I have more than the normal interest in the controversy between the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and Architect Felino “Jun” Palafox because my husband and I have been weekend residents of Subic for the past 12 years, and therefore what is happening there literally hits close to home. I must say that my sympathies are with Palafox.
For some time now, I have been concerned about what can only be described as the seeming willingness of the SBMA leadership—by that I mean its board, as well as the chair (Feliciano Salonga) and administrator (Armand Arreza)—to yield to the wishes of the rich and the powerful. First and foremost, there is the matter of a coal-fired power plant project that the SBMA board refuses to kill or just allow to die, in spite of almost universal objection to it by the residents and investors of Subic and other affected sectors. The objectors have excellent reasons: If the project is approved, Subic Bay will be saddled with an eyesore and a prime source of pollution—aside from the visual pollution, there is the air and water pollution from the burning of coal, the destruction of aquatic life and thermal pollution resulting from the discharging of water of extremely high temperatures into the bay (part of the process). Arrayed against these objectors are the Aboitiz group of Cebu, which has very close political and personal ties to President Macapagal-Arroyo.
Then there is the matter of the Hanjin apartment complex—a high-rise, at that—built in the middle of the forest, in spite of the fact that there are any number of alternative areas which could have been used, where it would have not been environmentally damaging. But no, it seemed that Hanjin wanted a place that was isolated and exclusive—and what Hanjin wanted, Hanjin got.
And while we’re on Hanjin, there is the matter of the death of reportedly 17 workers on site. It is not as if they all died at the same time—what happened is that SBMA seemed to look the other way, hoping that there would be no more repeats. But after 12 deaths within a two-year period (people in the area claimed that the number of deaths is closer to 30), Hanjin’s lousy safety record could no longer be ignored. If one remembers correctly, SBMA “suspended” Hanjin’s operations. The problem was that the effectivity of that suspension could not be monitored—I have been informed that it is harder to enter that shipyard than it is to enter Malacańang. Local government officials and, I am told, even the vice governor of Zambales were denied entry. Imagine, being denied entry in your own area.
Whatever cautionary effect that “suspension” may have had on Hanjin was further neutralized when the President herself, very soon after the Hanjin “suspension,” came to inaugurate the first ship that the shipyard had constructed. How she could have lent her presence to the inauguration of a ship that was built at the cost of at least 12 Filipino lives (she earlier had also come to Zambales to inaugurate some kind of Hanjin access road), has to be beyond anyone’s ken.
The latest chapter in the Hanjin story shows exactly how rich and powerful Hanjin is. Wednesday of last week, a news story related how Hanjin faced a second suspension, because—surprise, surprise—of a second series of deaths, the last two having occurred only a couple of weeks ago. According to the report,
SBMA Administrator Arreza was recommending such a suspension “until all issues are resolved.”
Well, what was the decision of the SBMA board? They terminated a subcontractor, but they did not suspend Hanjin. Imagine that, dear reader. Hanjin should be responsible for its 39 subcontractors, and should have in fact terminated them when their workers died. It certainly has command responsibility—but it was let off scot-free by the SBMA. Is that power, or is that power?
Given that background, and given that Subic Bay is an area promoted internationally as an environmentalist’s, not to mention a tourist’s, paradise—with its “clear, unpolluted air and water, virgin forests, pristine beaches, breathtaking views”; also, given that it is an area (with Clark) designated for tourist development by the President herself as part of her 10-point agenda, we can now look at the Palafox controversy.
Is the Palafox story absurd and unsubstantiated, as SBMA’s Arreza claims? Maybe it is unsubstantiated. (People don’t issue receipts for bribes.) But absurd? I don’t think so, particularly since Palafox went to Arreza (as well as to others) immediately with the story, and Arreza (and others) promised to investigate. And Arreza should stop using the story implicating his 10-year-old son in the bribery request. He already used that story in regard to one of the scandals mentioned above.
Moreover, there are just too many stories circulating in Subic about the corruption that is taking place there, including unjustified perks for the members of the SBMA board. Too many stories about the money that is extorted/demanded in exchange for approvals of permits, projects, licenses, etc. What is more, the Koreans in Subic do act as if they own the place.
But the businessmen and employees who talk about these in private do not go public, because they know retribution is swift, and Subic is run like a fiefdom. They are now waiting to see what happens to Palafox. If the messenger is killed, no one else will deliver the message. Alas for Subic. Alas for the Philippines.
