Category: Science and Technology

Thailand media must remain free channel of info amid crisis

mcmangahas Leave a comment

THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN PRESS ALLIANCE (SEAPA) has expressed grave concern over the imposition of anti-government protesters in Thailand for all six free television stations to stop broadcasting news and information from the government and to air only the side of the opposition.

An alliance of independent media groups in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines — including the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)– SEAPA in a statement called the opposition’s demand “a grave threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the media guaranteed under the current 2007 Constitution (of Thailand) and in keeping with the country’s international human rights obligations.”

The opposition’s demand aired by protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban — former deputy prime minister of Thailand who faces an arrest warrant for ordering the police crackdown that killed 91 “red shirts” protesters in 2010 — was a direct call for journalists to cast aside “their basic duty to maintain professionalism in order to keep the public constantly informed and channel diverse political views,” SEAPA said.

The statement was released by the SEAPA secretariat based in Bangkok led by executive director Gayathry Venkiteswaran.

The full text of the SEAPA statement follows:

THAILAND MEDIA MUST REMAIN A FREE CHANNEL OF INFORMATION

“SEAPA is deeply disturbed by today’s (Dec. 1, 2013) call by the leader of anti-government protesters Suthep Thaugsuban to all six free television stations to stop broadcasting news and information of the government, but to air only statements made People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) to avoid public confusion over the current political situation.

“We see Suthep’s call as a grave threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the media guaranteed under the current 2007 Constitution and in keeping with the country’s international human rights obligations.

“Suthep is directly calling on the media to turn their backs on their basic duty to maintain professionalism in order to keep the public constantly informed and channel diverse political views. Such duty is crucial in the context of the current political crisis and the extremely fluid situation.

“Suthep’s speech at the Government Complex at 4.30 p.m. was broadcast live on Channels 3, 5, 7 and the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS). Channel 9 which is a state-owned enterprise reported the address briefly; while Channel 11, which is run by the government’s Public Relation Department aired another program during Suthep’s speech this afternoon.

“The call followed a march of anti-government protesters to all TV stations earlier today to pressure them to relay the signal of the Blue Sky Channel, a pro-Democrat party station broadcasting the protest live.

“Separate negotiations with station executives resulted in some agreeing to give more air time to the BlueSky broadcast. TPBS issued a statement upholding its its professional practice to keep the public informed of news and information from all sides.

“SEAPA supports the joint statement of the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) and Thai Broadcast Journalists Association (TBJA) issued today urging all journalists whether from state or privately-owned media to keep its utmost professionalism in reporting the current political conflict and not to be influenced by any groups.
SEAPA urges both protesters and the government to stop coercing the media to report in their favor. It is already a tremendous challenge, especially for local media who are also citizens, to report fairly during political crises, and keeping all media channels free from interference is the best way for the entire media to fulfill this duty.

“At the same time, SEAPA calls upon all the mainstream and online media to report the situation in a balanced and professional manner and not to provoke the situation or misinform the public. The duty of media in this time of crisis is to faithfully report events as they unfold, in order to keep the public informed and to enable them to act freely according to their conscience. This duty of the media is sworn to the public, and not to media owners or pressure groups of any political persuasion.

“Finally, we call upon all sides to refrain from fomenting hate speech and manufacturing distorted information, which could only do more harm than good to Thailand and its people, whose interests all sides seek to protect and advance.”

————————————
For more information, please contact:
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Executive Director, gayathry@seapa.org
+66 88 017 4810
Kulachada Chaipipat, Campaigns Manager, kcchacha@gmail.com
+66 81 373 4202

Price, profit, and water tariffs: Ne’er the twain shall meet?

mcmangahas Leave a comment

PRICE AND PROFIT.

Or, price vs. profit?

These are the two sides of the water equation that is at the heart of ongoing “rate rebasing” talks between the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage System (MWSS) and the two private water concessionaires serving the capital region and surrounding areas.

A fortnight ago, they engaged in a noisy row over the possible disallowance of claims for income tax payments, but yet again they are locking horns.

This time, it is over the level of guaranteed returns that the water companies are entitled to get — a major factor in setting water tariffs.ntitled to get — a major factor in setting water tariffs.

How this debate ends will determine not only what price customers will have to pay for water but also how much profit the water firms could make in the next five years.

Manila Water Co., which provides water service in the eastern half of Metro Manila and surrounding areas, wants to increase rates by P5.83 per cubic meter or 21 percent to P34.12 per cubic meter.

Maynilad Water Services, Inc., which runs the water system in the west zone, is proposing to increase average basic rates by P8.58 per cubic meter or 25 percent to P42.55 per cubic meter.

PCIJ Figure 2. ASEAN Water (1)

Since MWSS was privatized in 1997, water rates have soared nine-fold in Manila Water’s east zone and more than six-fold in Maynilad’s west zone.

Apart from being allowed to recover past expenses and future costs from tariffs paid by customers, the two water companies are also allowed to earn a return on those cash outflows.

For the next five years until 2017, they want a return, also called the appropriate discount rate or ADR, of 8.99 percent, according to people privy to the discussions.

However, MWSS water regulators find the proposed discount rate of 8.99 percent too high, given that yields on long-term Philippine government bonds have plummeted, especially in the last five or six years as the country’s economic fundamentals have gotten better alongside falling U.S. interest rates.

The regulators are said to have initially set the ADR at 6.16 percent, according to people familiar with the discussions between the MWSS and water firms.

PCIJ Figure.. THE WATER FIRMS' RETURNS. QUICK TO RISE, SLOW TO FALL, july 2013 (1)

In plain terms, water rates increased faster in the early years of privatization as a result of big jumps in the ADR, because of higher interest rates and the peso’s decline.

Today, amid lower interest rates and a stronger peso, the returns of water firms are expected to also fall proportionately, thus tempering any increase in the price of water.

However, by many accounts, the water firms’ proposed ADR of 8.99 percent does not seem to reflect this changed reality.

So, what “guaranteed returns” for water service is best in the next five years?

Should it be 8.99 percent, according to the water companies?

Or, should it be 6.16 percent only, according to MWSS’s estimate?

Is there a perfect balance here between the profit that water firms should make, and the price that customers should pay for water, in the next five years?

Read our latest report, MWSS, water firms clash over ‘guaranteed returns’.

Check it out also on BusinessWorld Online and ABS-CBNnews.com.

‘Loaves, fishes, and dirty dishes’: Water woes in 2003 linger still

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IN THE BEGINNING, there was water, a public service.

In 1997, water service came under private control.

S1xteen years hence, are we better off, with good and ample water supply, and service priced at reasonable rates?

Or, with regulators and water firms now fighting over taxes and disallowed expenses, and water rates likely to rise again, are we back to where we started?

Read back:

How it all started: Loaves, fishes, and dirty dishes

Before 1997, this was situation: Low pressure and illegal water siphoning caused contamination in the pipes, waterborne diseases were common, and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was among the most unpopular agencies of government.

In 1995, the MWSS served only about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million people living in Metro Manila and nearby towns. A full 3.6 million did not have running water. The utility lost more than half of its water — and millions of dollars in revenue — to leaks and theft. And service was erratic, often shutting off during the day.

But in 1995, too, there were 480 cases of cholera in Manila, compared with 54 cases in 1991, according to the Department of Health. Reports of severe diarrhea-causing infections peaked in 1997 at 109,483 — more than triple the 1990 number. Coupled with the prospect of water shortages, these disease outbreaks created an atmosphere of crisis that convinced people to accept a private sector role in the operation of the water utility.

In 1997, the Manila Water Corp. and Maynilad Water Services Inc. won concessions to take over Manila’s waterworks, splitting the metropolis into western and eastern water zones. Although water regulators dispute exact figures, within five years the companies had connected about 2 million more people to the network.

(When they won their concession contracts in 1997, Maynilad Water was owned by the Lopez family and Ondeo, a subsidiary of the French water company Suez, and Manila Water, by the Ayala family. Today, the Metro Pacific and Consunji groups own Maynilad, while the Ayala family has remained in Manila Water.)

In 2003, six years after the Maynilad and Manila Water took over, what was touted to have been a “miracle” in the water sector had started to look prosaic, a virtual mirage. Many of the old problems — debts, underfunding, broken pipes and water theft — have resurfaced and even worsened. And the system itself was starting to crumble yet again.

Water losses, the decades-old bane of the MWSS that eventually prompted its privatization, have remained high and even worsened in the western half of the metropolis. This has perpetuated a chronic shortfall in water supply.

The cost of water tripled following a series of rate increases imposed starting in 2001. In January 2003, rates were to jump a further 81 percent in the east zone and 36 percent in the west zone.

Six years ago in 2003, MWSS regulators had started to notice some things truly odd: The private companies increasingly make their own rules. Having privatized the water, government regulators say they are powerless to impose restrictions or demands on the companies who generally do as they please.

Read our latest report:

* Tough love: MWSS, water firms clash over taxes, disallowed expenses

* Sidebar: What is rate rebasing?

In 2003, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) launched a global investigative reporting project, “The Water Barons” in half a dozen countries, which have seen “the explosive growth of three private water utility companies in the last 10 years.”

The situation, ICIJ said, “raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations.”

The Philippine report titled “Loaves, fishes, and dirty dishes” was authored by PCIJ Fellow Roel Landingin.

In large measure, the ICIJ reports are prescient in all the fear and concerns they raised. What the reports said 10 years ago had turned into real-life situations and problems.

In Europe and North America, ICIJ wrote in 2003, analysts say that, “within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks.”

But because they have worked closely with the World Bank and other international financial institutions “to gain a foothold on every continent,” these companies “aggressively lobby for legislation and trade laws to force cities to privatize their water and set the agenda for debate on solutions to the world’s increasing water scarcity.”

What was the companies’ pitch? “The companies argue they are more efficient and cheaper than public utilities.”

What was the critics’ lament? “Critics say they are predatory capitalists that ultimately plan to control the world’s water resources and drive up prices even as the gap between rich and poor widens.”

What was everyone’s worry? “The fear is that accountability will vanish, and the world will lose control of its source of life.”

The world’s — and the Philippines’ — water woes from 10 years ago linger still.

Quick Quiz: Which state schools have most students, graduates?

mcmangahas Leave a comment

ARE THEY well worth the taxpayers’ money that government allots them as subsidy? And do they deliver quality, not just quantity?

Which state colleges and universities had the largest number of enrollees and graduates in 2011?

A. University of the Philippines
B. Cagayan State University
C. Bulacan State University
D. Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Take a Quick Quiz in PCIJ’s MoneyPolitics Online!

No cheating, please.

The Internet and freedom for all

mcmangahas Leave a comment

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Freedom for all, and all stakeholders speaking out with equal voice, on how to govern the Internet. Internet Freedom. Internet for Freedom.

These issues drive the two-day Stockholm Internet Forum 2013 (SIF13) that opens today, May 22 in this country that ranks top in the world for leveraging the potentials of the Internet, according to the latest Web Index.

The forum focuses on two themes — Internet Freedom and Security, and Internet Freedom and Development. Policymakers, netizens, techies, activists, and business and civil society representatives from 93 countries are participants.

(The PCIJ is attending the conference on invitation of the forum organizers, namely, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, .Se or The Internet Infrastructure Foundation of Sweden, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency or SIDA.)

At the reception for delegates on Tuesday, Fadi Chehade, president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), called the Internet “a free gift for all the people.” It would thus be wrong for any one party, organization, or government to propose to control or govern it by itself, he said.

While some countries like the United States have played a big part in developing it, Chehade notes that even the US acknowledges that there is need everywhere for this “great resource.”

“No one organization, no one country, no one government, no one, period, can control the Internet,” he said. “And we must respect it and govern it like that.”

However, across nations and regions of the world, he noted that some parties have done “a pretty miserable job” of managing the Internet.

“The conundrum’ that confronts governments, civil society, academia, and business is precisely how to manage “this resources that spans the planet and crosses borders.”

The one and only one answer, he said, is that, “together, together” all stakeholders must do the job.

Yet, “it’s not just about multistakeholders, multiple parties coming together to work on an imopt resource.” More importantly, “it’s about multi-equal stakeholders. It’s having everyone at the table with equal voice participating in the governance of this resource.”

After all, the peoples of the developing world form the bulk of the Internet community. According to Chehade, of the 750 mllion people on Internet by 2005, 75 percent came form the developing world.

By 2015, at least 2 billion people are forecast to be on the Internet, and with over 70 percent or the next billion coming still from the developing world, he said.

Sadly, Chehade said people from less affluent nations are not yet fully engaged in managing and governing the Internet, even as “it something that they deserve… how to govern together the internet.”

Some governments seem to think that it is a task they must do. Chehade said a recent conversation he had with the leader of a Latin American country seems instructive.

“He told me: ‘It’s this simple, the Internet is very powerful, we are government, we love power, so the conclusion is we need to govern the Internet,’” Chehade said.

Still, the person was probably one of the more honest government officials he has met. Chehade said he was not speaking out to attack governments but “not all governments are created equal… (and) there are governments that do not understand multistakeholder development.”

For its part, ICANN has ceased being “just a money collector” and recently launched efforts to “change the DNA” of the organization.

ICANN, he said, now operates from Los Angeles in california, Istanbul in Turkey, and in Singapore, in its effort to grow into a global organization, and not just a US entity. “For too long,” he said, “ICANN has remained mostly a start-up in its mentality.”

“We are also pushing an internationalized domain name system and (to) diversify the domain name system,” he said.

In the same spirit of the Stockholm Internet Forum — Internet Freedom for Global Development,” Chehade said, “iCANN must embrace its public responsibility… be a publicly responsible organization” and “not just a money collector.”

“We have a role in enabling many parts of the Internet, and not just sit back and collect the change,” Cheahde said. “The new ICANN must embrace its responsibility to the public and to the developing world.”

Because he said he grew up “in places where freedom was not there… and lost many friends who spoke their mind,” Chehade said he realized early on that “freedom to choose is the most important thing.”

“The Internet has become the most powerful weapon for people to choose what they want,” he said. The Internet is “not only about democracy; it’s about allowing people to choose.”

Freedom from want, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the Internet enables all these and more freedoms, he said. “We have a responsibility to enable these freedoms close to the everyone in the world… let us all be leaders.”