Business Circuit

If Shakespeare had known that planet earth would have a Philippine secretary of justice like Raul M. Gonzalez, I am reasonably certain that what he said in his tragedy Macbeth would be meant for him.

Macbeth’s soliloquy tells of "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Gonzalez at best is a jester in President Arroyo’s court. But he does not make his audience laugh. He infuriates them instead.

He said that he will withdraw his advisory against media only if the President tells him to do so. That makes him and the likes of him lapdogs of the President.

This is the danger of this administration. The President makes a decision that nobody in her cabinet can criticize if he values his job.

We also have the likes of Raul Gonzalez who will "jump in the lake" if the President tells him so.

He told the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalist precisely to ‘go jump in the lake" for criticizing his attempts to muzzle media.

I would give the secretary of justice the same advice: Jump in the lake. He will never get anywhere trying to threaten us with arrest for doing our job.

As a lawyer, Gonzalez should know the meaning of a constitutional provision that guarantees citizens the right to peaceably assemble to seek redress of their grievances.

He said that the threat to the state will come one more time when a massive rally is held on Jan. 22. In his warped interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, the rally is a plot against the government.

To show that the people in this government cannot really get their act together, the AFP chief of staff denies having knowledge of such a plot.

But it is civil servants like DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno and now Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez who confirm there is indeed a plot.

In the form of a massive rally which is protected by the Constitution? Some plot!

The problem with the regime is the belief that anybody who disagrees with its policies is an enemy of the state who must be destroyed.

Well, we will all be destroyed. We reject massive electoral fraud. We reject corruption. We reject oppression.

I said earlier that the regime, based on what it has done and continues to do, may have fascistic tendencies. Power-hungry people invariably have that tendency. Some succeed but are later executed in public like Benito Mussolini of Italy.

But the road to fascism must be paved by more capable men. Not the likes of Puno or Gonzales.

They manufacture tall tales of threats to security of the state by its enemies – now including media – without a leg that can stand in court.

That may well be why extra-judicial killings have not stopped. The regime cannot prove in a court of law that the victims of murders, suspected to be enemies of the state, are simply shot dead.

The war against communism is not won by oppression. The regime does not seem to realize that. Massive force is their solution.

There are too many of us to kill. The effort will not succeed but has not been nipped.

Give it time. We will know whether or not corruption and oppression pays. So far they have.

Kill ‘em dead

DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno and lately, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez say, almost in cadence, that there is a plot to oust the President.

Puno said the plot is being hatched by junior officers of the military and the police. Going by that word, it may be presumed that he has their identities.

If he knows who they are, why doesn’t the government arrest them and take them to court? Create a kangaroo court or find a judge who will convict them, with or without evidence.

But since that process is tedious, why doesn’t the military and the police simply shoot them dead in their homes in the presence of their families?

Or engage them in a mock shoot out where they will fall dead.

How odd! President Arroyo abolished the death penalty but her people are enforcing it by extra-judicial killings.

Military and police authorities resort to murders because if due process is used they will be shamed by a militant Supreme Court.

If Puno and Gonzalez do not have their identities, they should keep their traps shut and at the same time leave media alone instead of threatening them.

Media will never come to terms with the state. That would be a death blow to democracy.

So, the likes of Puno and Gonzalez should stop threatening us. We do not scare easy.

What is SBMA really for?

The biggest economic news for the new year came from Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, a free trade zone. Its head declared that its income went down from the time sales of second-hand vehicles were disallowed.

Never in my wildest dream did I ever imagine that a free trade zone like SBMA expected revenues from selling second-hand vehicles. I thought that the reason for the decline might have been the closure of operations of some locators. Federal Express is going to China in December. That should reduce SBMA’s revenues.

SBMA has not found the wisdom of telling us how many firms are operating in the zone and what products they produce for export. Neither have we been informed of the value of exports of companies operating in the zone.

I thought that under the law, products – including used vehicles – pay a tax according to the Tariff Code if the products are not re-exported. Since the decline in income was caused by the termination of second-hand vehicle sales, it is assumed that taxes on them were fertile sources of revenues.

While the government is strapped for cash, it should not rely heavily on imported goods sold in the local market by a free trade zone.

More important is job generation and value of exports. The SBMA has not provided any information in this regard.

The free trade zone is a smuggling haven. That clearly is the reason it did not mention revenues derived from other products like luxury cars, canned goods, vegetables and many other consumer goods.

The items are smuggled. The smugglers do not pay a tax, if we must tell SBMA authorities. Who are we going hold liable for the smuggling? The Bureau of Customs, of course.

But why does customs turn a blind eye to it? The answer to that question could bring me to court on a libel suit. You answer it yourself.