Kaisipang (PRODEM) Progresibo, Responsable at Organisadong Demokrasya

Ang bawat Pilipino sa ating bayan ay sinusubukan ang lahat kaparaanan upang makahanap ng solusyon sa terorismo. Ang mga awtoridad ay sinusubukan na sugpuin ang malaking takot na panganib sa pamamagitan ng legal na aksyon; ang sandatahang lakas ay sinusubukan sugpuin ito sa pamamagitan ng digmaan; habang ang mga repormista ay sinusubukan sugpuin ito sa pamamagitan ng makatawag pansin na paglahok sa parliamentaryong paraan. Subalit ang mga pamamaraan na ito ay, tila yata hindi epektibo. At ano ang solusyon sa terorismo?

Ayon sa aking pag-sasaliksik at pag-aaral, ang kasalukuyang problema ng terorismo ay batay sa isang ideolohiya, isang ideolohiya na hindi maaaring lupilin o mapatay sa pamamagitan ng legal na aksyon o sa pamamagitan lamang ng paglahok sa parliamentaryong paraan. Ang ideolohiya na ito ay hango sa mga lumang katuruan ng lipunan na dapat ng ibasura. Subalit para masupil ang terorismo ay may kaisipan na pumalaot. Ang bagong sibol na Progresibo, Responsable at Organisadong Demokrasya ay isang kontra-ideolohiya upang magtagumpay ang adhikain na makamtan ang kapayapaan at kaunlaran ng bayan.

Ayon sa ilang political scientists, ang karahasan ay nagsisimula mula sa isipan ng bawat nilalang. Samakatuwid, ito ay nahukay sa kaisipan mismo. At dito mo mababatid ang sanhi ng terorismo. Samakatuwid, upang puksain ang ugat na sanhi ng mga ito, Kailangan natin muna na simulan ang ating mga pagsisikap sa pamamagitan ng paglilingay-lingay ng karapatan mula sa panimulang punto. At ang panimulang punto na ito ay ang pagbalangkas ng isipan ng mga indibidwal sa pamamagitan ng paglayo sa kanila mula sa kultura ng karahasan at magabayan ang mga ito para yakapin ang kultura ng kapayapaan.

Para maipaliwanag ang kahalagahan ng naisaad , ating tunguhin ang dalawang akmang halimbawa mula sa kasaysayan ng daigdig. Ang una ang kampanya ng Amerika labang sa mga Russians, at ang pangalawa ay kampanya ng Amerika laban kay Saddam ng Iraq. Parehong nadeklarang kalaban ng Estados Unidos ang dalawa, ngunit habang nagtagumpay ang US sa paglupil ng Komunismo sa Russia, sila naman ay makatugon sa perwisyo ng Terrorismo ni Sadam. Ang dahilan sa likod ng pagkakaiba ay, nilabanan ng Estados Unidos ang Russia sa punto ng kaisipan o ideolohiya, at pagdating ng pagsupil kay Saddam ay pinili nila ang aksyon Militar. Sa puntong ito ng kasaysayan ay dapat matuto ang lider ng ating bayan na Pilipinas sa pandaigdigan karanasan ukol sa usapin ng pagsupil sa terorismo. Pagkat, ang tanging talo sa ginagawang hakbang ng pamahalaang Pilipinas sa paglaban sa terorismo ay ang bawat Pilipino na naghahangad ng kaunlaran at kapayapaan.

Sa pagtugon sa isang Progresibo, Responsable at Organisadong Demokrasya, ang terorismo ay mananatili sa lahat ng anyo, hanggat at idelohiya ng karahasan ay hindi matatapatan ng isang ideolohiya na ang pundasyon ay kapayapaan. Ang bawat Pilipino ay dapat yakapin ang ideolohiya ng kapayapaan, upang labanan ang idelohiya ng karahasan, na tinataguyod ng mga kalaban ng pamahalaan, na ang tanging mithiin ay pabagsakin ang ating ekonomiya at maghirap ang bawat Pilipino.

Kaya upang masugpo ang TERORISMO sa pamamagitan ng pagsasapuso ng Progresibo, Responsable at Organisadong Demokrasya, ang bawat tao at mamamayan sa daigdig ay kailangan MAG-MAHALAN KAYSA MAG-ALITAN, MAGPANDAYAN KAYSA MAGSIRAAN, AT MAGKA-BUKLODAN KAYSA MAGHIWALAYAN.

Communism and the Bible

Communism is an experimental social system based on a set of ideals that, at first glance, seem to agree with some biblical principles. On a closer look, however, little evidence can be seen that the Bible truly supports or endorses communism. There is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice, and the Bible verses that seem to comply with communist ideals are in fact contradicted by the practices of a communist government.

There is a surprising sentence in a description of the church in Acts 2 that has led many people to wonder whether the Bible supports communism, and has led some people to defend strongly the idea that communism is actually biblical. The passage reads, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This statement seems to imply that communism (which has, at its heart, a desire to eliminate poverty by “spreading the wealth around”) is found here in the earliest of Christian churches. However, there is a crucial difference between the church in Acts 2 and a communist society that must be understood.

In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal—living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give. They don’t have a choice in the matter as to how much they give or to whom they give. This, therefore, does not reflect on who they are; it says nothing about their identity or character. Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount – namely, everything they earn.

The issue is one of cheerful giving (which the Bible supports) vs. forced giving. Second Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” After all, the Bible contains a great number of references to helping the poor, being generous with what we have, and looking out for those who are less fortunate. When we obey in this area with cheerful hearts with the proper motivation, our giving is pleasing to God. What is not pleasing to God is giving out of compulsion, because forced giving is not giving out of love and therefore profits nothing in the spiritual sense. Paul tells the Corinthians, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3). But that is the inevitable result of communism.

Capitalism is actually a better system, when it comes to giving, because it has proven to increase individual wealth, which allows its citizens to give out of their increase. Communism has proven to simply make all its citizens poor, except the very few in power who decide where the wealth goes. But even capitalism won’t work, by itself, as a system for aiding the poor. It depends on its citizens to be diligent (Proverbs 10:4) and generous with the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 6:18), and to give out of love for God and their neighbor. Thus, we see that God has designed for the physical and financial needs of the poor to be met by Christian individuals, rather than by any system of government.

All Communist governments have several things in common, tyranny, repression, totalitarianism, and a suppression of religion. Each Communist government in existence has proclaimed atheism. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses.

Marx had a rather pessimistic view on religion. He believed that religion was created by the upper class to control those below them. In other words, "You can't oppose us because God says that you must serve us." According to Marx, religion was meant solely to distract the workers and keep them from learning of their "depraved condition."

The Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin suppressed religion. The official Communist Party (the Party that ran the Soviet Union) line was Marxist. Therefore, organized religion was ended. Church lands were stolen by the government, clergymen (as Russia was mainly Christian) were imprisoned or executed, private schools were closed, and schoolchildren were indoctrinated to believe that God did not exist. Despite this, the Church survived in these areas, with the now Pope John Paul II championing the Catholic Church's cause in occupied Poland, up to celebrating Mass in all weather outdoors in an open field.

Communist China under Mao Zedong and his predecessors also attempted to scourge religion. He conducted a cultural revolution to rid himself of all threats and to "purify" China. This horrible act was carried out by thousands of brainwashed children wielding the little red book. In it, his soldiers killed clergymen of all religions, burned places of worship, not to mention killed millions of "subversives." Even as recent as today, China has suppressed religion; this summer it was busy jailing members of a religious sect conducting peaceful worship (it called their beliefs dangerous).

Cuba possibly the most pathetic of all of the Communist countries, also suppressed Christianity (again the dominant religion) up until the Pope's visit in the late '90s. Fidel Castro, Cuba's dictator even claimed that Christmas had to be cancelled because it interfered with crop harvesting! With the arrival of the Pope, Castro attempted to get back into the good graces of the world and allowed open religion again.

Now, it is impossible to destroy religion, people take it very seriously and even give their lives for their beliefs. Therefore, when the Communists ban religion, they replace it with a person. That is, the rulers form a cult of personality around their leader. Stalin made himself into a god for the Soviet Union; everything that turned out well was attributed to him. He even had Lenin's body embalmed after Lenin died so that people could "pray" to him. Mao also formed a cult of personality around him. George Orwell portrays this in his famous dystopia 1984. Big Brother, the all powerful ruler of the world in 1984, was created by the ruling class as a god of sorts. Religion had been completely destroyed, only the Party could be worshipped. Therefore, the Party created a face to rule Oceania, the super-state of Orwell's world. This person was basically worshipped by the people and represented an all-knowing omnipresence. All of Oceania's citizens had their religious drives channeled into serving the State in the form of Big Brother.

Now, why would tyrannous governments want to stop religion? Well, the most obvious answer to that is simple: competition. Communist governments do not want to have to compete for the loyalty of their followers, without God, these governments don't need to worry. Another reason is the "moral barometer." God, whether you believe in Him or not, represents all of the goodness in the world. Contrary to Marx's opinion, religion gives people a reason to fight tyranny, namely that it's wrong. If Communist governments acknowledged the existence of God, then their citizens would realize how horrible their governments really are. This is much too dangerous an option. Instead, God must not exist. To accomplish this, Communists create the "cults of personality" described above to channel all religious drive into the State. The State, represented by a Big Brother or a Stalin or even a Lenin, is the supreme good for which all people must slave for. The government can never be wrong if the government is God! Therefore, it seems that Communists don't not believe in God, they fear Him. Unfortunately for oppressors, as time has shown us, the suppressed movement is never destroyed; fortunately some religion or resistance remained, and even thrived, under the tyranny of Communism.

A covert war for Sabah

That is the basic reason why two governments normally send such claims for mediation with another government that both consider as neutral. It is up to the honest broker to mediate the talks and lead to an agreement.

In the case of the talks between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, can Malaysia be considered as an honest broker? The Philippines still has an existing claim on Sabah, which Malaysia contests. The claim has been dormant and to date, four Philippine administrations did nothing to press the Philippine claim.

A thorny history

The beginning of the dispute is generally believed to have began in 1878 when Baron von Overbeck, a consul of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Hong Kong bought concession rights for Sabah, then known as North Borneo. The seeds of the Philippine claim were sown.

According to Rozan Yunos in a feature article published in the Brunei Times on Sept. 21, 2008, Overbeck played both sides of the street. When he formed the Dent Company with Alfred Dent of Hong Kong, Overbeck apparently agreed to pay leases to all who claimed land in Sabah, namely the Sultan of Brunei and the Sultan of Sulu. Other records state Overbeck agreed to pay $12,000 annually to the Sultan of Brunei on Dec. 29, 1877 and $5,000 to the Sultan of Sulu on Jan. 22, 1878.

When Overbeck failed to get funding support from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he sold his rights to his business partner, Dent. Dent then obtained a royal charter from the British Crown, forming the British North Borneo Company. The company also took over the liabilities of the original company formed by Overbeck and Dent. “In awarding the Royal Charter, the British government assumed a form of sovereignty over the state especially its foreign relations,” wrote Yunos. “Because of this, the other western powers in the area immediately took renewed interest in Borneo and Malaya. However the Spanish agreed to British control over northern Borneo because the British accepted Spanish control over the Sulu Archipelago. The Germans also accepted British control over Sabah because the British agreed to accept German control over New Guinea.”

Yunos added: “It was the Dutch that tried to claim some land near Sandakan in 1879 but the British North Borneo Company objected to it. To solve the problems, both the Dutch and the British agreed to divide Borneo into a British area in the north and a Dutch area in the south.” This was later known as the “Madrid Protocol.”

British North Borneo Company effectively ruled Sabah for six decades, ending when the Imperial Japanese Army occupied the region at the onset of World War II.

After the war ended, a bankrupt British North Borneo Company, which could no longer afford reconstruction costs, ceded its rights to the British government on July 15, 1946. On Aug. 31, 1963, the British granted self-government to Sabah, Sarawak, and Malaya.

An overt and covert war

The post-war Philippine government under President Diosdado Macapagal began asserting its claim on Sabah on Sept. 12, 1962.

This was a period of tension in the region when diplomatic relations between Malaysia (then still known as Malaya), Indonesia and the Philippines were still shaky.

At around this time, Indonesian leader Sukarno, Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and Macapagal met in Manila in what was publicly declared as talks for the formation of a new regional grouping to be known as Maphilindo (Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia).

But away from the public eye, the three leaders were actually pressing their respective territorial claims.

Aware of the brewing difficulty, the British government on Aug. 31, 1963, granted self-government over the states of Malaya and North Borneo.

According to a Time Magazine article on Aug. 9, 1963, Tunku was initially hesitant of getting self-government for Malaya early.

“The British government applied some needed stiffening to Tunku’s back by telling him bluntly that they were pulling their troops out of Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) on schedule, thereby opening both territories to possible Indonesian infiltration and terrorism,” the Time article said.

Because of the British pressure, Tunku and his allies organized a referendum wherein people in Sarawak and Sabah were asked if they wanted to join the Malaysian federation.

According to a retired Filipino military officer who was in Sabah during the referendum, Tunku “rigged” the polls. The officer told the Philippines Graphic that for a period before the polls, Tunku’s allies embarked on a policy of encouraging Malaysians to settle in Sabah while deporting those residents of Sabah who were of Filipino descent. He added that he sent his intelligence reports to another Filipino military officer based in Singapore.

The officer said he and his team of Filipino soldiers had the job of observing the referendum. When asked if they also had considered interrupting the polls, he declined to answer.

In another meeting in Manila, “Tunku pointedly reminded Sukarno that he had taken over West Irian without a plebiscite and that the legislatures of North Borneo and Sarawak had passed resolutions in favor of the new federation.” Publicly, Macapagal was posturing to be the peacemaker. However, because of intelligence reports received from the Filipino team in Sabah, events were to turn worse.

Manila broke relations with the newly formed Malaysia, whose capital was Kuala Lumpur, after it was confirmed that Sabah had joined the federation.

Sibling rivalry

At the same time, a shooting war erupted between Malaysia and Indonesia with Manila on the sidelines.

Ironically, just a month before the fighting started Macapagal had described the three countries as “triplets who became separated at birth, who were placed under the care of different foster parents but who have now come of age and are trying to rediscover their common origin and shape their common destiny.”

Manila, with strong ties to the United States, could not openly side with Indonesia against Malaysia, which was supported by the United Kingdom. Philippine involvement consisted of inserting teams of US-trained Filipino commandoes in some Indonesian.

According to various reports at that time, the British government sent 50,000 troops and 70 warships to defend Malaysia in the three-year war. There was no way that Manila, a US-backed nation, could openly go against British-backed Malaysia because of the huge British military involvement. Macapagal and the next President Ferdinand E. Marcos, knew this.

Operation Merdeka

Since Marcos was aware that Malaysia had just gone through a rough border war with Indonesia and was still reeling with the secession of Singapore in 1965, a new team of Filipino commandoes, many of whom were known as “third country operators” were tasked to destabilize Sabah.

Under the plan, codenamed Merdeka, once Sabah was embroiled in violence, Philippine troops would intervene to protect Filipinos in Sabah. With Malaysia still weakened with its border war with Indonesia, it was thought to be a plausible diplomatic excuse.

“I was already in Sabah, just waiting for orders from another officer in Singapore,” the officer told the Graphic.

The Philippine plan also called for recruiting young men from Sulu who were familiar with Sabah, training them and eventually sending them out on covert missions in Sabah.

Malaysia’s counter move

According to this officer, Malaysia launched a covert operation to disrupt the Philippine plan. It had to be a covert operation because Malaysia was still not strong enough to engage the Philippines openly. Besides, with both opposing sides having the the U.K. and the U.S. as firm partners, two major countries would firmly put their foot down to stop a shooting war between Kuala Lumpur and Manila.

As part of the Malaysian covert operation, the Malaysians established a commando unit in Sabah.

The Malaysian countermove, said the officer basically consisted two phases: Infiltrating the Filipino recruitment effort and then sowing dissension within the ranks of those recruited.

“They were successful in both phases,” the officer said.

The Graphic asked Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who was defense secretary during much of the Marcos administration, if he had heard of such a Malaysian move.

Enrile said he had no knowledge of such an operation. When told of Enrile’s answer, the retired officer replied, “He’s right, he wouldn’t know. He was not part of the operation.”

Jabidah “Massacre”

With Malaysia successfully infiltrating the Filipino recruitment effort, the Malaysian commando unit ordered its men, believed to be Filipino Muslims who favored Malaysian control over Sabah, to begin the second phase. The second phase, sowing dissension, reaped its fruit in Corregidor when several trainees for the Philippine Sabah operation began complaining of poor pay and living conditions.

The officer related that several “trainees” attacked his colleagues at night. Most of the officers of the training cadre were in pup tents when the “trainees” crept up to them, he said.

One lieutenant was immediately killed and several other soldiers and officers were wounded in that attack, the retired officer claimed. Fortunately, others were able to fight back. At dawn, the remaining trainees were rounded up. Unsure of which of them had taken an active part in the night attack, they were mowed down.

One escaped and was able to swim ashore to Cavite where he was later presented to Congress and the press.

Once this was blown, the Malaysians had succeeded in thwarting the Philippine plan.

“It can be said, in a way, that Malaysia and the Philippines waged a covert war for Sabah,” the officer said. “Apparently, it was the Malaysians who won.”

Reference:http://philippinesgraphic.com

Royal Grant of Award of Knighthood to The Honorable Datuk Sir Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, KRSS and as Royal Minister for Youth Affairs:

Royal communiqué: Royal Grant of Award of Knighthood to The Honorable Datuk Sir Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, KRSS and as Royal Minister for Youth Affairs:

22 September 2011

Royal Maimbung, Sulu

A Royal communiqué from His Royal Highness Prince Omar Kiram Dux de Legazpi Duque de Vivar-Maniquiz, Grand Prince & Prince Marshal & Grand Master of the Royal Orders.

To All and Singular: To all whom this Royal communiqué shall come, greetings!

“Be it hereby duly known with the most gracious Royal assent and approbation, and after due deliberation by the Royal Council which unanimously agreed and recommended to His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First, The Sultan of Sulu & The Sultan of Sabah, Head of Islam & Head of Sultanate, The 35th Reigning Sultan – for the select personage to be granted the illustrious and honorable award, rank and title as “Datuk/ Knight” and is entitled to be called “The Honorable” and he can use the letters “KRSS” (Datuk/ Knight of the Royal Order of Sulu & Sabah) after his name as post nominals announced hereto.”

Citation reads:

For exemplary achievements in bringing closer understanding between Muslims and Christians and for his outstanding services rendered to the Royal Crown of Sulu & Sabah for his program the Sabah recovery advocacy by Philippine youth as the grantee of honors and distinction whose name appears below shall become Datuk/ Knight of the Royal Order of Sulu & Sabah with immediate effect as from today the 22nd day of September in the year 2011:

The Honorable Datuk Sir Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, KRSS (Quezon City, Philippines)

Furthermore, The Honorable Datuk Sir Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, KRSS, is also hereby appointed as the “Royal Minister for Youth Affairs” of The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah for a period of five (5) years from the date hereof, unless otherwise revoked and shall continue after the expiry date by mutual consent between the Royal Crown of Sulu & Sabah and the aforesaid Royal Minister for Youth Affairs who shall act and execute all edicts of His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First through the Grand Prince and Prince Marshal.

His personal Knightly Arms shall be designed and marshaled by the Royal College of Arms and to be granted by His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First, with his name inscribed on the “motto scroll” as a mark of favor and recognition of his achievements for his exclusive use in any of his honorable pursuit and endeavor.

His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First thereafter ordered and issued a Royal Edict to be signed and sealed today at Royal Maimbung, Sulu this 22nd day of September in the year 2011.

This Royal Edict appears as a matter of public records and to be made known accordingly and we congratulate the well-deserving Royal grantee.

Note: This Royal grant as Knight of The Royal Order of Sulu & Sabah appearing hereto is free and without any fee or payment from the grantee, as this Royal award is based on achievements and contributions to society and not the ability to pay for the recognition. We have many Royal Grantees globally and no one paid any fee to us to receive the much sought after Royal recognition from the oldest unbroken royalty in the Philippines since the year 1405 to this day to be declared as our Honorable Knight of The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah.


We are:


HRH Prince Omar Kiram Dux de Legazpi Duque de Vivar-Maniquiz
Grand Prince & Prince Marshal & Grand Master of Royal Orders
The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah

Perspectives in the Population Debate Today

There are many groups taking part in the current population debate. All approach the question of population from very different points of view and with different motivations. A working knowledge of the parties and their underlying philosophies will allow one to sift through the diverse rhetoric and hold them up to the light of scientific data. Frank Furedi, in his book Population and Development: A Critical Introduction, (1997) has provided a brief outline of the variety of approaches to the issue of population.

The Developmentalist Perspective. Until the nineties, this was one of the most influential perspectives. Its advocates argue that rapid population growth represents a major obstacle to development, as valuable resources are diverted from productive expenditure to the feeding of a growing population. Some also contend that development in turn solves the problem of population. They believe that increasing prosperity and the modernization of lifestyles will create a demand for smaller families, leading to the stabilization of population growth. It is worth noting that at least until the early eighties, this was the most prominent argument used by many leading demographers and most of the influential promoters of population control. …

The Redistributionist Perspective. Those who uphold the redistributionist perspective are sceptical of the view that population growth directly causes poverty and underdevelopment. They often interpret high fertility as not so much the cause but the effect of poverty. Why? Because poverty, lack of economic security, the high mortality rates of children, the low status of women and other factors force people to have large families. They also believe that population is a problem because it helps intensify the impoverishment of the masses. For some redistributionists, the solution to the problem lies in changing the status of poor people, particularly of women, through education and reform. and the World Bank provide a clear statement of this approach. This perspective is linked to the Women and Human Rights approach discussed below. Some proponents of redistribution contend that the population problem can only be solved through far-reaching social reform.

The Limited Resources Perspective. This perspective represents the synthesis of traditional Malthusian concern about natural limits with the preoccupation of contemporary environmentalism. According to the limited resources perspective, population growth has a negative and potentially destructive impact on the environment. Its proponents argue that even if a growing population can be fed, the environment cannot sustain such large numbers, population growth will lead to the explosion of pollution, which will have a catastrophic effect on the environment.

The Socio-Biological Perspective. This approach politicizes the limited resources perspective. Its proponents present population growth as a threat not only to the environment but also to a way of life. They regard people as polluters and often define population growth as a pathological problem. In the West, the ruthless application of this variant of Malthusianism leads to demands for immigration control. Some writers call for the banning of foreign aid to the countries of the South, on the grounds that it stimulates an increase in the rate of fertility. Other writers believe that the numbers of people threatens the ecosystem, and even go so far as to question the desirability of lowering the rate of infant mortality.

The People-as-a-Source-of-Instability Perspective. In recent years, contributions on international relations have begun to discuss population growth in terms of its effect on global stability. Some writers have suggested that in the post-Cold War order, the growth of population has the potential to undermine global stability. Some see the rising expectations of large numbers of frustrated people as the likely source of violent protest and a stimulus for future wars and conflicts. The key theme they emphasize is the differential rate of fertility between the North and the South. From this perspective the high fertility regime of the South represents a potential threat to the fast-ageing population of the North.

The Women and Human Rights Perspective. This perspective associates a regime of high birth rates with the denial of essential human rights. Those who advocate this approach insist that the subordination of women and their exclusion from decision making has kept birth rates high. Some suggest that because of their exclusion from power and from access to safe reproductive technology, many women have more children then they otherwise would wish. The importance of gender equality for the stabilization of population is not only supported by feminist contributors but by significant sections of the population movement. At the Cairo Conference of 1994, this perspective was widely endorsed by the main participants.

The People-as-Problem-Solvers Perspective. In contrast to the approaches mentioned so far, this one does not believe that population growth constitutes a problem. On the contrary, its advocates believe that the growth of population has the potential to stimulate economic growth and innovation. From this perspective, more people means more problem solvers, since human creativity has the potential to overcome the limits of nature. Some believe that in the final analysis, the market mechanism can help establish a dynamic equilibrium between population growth and resources. Others emphasize the problem-solving abilities of the human mind.

The Religious Pro-Natalist Perspective. Some of the most vocal opponents to population policy are driven by religious objections to any interference with the act of reproduction. They argue that population growth is not a problem and are deeply suspicious of any attempt to regulate fertility. Although some supporters of this perspective mobilize economic arguments to support their case, the relationship between population growth and development is incidental to their argument. For them, the argument that population growth is positive is in the first instance justified on religious grounds. for a clear exposition of this perspective. Other pro-natalist voices regard the growth of population of the South as a positive asset that will contribute to a more equitable relation of power with the North. They view population programmes as an insidious attempt to maintain Western domination.

Not all people belong strictly to one perspective or another, as Furedi is also quick to point out. In fact, most people adopt different strands of argumentation pulled from the various perspectives. However, some approaches to the issue of population are more specific to particular aspects of the debate. For instance, the ‘People-as-a-Source-of-Instability’ Perspective only touches on resource and environment concerns, and rather deals more specifically with issues of immigration and trade policy.

Scientific Origins of Eugenics

The eugenics movement arose in the 20th century as two wings of a common philosophy of human worth. Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics in 1883, perceived it as a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children. The Galtonian ideal of eugenics is usually termed positive eugenics. Negative eugenics, on the other hand, advocated culling the least able from the breeding population to preserve humanity's fitness. The eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach.

The notion of segregating people considered unfit to reproduce dates back to antiquity. For example, the Old Testament describes the Amalekites – a supposedly depraved group that God condemned to death. Concerns about environmental influences that might damage heredity – leading to ill health, early death, insanity, and defective offspring – were formalized in the early 1700s as degeneracy theory. Degeneracy theory maintained a strong scientific following until late in the 19th century. Masturbation, then called onanism, was presented in medical schools as the first biological theory of the cause of degeneracy. Fear of degeneracy through masturbation led Harry Clay Sharp, a prison physician in Jeffersonville, Indiana, to carry out vasectomies on prisoners beginning in 1899. The advocacy of Sharp and his medical colleagues, culminated in an Indiana law mandating compulsory sterilization of "degenerates." Enacted in 1907, this was the first eugenic sterilization law in the United States.

By the mid-19th century most scientists believed bad environments caused degenerate heredity. Benedict Morel's work extended the causes of degeneracy to some legitimate agents – including poisoning by mercury, ergot, and other toxic substances in the environment. The sociologist Richard Dugdale believed that good environments could transform degenerates into worthy citizens within three generations. This position was a backdrop to his very influential study on The Jukes (1877), a degenerate family of paupers and petty criminals in Ulster County, New York. The inheritance of acquired (environmental) characters was challenged in the 1880s by August Weismann, whose theory of the germ plasm convinced most scientists that changes in body tissue (the soma) had little or no effect on reproductive tissue (the germ plasm). At the beginning of the 20th century, Weismann's views were absorbed by degeneracy theorists who embraced negative eugenics as their favored model.

Adherents of the new field of genetics were ambivalent about eugenics. Most basic scientists – including William Bateson in Great Britain, and Thomas Hunt Morgan in the United States – shunned eugenics as vulgar and an unproductive field for research. However, Bateson's and Morgan's contributions to basic genetics were quickly absorbed by eugenicists, who took interest in Mendelian analysis of pedigrees of humans, plants, and animals. Many eugenicists had some type of agricultural background. Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, who together ran the Eugenics Record Office, were introduced through their shared interest in chicken breeding. Both also were active in Eugenics Section of the American Breeder's Association (ABA). Davenport's book, Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement through Better Breeding, had a distinct agricultural flavor, and his affiliation with the ABA was included under his name on the title page. Agricultural genetics also provided the favored model for negative eugenics: human populations, like agricultural breeds and varieties, had to be culled of their least productive members, with only the healthiest specimens used for breeding.

Evolutionary models of natural selection and dysgenic (bad) hereditary practices in society also contributed to eugenic theory. For example, there was fear that highly intelligent people would have smaller families (about 2 children), while the allegedly degenerate elements of society were having larger families of four to eight children. Public welfare might also play a role in allowing less fit people to survive and reproduce, further upsetting the natural selection of fitter people.

Medicine also put its stamp on eugenics. Physicians like Anton Ochsner and Harry Sharp were convinced that social failure was a medical problem. Italian criminologist and physician Cesare Lombroso popularized the image of an innate criminal type that was thought to be a reversion or atavism of a bestial ancestor of humanity. When medical means failed to help the psychotic, the retarded, the pauper, and the vagrant, eugenicists shifted to preventive medicine. The German physician-legislator Rudolph Virchow, advocated programs to deal with disease prevention on a large scale. Virchow's public health movement was fused with eugenics to form the racial hygiene movement in Germany – and came to America through physicians he trained.

Eugenicists argued that "defectives" should be prevented from breeding, through custody in asylums or compulsory sterilization. Most doctors probably felt that sterilization was a more humane way of dealing with people who could not help themselves. Vasectomy and tubal ligation were favored methods, because they did not alter the physiological and psychological contribution of the reproductive organs. Sterilization allowed the convicted criminal or mental patient to participate in society, rather than being institutionalized at public expense. Sterilization was not viewed as a punishment because these doctors believed (erroneously) that the social failure of "unfit" people was due to an irreversibly degenerate germ plasm. (Elof Carlson, State University of New York at Stony Brook)

Terrorist Groups in the Philippines

There are four major terrorist groups active in the Philippines today: The Moro National Liberation Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf and the New People's Army. The first three are Islamic groups that operate primarily in the south of the nation, where most of the country's Muslim minority live. The Communist New People's Army operates in the northern Philippines.

Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)
Emerging in the early 1970s, the MNLF sought an independent Islamic nation in the Filipino islands with sizeable Muslim populations. In 1996, the MNLF signed a peace agreement with Manila that created the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), an area composed of two mainland provinces and three island provinces in which the predominantly Muslim population enjoys a degree of self-rule. MNLF chairman and founder Nur Misuari was installed as the region's governor but his rule ended in violence when he led a failed uprising against the Philippines government in November 2001. He is currently in jail and MNLF leader Parouk Hussin took over as ARMM governor in 2002. Nur Misuari reportedly still has a small band of followers who remain actively opposed to the current arrangement.

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
The largest Islamic extremist group in the Philippines, the MILF split from the MNLF in 1977 and continues to wage war against Manila. Headed by Islamic cleric Salamat Hashim, the MILF seeks a separate Islamic state in the southern Philippines. Although it signed a peace agreement with Manila in 2001, MILF-sponsored violence has continued. Manila accuses the MILF of responsibility for the March 2003 Davao City airport bombing that killed 21 people, and for harboring members of the small militant Pentagon gang accused of kidnapping foreigners in recent years.

The MILF has an estimated strength of 12,000 members.

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) The smallest, most active and most violent Islamic separatist group in the southern Philippines, Abu Sayyaf (Bearer of the Sword) emerged in 1991 as a splinter group of the MNLF. Its founder, Abdurajik Abubakar Janjalani, was a veteran of the Islamic mujahideen movement in Afghanistan and was killed in a clash with Philippine police in 1998. ASG's current head is thought to be Janjalani's younger brother Khadafi Janjalani.

Abu Sayyaf engages in kidnappings, bombings, assassinations and extortion from businesses and wealthy businessmen. Most of its activities are centered in the southern island of Mindanao, but in recent years, the group has broadened its reach. In April 2000, ASG kidnapped 21 people,including 10 foreign tourists, from a resort in Malaysia and in a separate incident, abducted several foreign journalists and an American citizen. In May 2001, Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 20 people from a resort island in the Philippines and murdered several of the hostages, including American citizen Guillermo Sobero. In June 2002, U.S.-trained Philippine commandos tried to rescue three hostages being held by Abu Sayyaf on Basilan island.Two of the hostages, including American citizen Martin Burnham, were killed in the resulting shootout. Philippine authorities believe that the ASG had a role in the October 2002 bombing near a Philippine military base in Zamboanga that killed three Filipinos and a U.S. serviceman.

In February 2004, Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility for a Philippine ferry fire, but at this writing, Philippine authorities doubted the claim.

The group finances its operations primarily through robbery, piracy and ransom kidnappings. Both the MNLF and MILF condemn Abu Sayyaf's activities. Philippine forces have apprehended a number of Abu Sayyaf terrorists. Most recently, in December 2003, Philippine soldiers captured senior Abu Sayyaf commander Ghalib Andang, a.k.a. Commander Robot. Andang is suspected of involvement in the April 2000 kidnapping of Western tourists in Malaysia.

Today, Abu Sayyaf is composed of several semi-autonomous factions with an estimated cadre of several hundred active fighters and about 1,000 supporters.

New People's Army (NPA)

The NPA is the military wing of the Communist People's Party of the Philippines (CPP). Founded in 1969 with the aim of overthrowing the Philippines government through guerrilla warfare, the NPA strongly opposes the U.S. military presence in the Philippines and publicly expressed its intent to target U.S. personnel in the Philippines in January 2002, warning that any American troops who enter their stronghold areas will be considered "legitimate targets." The NPA primarily targets Philippine security forces, politicians, judges, government informers and former NPA rebels. The NPA's founder, Jose Maria Sison, lives in self-imposed exile in the Netherlands and reportedly directs operations from there.

Manila is committed to a negotiated peace settlement with the NPA but peace talks between the CPP and the Philippine government stalled in June 2001, after the NPA admitted killing a Filipino congressman. In September 2002, the NPA claimed responsibility for assassinating a mayor, attacking a police station and killing the police chief, and blowing up a mobile telecommunications transmission station.

The NPA derives most of its funding from supporters in the Philippines and Europe and from so-called revolutionary taxes extorted from local businesses. Together, the CPP/NPA has an estimated strength of over 10,000 members. have links with international terrorism, particularly with Jemaah Islamiyah and Al Qaeda. The MILF is suspected of training JI members at MILF training camps in the southern Philippines.