A special "Pod Para Sa Bayan" Episode.

Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

Alright, this is it.

Okay, I think medyo na Freudian slip tayo kanina.

Let's do this.

Okay, so we talked a lot about strategic gaslighting a while ago.

And I want to talk about the Philippines as a kind of a new emergent middle power.

And I think before we can go there, let's talk about this, gentlemen.

What do you think about all of these experts popping out of nowhere?

You know, BRICS expert, I don't know, Global South expert.

You know, like they're giving a bad name to BRICS.

I mean, they're pretty good BRICS stuff, I know.

Yeah, so what's going on there?

I mean, what's your take on this?

Should we just tolerate them?

More fun in, I mean, more fun in the Philippines?

Or maybe this is something serious.

This is a sharp power influence operation thing that we have to push back.

Or maybe it's a case-to-case basis.

Some are just what the Soviets called useful idiots.

I think that was the term during Cold War.

Some are just useful idiots.

They do it for free.

You know, like, it has nothing to do with, you know, espionage or anything like that.

What's going on here?

Josh, I'll start with you kasi nasa kapila ka.

Just kidding.

No, I'm kidding, Josh.

Go ahead.

Again, just to be clear, ladies and gentlemen,

everything we say here is just purely reflective of our own personal opinion.

It has nothing to do with the institution we represent.

Now, if proud sila sa atin, good for them.

But otherwise, please, don't be worried, okay?

Go ahead, Josh.

Well, when you talk about kasi itong idea ng...

Kasi nakakapagod na kasi, diba?

And I mean, alam na natin to, that we're just in a place na kung saan dito tayo sa choosing between US and China.

To the point na perhaps pumunta na tayo sa kapila.

Yan ang gusto kasing sabihin ng mga best friends natin.

So, it's an interesting to put it this way.

Kayaan natin sila.

Kayaan natin sila kasi if we have a better argument, I think mapu-flourish yung argument natin.

So, the mere fact kasi na you want to shut them down, perhaps there's something fishy with you.

Ako kasi nandun eh. Medyo lazy fair ako eh.

You're making a very liberal marketplace of idea argument.

I think I'd stick to that.

You are disappointing me.

Kasi yun nga eh.

Going back full circle, if the nation is going to do a renaissance of its nationhood, yung national project natin,

you have to keep all these ideas emergent.

Ang nagmamatter na lang dito is that if the other side gaslighting as they sound, do we have a better argument?

No?

My organization, itong IDSEA.

We recently had an international conference whereby we invited U.S., Chinese, Southeast Asian perspectives.

At ang naging feedback kasi doon ng mga people is that we're so happy na finally in Manila, hindi lang, you know,

kasi sa current tempo ng Marcus Jr. administration, everything seems to be, sabi nila, puro nila pro-West.

Na parang nagiging sounds like pro-West is Philippine foreign policy na.

Sabi nila, pro-West.

Sabi namin, hindi.

The objective of this conference is to lay out the conversation na Chinese perspectives, other Southeast Asian perspectives are welcome.

And lo and behold, itong American scholar na in-invite namin, medyo natupi doon sa Chinese perspective.

Kasi ang daming notes na dinala ni scholar from China.

So, it provides us with the idea na, okay.

The Chinese perspective sounds good, but does it benefit Philippine interest?

So, simply as that.

You may have, ito kasi nila, you may have a good argument, but you have to remember, you know, to put it bluntly like parang kay Robert Cox na,

argument is for some purpose and for some country.

So, sa akin, let these ideas flourish in a sense na magbardagulan tayo dito.

Pero ang tanong, okay, magandang argumento mo, pero Philippine interest ba yan?

Thank you so much for that.

I mean, maybe I'll go to Justin next before we go to Mico.

I mean, is this a kind of habermashing, communicative action, let's leave it to reason discussion?

Or the counter-argument will be, well, that's perfect if we're having an Oxford Union debate, but this is different.

I mean, there was a hit job on Ambassador Maldes.

There were a number of articles on it.

A certain newspaper, right?

All of these cartoons really demeaning, actually libelous, even attacks on certain individuals.

Yours truly, of course, has been a good friend of these people being attacked through and through as being a, you know, American boy and all of that nonsense,

even though I've been very critical of you throughout the years.

Is it really a marketplace of ideas case?

Bardagulan na lang at most?

Or is this something more nefarious?

How do you look at this?

Ako?

Ako?

I take a more moderate approach on this marketplace of ideas thing because I do believe there actually has to be a concerted effort by the government to try to moderate or limit yung foreign influence operations in the Philippines because there are really what you call useful idiots in the sense na, even if, let's grant, they're not being paid by China whatsoever, but they will repeat the same talking points, which will have a detrimental strategic effect on Philippine interests.

Ang favorite way of approaching is this.

The gospel is not the truth until it is evangelized.

And in this case, I think there has to be better strategic communications effort ng government to actually form a baseline.

Kailangan natin kasi ng baseline.

When I'm hearing some defense commentary from really obscure figures here in the Philippines, for example, they will keep on saying that we need to make peace with China, good relations with China.

But, you know, being peaceful with another country.

Friendly.

It's not a foreign policy objective in and of itself.

And peaceful on whose terms?

Just peace.

Yeah, but not a peace that means national humiliation and surrender.

Yeah.

Sabi nga ni Ronald Reagan, you can have peace in the next second.

It's called surrender, right?

And, you know, really, anything worth having is worth fighting for.

And that's really the root of all our problems, really.

Because some people are not comfortable with being uncomfortable.

So, for example, we have a laser incident in the West Philippine Sea.

You know, close, unsafe encounters in the West Philippine Sea.

I'd make the argument that we need to get used to these things because these things are going to happen farther out into the future.

Because we do have territorial disputes with China.

It's undisputed on our end, but they dispute it.

So, ito, these are facts of life in that part of the South China Sea.

So, if your only goal is to say to avoid any sort of conflict whatsoever, then China will have what they call escalation domination.

Because you, you're always chasing after peace.

And for me, that does not make for a good defense policy.

Sabi nga ni Joshua na, is it really in service of Philippine interests?

Because we're balancing peace with other national security objectives, which includes territorial integrity.

And how can you have territorial integrity if you're not willing to send a message to your adversaries that you will fight and deter and respond if need be?

So, I think we need to have that.

We need to get that baseline common across everybody.

So, I do think we need to correct.

In fact, the word I use is to correct the opinions of some people here in the Philippines na hindi naman talaga well-informed yung analysis of defense policy

because they're not specific about what interest they're trying to fight for.

Yung making peace with China, for example, this is a given already in the Philippines.

So, how do you make that an actionable recommendation to Philippine government policy?

It's very easy to talk about peace.

But how do you make that an actionable policy in light of yung mga disputes natin with China and so forth?

How do we strike a good balance wherein we can sleep soundly at night that we are responding to our national security needs,

but at the same time, we're not unnecessarily provoking conflict?

So, we do have to respond to that.

And I think some people need to be corrected.

If I may interject, kasi I mentioned ganina yung, okay, the argument sounds nice.

Is that Philippine interest?

Let me promote or plug yung thesis na pinanayal ko sa PUP from my students.

Kasi their study was about the Filipino social media influencers.

And they used the case study of EDCA.

Ang naging findings ng kanina ng study is that ang bottom line ng mga nasa middle,

nasa parang pro-US or pro-China, after doing a narrative analysis,

is that they're all concerned for Philippines.

Filipino interest.

You would be surprised.

You would be surprised.

Kasi kung titignan ninyo yung gusto nila, they don't want war because,

ito, yung sinasabi ni Justin na puro tayo peace.

Pero kung titignan mo yung motive behind it, it's because of the fear of war.

They want peace, tranquil lives.

It's just that hindi nila ma-underscore anong klaseng peace.

Which is something that we need to put into context.

Sabi nga ninyo ni Justin, we have to correct.

Tama naman sila in the sense that they want an interest of a quiet life.

Pero anong klaseng quiet life?

Siyempre, dun nga tayo papasok.

So in other words, Philippine interest has to be defined by intelligentsia,

by the Philippine government, by the entire society.

And in a marketplace of ideas, let me put that this way,

you have to set the standard.

Hindi ito freewheeling everything na pluralism.

There's always a standard.

So parang medyo postmodern na parang there's still a prison

by which meron pa rin magkocontrol nito.

Thanks for that, Justin.

I mean, if Justin talks about baseline, I presume a patriotic baseline here.

Like, you know, if you love the Philippines, you're not gonna be okay

with someone just taking away half of your exclusive economic zone.

There should be also a ceiling.

I always say,

we should go very aggressively against anything that besmirches our Chinoy brothers and sisters.

I mean, Rizala, Chinese blood, for heaven's sake.

We have to go against anything that is racist, that is xenophobic,

because there are really crazy people who want war

or are playing that game to make themselves look poggy.

I'm not gonna name names, but my good friend, Ronaldo Llamas,

talks about the certain people very close to the previous administration,

biglang in-endorse si Lenny,

and then biglang,

ngayon, sobrang anti-China and all of that.

And then nag-overcorrect, diba?

To a point na, he's suggesting, like,

we have to question the loyalty of Chinoy brothers and sisters.

That's super wrong.

So, there should be a best baseline.

Like, anything below that, medyo questionable kung mahal mo talagang Pilipinas

or may national dignity sense ka.

But there has to be absolutely a ceiling.

So, speaking of moderation, we have to go against these people.

I mean, I'm even hearing crazy arguments about dapat naging estado na lang tayo na Amerika.

You know, those kind of ridiculous arguments, no?

And I have...

I've lost count of how many ridiculous, you know,

this old American guy coming to me and say,

oh, there are problem with your government.

It's like, wait, wait, wait.

There was one guy I had to correct during my jogging back.

He's like, wait, before you bash the Philippines,

what we have, a bit of that is your legacy.

Let's talk about the US.

So, I'm in that mode.

I have no time for nonsense.

So, the ceiling and the baseline have to be clear.

Now, Mico, let's go to you.

I mean, what is your read on this?

Because some are saying there's systematic disinformation here.

Problem with disinformation is,

even if they don't convince you to their side,

they sow discord.

And by besmirching real thought leaders and experts,

they're preventing people from having a proper understanding of what's up.

Essentially, they're muddying the water, if not poisoning the well.

And that in itself is completely destructive.

The reason I'm saying this is,

there are many studies on Russian disinformation campaign in Europe.

And the argument is that,

it's not that they're pushing really for,

I don't know, Marine Le Pen or Trump,

but it was more like just confusing people

so that they lose.

Trust and confidence and just disengage.

Because a cynical and disengaged public

is what exactly authoritarian superpowers want.

You get what I'm saying?

So, Mico, what is your take on this?

Because the minimum, speaking of baseline,

the minimum some are asking is,

ganito.

Okay, kung useful idiot ka, sayon na yan.

That's on you, right?

Okay, you want to make the 1960s argument

of the left in 2023?

That's your call.

But no one is going to take you seriously,

anyone serious.

But, there are some people who maybe should stop pretending

that they're objectifying,

active experts or I don't know, whatever.

They should just register that they're a foreign agent.

That they are acting in behalf of a national government

that is not the Philippine government or something.

Because in other countries like Australia and US,

all you have to do is,

kunyari, you're doing an argument about

investing in Switzerland or India, right?

And, you know, you register as the, you know,

foreign agent of, let's say,

Hyderabad or, you know what I'm saying?

Like, that's normal in other countries.

Or at least, dapat maging transparent sila.

Mag-pretend.

Yung iba, hindi naging useful idiots.

Huwag sila mag-pretend na they're there

to make an academic argument.

Especially those who barely have any academic credentials

to show on West Philippine Sea.

Oo.

At the very least, magpakatoto naman kayo.

Kung talaga, ano naman kayo.

And then, okay na yan.

Then, go make your argument as a foreign agent.

Okay lang yan.

And I'm still willing to listen to you.

The same way I'm willing to listen to a Chinese diplomat

or a China expert.

You can also say,

do you think that baseline,

the foreign,

influence act,

baseline transparency

is at least what we should do?

If not, push for a revision of the espionage,

National Espionage Act?

Yeah, I completely agree, no?

That there needs to be some sort of framework

that could do for all of this.

Because it's no secret

that there are political influence operations

away from overseas

as other experts have maybe argument.

But, I think, I'm not quite sure about this.

But in, in other countries,

like for example in Singapore.

In our case then as well,

yung pag-ownning enterprises such as media

kailangan Filipino palaga yan.

But what I think complicates things

is the advent ngayon

ng social media and so on.

Hindi mo na mag-govern yan

in the same way that you could govern

newspapers, radio and TV.

social media talagang free for all na.

You can have

both the views

from different

extremes. You're talking about guardrails,

Mico, no? Guardrails. Yeah, right, right.

Ito yung sa social media

ang hirap lagyan ng guardrails.

The same way that you could place guardrails

in the more traditional

forms of

media. And

as Joshua and Jess

a while ago, yung

debate really should be

at the very least, one that

talks about interests. Now, to be

fair, there is some

effort in our

going back sa previous

discussion natin, in the Tuderta administration as

well, to talk about

or articulate more

clearly what those interests

are. Now, which should

be enduring

across different administrations.

Governments change

on a fairly regular basis,

but those interests should be

enduring. To be fair, the Tuderta

administration, through the National

Security Policy and Strategy,

tried to articulate that even yung

NSP of the current administration

has that effort

of what those interests are.

But siguro,

the thing kasi when we are

talking about interest is that

it happens in a certain

context. And the context,

yun yung

nag-evolve.

Previously,

in the span of our

academic careers,

we started talking about

China in a more positive light

and an opportunity. I remember

there are arguments before that

China is a country that is focused

more internally, yung internal

security arguments such as

its Ministry of Interior

and so on

has a larger budget than the

defense. But in the span

ng ating career, as far as it may be,

it's true.

But nagbago na yun.

Nag-i-invest na yun China

more externally

and so on. So parang yun nga,

the context in which our

interests

as enduring

as it should be, nagbabago

din yung context. So I think yun yung

part ng

public discourse

that could perhaps

sift through

the extreme

views that are being articulated.

by others.

And magdadwell na ito

more sa studies on

disinformation

and so on.

And I'll not go into that.

Maybe my other

panelists could do it better than I can.

So I'll stop there.

The point is, I still don't care kung anong mas malaking

budget because if it's like

350 billion for internal security

and 300 billion for external security,

that's still scary.

Like, you know what I'm saying?

The scale just brings you.

It's your own quality and threat.

So I think that's...

I know. What I mean, sir, is

what I mean by that is that

you've argumented this before.

China, you should not worry about China

externally because

ang focus niya is internal.

But now,

it's very clear. Kasi some are still arguing

na there are some

still people who are arguing na

don't worry about China kasi ang focus niya

internal. I mean, true.

But it's no secret then

that it has regional

and even global ambitions.

Or precisely because of domestic

instability, it has to become

an argument of the broad.

Yung ibang think-tanks.

I know. But the point is

you can use that argument and say precisely because

they're unstable domestically, they want to have the

rallying around the flag effect. So that makes them

scary outside. Although I know that even that is

debatable. But it's so easy

to push back against that. But I remember very well

if you look at Susan Shirk's, for instance,

fragile superpower more than 10 years

ago, she would say that there was a time that

China was so sensitive that

it said, no, no, don't say peaceful rights, say

peaceful development. This is the Hu Jintao

era. But, you know, since Xi Jinping,

China is not the same again. In fact,

I said, don't call him President Xi Jinping,

call him paramount leader or chairman

Xi Jinping. He's not your

just another Chinese president. This is

more like Mao Zedong with the money

as I put it.

On that note, thank you very much, gentlemen.

Let's now go to the favorite episode, last

episode. Thank you so much for that.