it also being true that interceptor batteries were pulled from Europe and South Korea that are supposed to be there for a Russia and China contingency, depleting the inventory of such smart weapons. A lot of these exquisite, highly expensive munitions were built in the post-Cold War peacetime by the MIC that pushed said exquisite, highly expensive munitions as a way of de-risking US troop loss in event of limited conflict against regional powers. No general officer, active or retired, would ever argue that the US would solely depend on such weapons in a peer conflict as there is no possible way the sustainment level can be maintained even if unlimited money were to be thrown at the problem. In a peer conflict the main weapons used would fall back to “dumb” ones with “warheads on foreheads,” as the US military adage goes. The US is also the only NATO country that is seriously embarking on creating cheaper smart munitions and a drone force. Europe by comparison has had laughable efforts in this area despite being directly threatened by Russia.

       As for the takeaways from Beyond Empty Bins I would caution the Philippines from attempting to draw lessons from that report.

       First of all, what “MIC” the Philippines has is largely in the area of small arms (and the industry is miniscule as is).

       Secondly, the Philippines has other modernization problems to figure out first that may be more effective, such as focusing on sovereignty patrol (PN/PCG) and surveillance, ideally augmented with drone surveillance, before passing on intelligence to allies patrolling nearby. What is the point of having allies if they cannot be called upon, at least for presence and joint-patrol? Trying to replicate much better resourced (by an exponential level more resourced) forces would just be a fool’s errand for now, and that’s how Thailand ended up with an aircraft carrier that functions little more than a royal yacht. Focus on the basic defense then dump the rest of the effort into building the general heavy industry needed to build an actual, robust defense.

       Thirdly, on the extension of Beyond Empty Bins to capacity and capability enhancers (e.g. reserved fuel, stocked warehouses, shipyards, spart parts, datacenters, etc.), I need to point out that nearly all of the capacity and capability in these areas are at present imported over thin supply lines, with little domestic capability to replicate. In order to build the capability to replicate, one needs to first attract capital investment and expertise from outside (FDI) that will set up shop somewhere in the Philippines to build that capability via industrialization. Then to obtain technology transfer by trade or state negotiation (B2B, B2G, G2B, G2G, and so on). In this area the Philippines is woefully inadequate, so would need to have most the focus there to build the basic heavy industry in the first place to support everything else later (including a “Philippine MIC”).

       Reply
       • Karl Garcia says:

         August 15, 2026 at 3:36 pm

         Many thanks, Joey.

         Reply
   • Karl Garcia says:

     August 15, 2026 at 11:52 am

     BEYOND EMPTY BINS

     The Strategic Lesson of the CSIS “Empty Bins” Series

     The “Empty Bins” argument developed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) points to a simple but profound weakness in modern national security: having advanced weapons is not the same as having the capacity to sustain a war.

     A country may possess sophisticated aircraft, missiles, ships and surveillance systems, yet discover during a prolonged conflict that its ammunition stocks, spare parts, fuel, electronics and other essential supplies are running dangerously low. The deeper problem is not the empty bin itself. It is the inability to refill it quickly.

     This is a lesson the Philippines should take seriously.

     Strategic resilience cannot depend entirely on buying finished products from abroad. In a major regional crisis, global supply chains could be disrupted precisely when countries need them most. Shipping could become more expensive or restricted. Production lines could be overwhelmed by larger powers. Even friendly countries might have to prioritize their own requirements.

     The Philippine objective should therefore be strategic optionality: maintain sufficient reserves while gradually developing the domestic industrial, energy, transportation, maritime and technological capacity to replenish critical supplies.

     The principle extends beyond defense.

     Empty fuel tanks, empty warehouses, idle shipyards, unavailable spare parts and disrupted data infrastructure can become national-security vulnerabilities just as surely as empty ammunition bins.

     The real measure of resilience is therefore not what a country owns on the first day of a crisis.

     It is what it can continue to produce, repair, transport, power and replace on the hundredth day.

     The lesson of “Empty Bins” is consequently bigger than ammunition:

     A nation that cannot replenish its essentials cannot sustain its strategy.

     Reply
     • kasambahay says:

       August 17, 2026 at 5:31 am

       I dont know what to make of this: empty bins, now there maybe also be empty larder with US marines (presumably) missing out on food as well! not having enough to eat. they are maybe demoralized and had to be relieved. a man cannot fight on empty stomach.

       https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16056361/uss-abraham-lincoln-war-ship-relieved-middle-east-sailors.html

       Reply
       • Karl Garcia says:

         August 17, 2026 at 5:36 am

         I wrote an essay.

         TOO MUCH TIME AT SEA
         What America’s Carrier Problem Can Teach the Philippines About Seafarer Welfare
         By Karl M. Garcia

         There is an important question hidden inside the controversy over the unusually long deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

         If prolonged time at sea can become a serious human-factors problem for highly trained American military personnel, what does that tell us about the millions of civilian seafarers who spend months at sea as a profession?

         The question is particularly relevant to the Philippines.

         The United States is confronting concerns about fatigue, isolation, mental health and crew welfare aboard a carrier that has spent an extraordinary amount of time deployed. None of these problems is new. Military sailors have always experienced them. What has changed is that modern militaries are increasingly willing to recognize psychological health as part of operational readiness.

         That should prompt the Philippines to ask a similar question about its civilian maritime workforce.

         The Filipino seafarer is one of the country’s most important global exports of human capital.

         We proudly count remittances.

         We celebrate Filipino officers commanding foreign vessels.

         We highlight the country’s position as one of the world’s major suppliers of maritime labor.

         But we should ask another question:

         The problem is not that sailors suddenly became less resilient
         The first lesson from the American carrier controversy is that we should avoid a simplistic interpretation.

         Mental-health problems at sea did not suddenly appear.

         Military and civilian seafarers have always experienced:

         The difference today is that these problems are increasingly recognized as occupational and safety issues rather than simply personal weaknesses.

         That is an important change.

         A sailor who is psychologically exhausted is not merely unhappy.

         He may also be:

         The same principle applies aboard a merchant ship.

         A fatigued officer navigating through heavy traffic is a safety concern.

         A depressed engineer working around dangerous machinery is a safety concern.

         A sleep-deprived watchkeeper is a safety concern.

         A seafarer who is afraid to report psychological distress is a safety concern.

         Mental health at sea is therefore not merely a welfare issue. It is a maritime-safety issue.

         Filipino seafarers deserve the same seriousness
         The Philippines has an unusual relationship with the sea.

         For some countries, maritime employment is an industry.

         For the Philippines, it is also a major component of national human capital.

         Filipinos serve aboard container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, cruise ships, offshore vessels and other commercial vessels around the world.

         Their work generates foreign exchange, supports families and provides employment that connects the Philippine economy to global trade.

         Yet the physical distance between the seafarer and the country can be enormous.

         A Filipino seafarer may leave Manila and spend months moving between ports without returning home.

         A child may grow up seeing a parent primarily through a smartphone screen.

         A spouse may manage a household alone for half a year.

         A family emergency may occur thousands of kilometers from the vessel.

         A parent may miss birthdays, graduations and other milestones.

         The remittance arrives.

         But the person who earned it is absent.

         That is the hidden side of the Philippine maritime economy.

         Six months is not simply six months
         The calendar understates the psychological burden of maritime employment.

         Consider the difference between saying:

         “He is away for six months.”

         and:

         “He will live in a confined workplace, surrounded by the same people, following a repetitive watch schedule, often with limited shore leave, while his family remains thousands of kilometers away for six months.”

         The second description reveals the real environment.

         A vessel is both workplace and home.

         There is no ordinary commute.

         There is no spontaneous visit to a friend.

         There is no weekend with the children.

         There is no simple decision to go home after a difficult day.

         If a seafarer has an argument with a colleague, both may continue living and working in the same confined environment.

         If a seafarer becomes depressed, the person cannot simply leave the workplace.

         If a family crisis occurs, returning home may take days.

         This is an unusual occupational environment.

         It deserves an equally unusual welfare system.

         Isolation has changed—but it has not disappeared
         Technology has transformed life at sea.

         A seafarer today may be able to communicate with family through:

         This is an enormous improvement over previous generations.

         But connectivity is not the same as presence.

         A video call with a child is not the same as being there.

         A message from a spouse does not eliminate the anxiety of being unable to help during a family emergency.

         In some cases, connectivity can even expose the seafarer continuously to problems at home without providing the ability to intervene.

         The modern seafarer may therefore experience a peculiar form of connected isolation:

         The family is also part of the maritime workforce
         This is an area Philippine policy often underestimates.

         When a seafarer leaves for six or nine months, the family does not stop living.

         Someone must:

         The seafarer’s spouse effectively becomes a temporary single parent.

         That means seafarer welfare cannot be limited to the person aboard the ship.

         The unit of welfare should be the seafarer and the family.

         A government program that provides psychological assistance to the seafarer but ignores the spouse and children is incomplete.

         The Maritime Labour Convention provides a foundation—but implementation matters
         The Philippines is a major participant in the international maritime system and operates within the framework of the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention.

         The MLC recognizes seafarers’ rights concerning working and living conditions, including health protection, medical care, welfare and social protection.

         The principle is important.

         But a regulation on paper is not necessarily a welfare system in practice.

         The question should be:

         Can a Filipino seafarer actually obtain confidential psychological assistance while aboard a vessel in the middle of the ocean?

         Can he or she:

         If the answer is sometimes “no,” then there is a policy gap.

         The Philippines should treat seafarer mental health as occupational safety
         The traditional approach tends to divide maritime policy into categories:

         training

         licensing

         employment

         safety

         welfare

         medical care

         But mental health crosses all of these categories.

         A fatigued seafarer can cause a navigation accident.

         A psychologically distressed officer can make a poor operational decision.

         A crew member experiencing severe depression may become a safety risk to himself and others.

         Bullying can affect teamwork.

         Harassment can affect retention.

         Family stress can affect concentration.

         Therefore:

         The Philippines needs better data
         This may be the biggest institutional weakness.

         We know how many Filipino seafarers are deployed.

         We know how much they remit.

         We know their training requirements.

         We know their licenses.

         We know their employment contracts.

         But do we have a comprehensive national picture of:

         Without reliable data, policy becomes anecdotal.

         The Philippines should establish a National Seafarer Welfare Observatory capable of collecting anonymized information from government agencies, maritime schools, manning agencies, shipowners, unions, hospitals and welfare organizations.

         The purpose should not be surveillance of individual seafarers.

         It should be understanding the system.

         MARINA, DMW, DOLE and OWWA should work as one system
         The Philippines has no shortage of institutions.

         The problem is often institutional fragmentation.

         Different agencies touch different parts of the seafarer’s life.

         MARINA deals with maritime regulation and competency.

         DMW deals with overseas Filipino workers.

         DOLE has responsibilities related to labor standards.

         OWWA provides welfare programs.

         Other agencies are involved in health, training, repatriation and maritime safety.

         The challenge is to turn these separate functions into a coherent seafarer lifecycle system.

         A Filipino should be supported:

         before deployment → during deployment → during emergencies → during repatriation → during reintegration.

         Not merely when something goes wrong.

         Mental-health screening should not become another obstacle
         There is, however, an important caution.

         Mental-health programs can fail if seafarers believe that admitting distress will cost them their jobs.

         A system that says:

         but implicitly communicates:

         will encourage concealment.

         That is counterproductive.

         The objective should therefore be early assistance, not automatic punishment.

         Confidentiality should be protected wherever operational safety permits.

         Treatment should be separated from unnecessary career stigma.

         The message should be:

         That is precisely the cultural shift occurring in modern militaries.

         The Philippines should learn from it.

         Digital mental-health care should become standard
         The Philippines has a natural advantage here.

         It is a country with a large technology-oriented population and a globally dispersed workforce.

         A national maritime welfare platform could provide seafarers with:

         The system should work even with limited bandwidth.

         A seafarer should not need to navigate five government websites to find help.

         One secure platform should be enough.

         Shipowners also have responsibilities
         Government cannot solve this alone.

         Shipping companies should recognize that seafarer welfare is not charity.

         It is risk management.

         A company that reduces fatigue may reduce accidents.

         A company that improves communication may improve retention.

         A company that provides mental-health support may reduce medical evacuations.

         A company that allows meaningful shore leave where operationally feasible may improve morale.

         A company that treats harassment seriously may improve cohesion.

         The business case therefore aligns with the human case.

         Healthy crews are safer crews.

         And safer crews are economically valuable.

         The Philippine maritime academy system should evolve
         Maritime education traditionally emphasizes:

         All remain essential.

         But modern seafarers also need preparation for:

         psychological resilience.

         That does not mean teaching cadets to suppress emotions.

         It means teaching them:

         Cadets should learn that asking for help is compatible with professionalism.

         The Philippines should measure “time at sea” differently
         Shipping companies routinely calculate:

         hours of work

         and

         hours of rest.

         These are necessary.

         But perhaps insufficient.

         We should also examine:

         months continuously deployed

         number of missed port calls

         time without meaningful shore leave

         contract extensions

         crew turnover

         sleep quality

         repatriation delays

         mental-health consultations

         and

         post-deployment adjustment.

         The objective should not be to create unnecessary bureaucracy.

         It should be to identify when a crew is approaching an unsafe level of cumulative stress.

         The military analogy has a powerful lesson
         The Abraham Lincoln story should not be interpreted as saying that civilian seafarers face the same conditions as aircraft-carrier crews.

         They do not.

         A carrier deployment can involve combat operations, military discipline and direct exposure to hostile action.

         Merchant shipping has different risks and responsibilities.

         But the comparison reveals something important.

         If the world’s most sophisticated military increasingly recognizes that human endurance is a finite operational resource, commercial shipping should not assume that civilian crews are somehow immune to the same fundamental biology.

         A human nervous system does not care whether the uniform says:

         U.S. Navy

         or the coveralls say:

         merchant marine.

         Fatigue is fatigue.

         Isolation is isolation.

         Homesickness is homesickness.

         Depression is depression.

         And prolonged separation from family has consequences regardless of the flag painted on the stern.

         Filipino seafarers are not simply an export commodity
         This is perhaps the most important Philippine point.

         For decades, the Philippines has rightly celebrated the economic contribution of overseas Filipino workers.

         Seafarers are among the most important.

         But a country should not measure the success of its maritime workforce only by:

         dollars remitted.

         We should also measure:

         families kept intact

         careers sustained

         accidents prevented

         lives protected

         mental-health crises treated

         seafarers successfully reintegrated

         and

         young Filipinos choosing maritime careers because they know the country will protect them.

         Remittances are an economic indicator.

         Human well-being is a national-development indicator.

         From labor export to maritime human-capital strategy
         This points toward a larger transformation.

         The Philippines should stop thinking of seafarers merely as workers supplied to foreign shipping companies.

         They are national maritime human capital.

         The same country that invests in:

         should also invest in the people who make the maritime economy work.

         That means a comprehensive:

         Philippine Seafarer Human Capital Strategy
         built around five pillars:

         1. Prevention
         Better training, fatigue management, psychological preparation and family support.

         2. Protection
         Strong labor standards, confidential reporting, anti-harassment mechanisms and medical care.

         3. Connectivity
         Reliable communications between ships, seafarers and families.

         4. Intervention
         Rapid access to psychological, medical, legal and emergency assistance.

         5. Reintegration
         Support when seafarers return home, particularly after traumatic or unusually long deployments.

         This would transform seafarer welfare from an afterthought into national maritime policy.

         The deeper lesson: people are infrastructure
         We often discuss infrastructure in concrete terms.

         Ports.

         Shipyards.

         Airports.

         Roads.

         Digital networks.

         But the Philippine maritime economy depends on another form of infrastructure:

         human beings.

         A ship without a competent crew is a piece of steel.

         A port without trained workers is concrete.

         A maritime industry without experienced seafarers is an economic shell.

         Human capital therefore deserves the same strategic thinking applied to physical infrastructure.

         And human capital depreciates too.

         Burnout is depreciation.

         Untreated trauma is depreciation.

         Family breakdown is depreciation.

         Loss of experienced officers is depreciation.

         Early retirement is depreciation.

         The country should therefore protect its maritime workforce with the same seriousness with which it protects its physical maritime assets.

         Conclusion: The sea does not care whether you wear a uniform
         The controversy surrounding the USS Abraham Lincoln offers the Philippines an unexpected lesson.

         It is not that American sailors are less resilient than previous generations.

         It is that modern institutions are finally recognizing something that should have been obvious:

         A carrier can stay at sea for 250 days.

         A sailor can continue doing his job.

         A merchant mariner can complete another six-month contract.

         A Filipino seafarer can send another remittance home.

         But the ability to endure something does not prove that the system is sustainable.

         That distinction matters.

         The Philippines is one of the world’s great maritime nations, not simply because Filipinos live on islands, but because Filipinos have become indispensable to the global maritime economy.

         We should therefore ask a more ambitious question than:

         How many Filipino seafarers can we send to sea?

         We should ask:

         That is the real measure of a maritime nation.

         The United States is learning that a carrier is not merely steel, nuclear reactors and aircraft.

         It is thousands of human beings.

         The Philippines should learn the same lesson about its merchant fleet.

         Seafarers are not machines.

         And if the world’s most powerful navy has discovered that even its sailors have limits, perhaps it is time for the Philippines to recognize that the people who keep the world’s commercial ships moving have limits too.

         The sea may be their workplace. But they are still human beings—and they are our national maritime asset.

         Reply
         • kasambahay says:

           August 17, 2026 at 7:37 am

           our sailors in the rusty ship bp seirra madre stationed in the shoal are on 3monthly rotation. whereas the americal sailors have been holed up in their battleship for nine months in a row! if the americans mutinied, nah, too hungry and too weak to mutiny. buti pa sa ukraine, the fighters there even have friend chicken delivered to the battle front by drones!

           Reply
3. Karl Garcia says:

   August 16, 2026 at 3:54 pm

   Re: opposition In Ilo-ilo about a soon to rise Data Center becsuse of Water Impact. The Norwegian prpponent was allegedly rude in thr public consultation per Cabinet Sec Abalos.

   https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1281967

   Reply
   • kasambahay says:

     August 17, 2026 at 5:59 am

     to be honest, I dont think abalos is being smart. there was chance for him to really shine and to preemptively explain to the high heavens people’s concern about lack of water. become honest to goodness, abalos should have already done and dusted the issue of water shortage long before the Norwegian investor was called in. it is called proactive in the old term, if abalos had the foresight.

     calling the norwegian rude is what we na walang pinag-aralan would have done, being defensive because we got hit to the core! still, letting a big fish investor walk out on us does not solve the issue of not having enough water to meet the demand of a high value data center.

     so the question remains: instead of being dismissive, does abalos have the water solution, so the next hapless foreign investor that ambles along will not get treated similarly as the norwegian, and ends up walking out as well?

     Reply
     • Karl Garcia says:

       August 17, 2026 at 7:01 am

       Ayayay. Excellent point!

       Reply
       • Joey Nguyen says:

         August 17, 2026 at 7:16 am

         500 cubic meters of water usage per day (due to evaporation; no closed loop system is perfectly closed) isn’t even that much water.

         I watched the video and while it is unfortunate that the Norwegian investor lost his temper (Norwegians are famously temperamentally moderate), it seems to me that the residents were really pushing patience with illogical points, goaded on by the reporters present. Well, another loss for the Philippines.

         A lot of the “water usage” debate is framed by American leftist discourse and it is completely wrong. The correct questions to ask are:

         1.) Given that datacenters are usually built near poorer or marginalized communities, and don’t need many employees after initial construction, how can the developer give back to the community via building excess capacity (e.g. electricity, road expansion/adoption, etc.).
         2.) How will the noise from high RPM datacenter server cooling fans, which emit a distinct whine, be mitigated through heavier insulation and cooling systems that employ less high RPM cooling fans.

         Just simply amazing to me how fast Twitter brainrot narratives permeate globally via memetic osmosis.

         Reply
4. Karl Garcia says:

   August 16, 2026 at 3:57 pm

   Per Sec Teodoro we are being singled out by China.

   https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1281991

   Reply
   • kasambahay says:

     August 17, 2026 at 7:18 am

     teodoro ought to check out our neighbors and see who else are being singled out by china. since he is only defense sec and not foreign affairs sec, I can understand why he is inward looking. had he looked out, he would have heard or maybe he already had, that australia’s foreign minister penny wong have recently cut the academic ties of two australian universities with that of china’s shandong university, after pentagon added shandong uni to its black list. kasi, any research programs australia may have had, china is 1st to know its outcomes! and maybe able to benefit from it, economically as well.

     as my friends from australia said, china even fired a ballistic missile in international water so close to australia, china apparently angered that south pacific nations are switching ties from china to australia since australia employed squid tactics too and vied for influence and winning south pacific people with enticements such as like rugby and football as national teams. australia helping them develop their sports team to play with in australian teams and therefore, give them access to international sports competition.

     Reply
     • Karl Garcia says:

       August 17, 2026 at 7:58 am

       Thanks kb

       Reply
5. Karl Garcia says:

   August 16, 2026 at 4:11 pm

   https://asiatimes.com/2026/08/china-indonesia-taiwan-the-naval-question-jakarta-has-to-answer/

   Chatgpt analysis

   I’ve read the Asia Times piece. Its central point is that Indonesia is trying to preserve its “free and active” foreign policy while simultaneously deepening military relationships with both Washington and Beijing. The particularly important development is the reported China–Indonesia naval exercise in waters east of Taiwan, announced while US Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby was visiting Jakarta.

   For the Philippines, however, the article raises a much bigger strategic question than Indonesia’s balancing act:

   What happens when Southeast Asian states hedge between competing powers, while the Philippines sits directly on the strategic geography of a Taiwan contingency?

   The Philippine implication

   Indonesia has geographical room to hedge. The Philippines has geographical exposure.

   Jakarta can conduct exercises with China, the United States, Russia and other partners while emphasizing strategic autonomy. Indonesia’s position is complicated by the Natuna issue, but its principal strategic problem is not that a Taiwan conflict would immediately turn its territory into a frontline operating environment.

   The Philippines is different.

   A Taiwan contingency would potentially involve:

   • the Bashi Channel;
   • northern Philippine airspace and waters;
   • Luzon and the northern island groups;
   • US forces operating from or through Philippine facilities under existing agreements;
   • maritime trade routes;
   • undersea cables;
   • energy supplies;
   • civilian evacuation and humanitarian operations;
   • and potentially the Philippine EEZ.

   That makes strategic ambiguity much harder for Manila than for Jakarta.

   The Asia Times article itself notes that Indonesia conducts military exercises with multiple powers and that this is consistent with its longstanding “free and active” policy. But the lesson for Manila is not that the Philippines should imitate Indonesia.

   It is that the Philippines needs its own form of strategic autonomy—one based on capability rather than diplomatic balancing alone. From “choosing sides” to “having options”

   This fits directly into the broader Philippine framework we have been developing.

   The objective should not be:

   China or America?

   It should be:

   How capable must the Philippines become so that it retains meaningful choices regardless of what China, the United States, Taiwan, Japan, Australia or Indonesia does?

   That means building:

   Maritime domain awareness → distributed defense → resilient infrastructure → diversified energy → protected communications → credible coast guard and naval forces → civilian resilience → industrial capacity.

   In other words, strategic autonomy is not the absence of alliances. It is the presence of options.

   Indonesia’s naval diplomacy illustrates the diplomatic dimension. The Philippines needs to build the material dimension. And there is an even deeper lesson

   The reported Honghe exercise is important not necessarily because it proves that Indonesia has “chosen China”—the article explicitly cautions against that interpretation—but because military exercises themselves have become instruments of strategic signaling.

   That matters enormously for an archipelagic country.

   A naval exercise is simultaneously:

   • training;
   • diplomacy;
   • signaling;
   • intelligence gathering;
   • interoperability building;
   • political messaging;
   • and, sometimes, preparation for contingencies.

   Therefore, the Philippines should stop viewing exercises simply as events.

   They should be treated as components of a long-term capability-building system.

   That connects directly to your Believe. Learn. Practice. Do. framework:

   Believe in the country’s capacity to build.

   Learn from every exercise, incident and foreign military experience.

   Practice through persistent, realistic, multinational and domestic exercises.

   Do—convert lessons into ships, sensors, bases, logistics, doctrine, industry and institutions.

   The Indonesian example is therefore useful not because Manila should copy Jakarta’s balancing strategy, but because it demonstrates the value—and limits—of strategic hedging.

   For the Philippines, the ultimate answer to the naval question is more fundamental:

   A country cannot hedge effectively if it has no capabilities to hedge with.

   That may be the stronger Philippine response to the Asia Times article.

   Reply
   • kasambahay says:

     August 17, 2026 at 5:21 am

     beijing may have greatly exaggerated indonesia’s participation on this month’s (august 2026) naval drill exercise east of taiwan. no surprise there, we have seen 1st hand how beijing exaggerated things like china owning our eez!

     https://ipdefenseforum.com/2026/08/indonesia-an-unwitting-victim-to-chinas-inflated-claims/

     Reply
     • Karl Garcia says:

       August 17, 2026 at 5:35 am

       Thanks KB…hard to.love China

       Reply
       • Joey Nguyen says:

         August 17, 2026 at 7:36 am

         Indonesia was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the Cold War and officially maintains a policy of “independent and active” (bebas-aktif) to this day despite de facto leaning West. Indonesia also doesn’t have any territorial disputes with China which insulates thinking quite a bit, even as China is attempting to encroach around the Natunas (which China “agreed” belongs to Indonesia).

         Non-alignment aside, Indonesian strategic thinking now is probably where Philippine thinking was before China’s aggression towards the Philippines starting in 1995 at Mischief Reef. I think the Indonesians will “get there” to thinking correctly on the threat of China, just as the Philippines woke up to the same.

         Reply