Bander avoids trial as attorney, State Bar settle

Atty. Joel Bander, shown here from a Facebook Page that bears his name, was supposed to face trial on Monday, April 8, at the State Bar, but a settlement has been reached between him and the State Bar.

If our sources are correct, it looks like Atty. Joel Bander will not be tried after all because a settlement has been reached between him and the State Bar. The criminal lawyer was facing charges after allegedly violating California State Bar rules relating to the loan litigation program his law firm initiated but failed after signing up over 800 clients in 2008 and 2009.

Although the court calendar on Friday still posted Bander’s trial that’s supposed to begin on Monday, April 8, the two parties – Atty. Joel Bander and State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Ross E. Viselman – have apparently reached an agreement after Tuesday’s voluntary settlement conference (VSC) with a judge. A call to the State Bar late Friday confirmed that the five-day trial was taken off calendar.

Earlier,  Clerk of Court Johnny Smith, who is assigned to VSC Judge Richard Platel, told Weekend Balita that although the two had met, he was not aware of any settlement though there were no further meetings that were scheduled after Tuesday’s conference. Smith added that if an agreement has indeed been reached, it will not be made public until the terms have been submitted and accepted by the judge.

Bander’s latest State Bar case that was filed last December 20 involved 20 cases based on complaints by 10 homeowners. Prior to Tuesday’s VSC, a pre-trial was held last March 28 at the courtroom of Judge Richard A. Honn – who is supposed to hear the case – where Bander tried to exclude this reporter from covering the conference, which was marked “Public Matter.”

Weekend Balita was supposed to cover Bander’s five-day trial after Judge Honn approved our request to be present in the courtroom. It was Judge Honn who earlier instructed both Bander and the State Bar to settle the case, calling it “costly.” We tried to reach the State Bar on Friday and left messages with Viselman, who has yet to return our calls as of this writing.

Bander served a three month suspension last year after multiple cases were filed against him by the State Bar in 2011. He was also placed on a three-year probation after pleading no contest to the charges.

Meanwhile, a review of Bander’s disciplinary record showed that it was also Judge Platel who was assigned to the first case of Bander. The same record indicated that Bander also tried to “Modify Terms of (his) Probation” and that he also filed a motion to extend the provisions regarding restitution, both of which were denied by Judge Platel last January 24. Court records showed that the first complaint against Bander racked up more than $20,000 in fees that Bander will have to pay.

Apart from the suspension, Bander must pass a professional responsibility test. The State Bar also stated that Bander’s “misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct as there were 20 client matters involved.”

When the settlement was reached in the first complaint and approved by Judge Platel, it took another six months before Bander served his actual suspension that took effect last June and ended in September.

In the second State Bar complaint, Bander is also facing 20 cases. Just like most of the complainants in the first one, the new cases were all about homeowners who signed up for the so-called “Save Your Home, Sue the Banks” loan litigation program, where Bander promised to sue their lenders and force the latter to reduce their mortgage payments or modify their loans.

A few attorneys who have dealt with Bander in the past and who thought that Bander’s three-month suspension was a “slap on the wrist” were not surprised to learn that the same attorney, who is described as a “public figure” on three different Facebook pages, was again charged by the State Bar.

According to San Francisco-based State Bar defense lawyer Jerome Fishkin, “some attorneys, because of the severity of the offense or the little likelihood of success, will choose to resign rather than face State Bar prosecution. Others will lose a contested case and will be disbarred,” as posted in his website www.fishskinlaw.com.”

As to give a semblance of how attorneys as defendants are treated in a State Bar, Fishkin described that “The State Bar is an adversary system” and that the “people do not become State Bar investigators and prosecutors (like Viselman) because they want to help attorneys. The prosecutorial mentality in general is to find fault and fix blame.” Fishkin also warned that “in recent years, State Bar prosecutors (have) become seemingly petty and mean-spirited.”

Although Fishskin recommends that lawyers get a State Bar defense counsel, Bander has so far represented himself. Bander, who did not have any disciplinary record prior to last year’s suspension, seemed determined to face trial unlike the last time where he agreed on the suspension that is permanently displayed under his name in the roster of attorneys.

Our sources, who are supposed to appear at the trial, indicated that although the  terms of the settlement in the second case are “still unknown…it likely will result in a lengthy suspension.” However, the same sources have yet to know the details of the settlement and if Bander will only serve a suspension without disbarment.

Viselman had told the court that he is supposed to call 35 witnesses against Bander, including former clients and lawyers of the Bander Law Firm.

Atty. Joel Bander faces the court as 'the accused'

Identified as a “public figure” on a Facebook page that bears his name and his photo which also posted that he is a “California Criminal Defense and Immigration Lawyer”, Atty. Joel Bander (in photo) will face trial after being sued once again by the California State Bar. Bander served a 3-month suspension last year in a separate case, but of similar nature relating to a botched loan litigation program.

(Editor’s note: Atty. Joel bander is the publisher and senior columnist of Pinoywatchdog.com, a new tabloid whose editors published numerous articles maligning the author, his co-employees, his publisher and the publisher’s family. Weekend Balita is the only Filipino-American newspaper that exposed how Bander’s loan litigation program obtained over 800 victims who were subsequently listed in the Bander Law Firm bankruptcy as creditors.)

In June 2012, the California State Bar suspended Attorney Joel Bander, though only for a brief time. He served a three-month suspension that ended in September after pleading “no contest” to charges involving 20 cases, mostly relating to the failed loan litigation program he had heavily promoted. Three months later, after being reinstated to “active status”, Bander found himself again facing another case filed by the State Bar against him. Although, this time, unlike last time, Bander has elected to go to trial.

(Update: A settlement is being worked out after Thursday’s pre-trial conference, after two tries between Bander and the State Bar failed. Judge Richard A. Honn has encouraged both parties to come into an agreement as a trial is “costly.” The State Bar prosecutor alone said he will call 35 witnesses against Bander, including complainants and former lawyers who worked for Bander.)

The new set of complaints include 20 counts all relating to the botched “Save Your Home, Sue the Banks” program. These counts were filed on December 20, 2012, almost exactly one year after Bander’s plea of no contest was submitted to the Judge in the first State Bar case that Bander had faced. Previously, Bander agreed not to dispute the earlier charges from the first State Bar case, having pleaded “no contest” – therefore he was culpable of all charges, according to the State Bar. This time, the stakes seem higher. Bander could be facing long years if not permanent disbarment, if found guilty. Bander is representing himself, in what could be the most serious and challenging case of his career.

Bander has denied any “culpability” in this latest round of State Bar complaints. Bander is currently facing a variety of allegations that include but are not limited to attorney’s fees paid by clients and claims from homeowners who hired Bander Law Firm (BLF) with the hope of saving their home or reduce their mortgage at the height of the home crisis in 2009 and 2010. The homeowners claimed to have paid the BLF thousands of dollars, but they allegedly didn’t get the legal service they were promised. Also, these individuals claimed to have been misrepresented and ultimately they had to deal with the legal consequences after Bander allegedly took actions without their knowledge.

One such case was that of homeowner Eduardo Lorenzo. The State Bar alleged that although Bander filed a case against Countrywide Home Loans, Bander didn’t inform Lorenzo that his lender countered with a demurrer (an objection to Lorenzo’s allegations). The State Bar also alleged that Bander dismissed the case (without prejudice, meaning he could re-file a new case) but that this was without the approval and knowledge of Lorenzo, who paid $2,000 to the BLF firm in advanced fees.

“On or about January 28, 2010, the court dismissed the Lorenzo Action. At no time, did (Bander) inform Lorenzo that a request for dismissal had been filed in the Lorenzo Action, or that the Lorenzo Action was dismissed,” in violations of the State Bar’s Business and Professions Code, according to the State Bar. (A few days later, on February 12, 2010, the BLF filed for bankruptcy.)

Although Bander did sue Lorenzo’s bank, he didn’t do the same on behalf of property owner Francis Spoonemore who paid Bander $8,000, the State Bar said. Spoonemore hired the firm in January 2009 and was “assured” that Bander was “planning to file a lawsuit on his behalf.”  Spoonemore also alleged that he was assured that the BLF had a “solid ground” against his lender. After ten months had passed, however, Spoonemore claimed that Bander then told him that “mortgage litigation was no longer a viable option.”

In the case of Spoonemore, the State Bar alleged that, “At no time during Respondent’s representation of Spoonemore did (Bander) file a lawsuit…or otherwise provide legal services. By failing to file a lawsuit on behalf of Spoonemore or otherwise provide legal services of value, (Bander) intentionally or recklessly failed to perform services with competence.”

The State Bar said that by not refunding the $8,000 to Spoonemore and by failing to refund “unearned fees,” Bander violated the State Bar’s “Rules of Professional Conduct.”

In his response, Bander said that the Lorenzo demurrer “was not a significant development.” He also stated that dismissing Lorenzo’s case was a “procedural matter.” However, Bander did not answer Lorenzo’s accusation that he (Bander) was never given authorization nor was he given consent at any time to dismiss his case against Countrywide.

In other charges, Bander also blamed the lack of forensics that were supposed to have been done by another lawyer – Atty. Rupert Domingo – prior to him investigating and prosecuting the lawsuit against the lenders. Bander blamed Domingo as the culprit in the other cases and he ended up suing Domingo as a result. Bander also disputed the State Bar’s allegations that he (Bander) didn’t provide legal services to his clients.

A pre-trial conference was held last Thursday at the courtroom of Judge Richard A. Honn. Daily formal hearings in the case of Joel Bander will begin on April 8. A battery of State Bar lawyers led by Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim will try Bander. But it is Deputy Trial Counsel Ross E. Viselman, a product of Harvard Law School, who was assigned to the case. According to a website called LegalHelpMate.com, Viselman has “extensive experience representing clients in criminal defense and litigation matters.”

Meanwhile, Weekend Balita learned that at least one former lawyer at the BLF received a subpoena to appear as a witness for the State Bar. Prominent lawyers who had worked at the firm included Atty. Tim Umbreit and Filipino-American lawyers Norberto Reyes III and Mary Lynn Tanawan Sanga.

Bander and his firm had about 800 clients who signed up for the loan litigation program, the majority of whom were Filipinos. Full-page advertisements by Bander appeared in a competing Filipino-American newspaper back in 2008 and 2009, where he also served as counsel. Each homeowner who retained the firm was believed to have paid at least $8,000. In the earlier State Bar complaint, at least one property owner – Justin Kim – said he paid Bander $25,000 for legal services he didn’t get.

Immigration reform: Amnesty or necessity?

If these marching Filipino-Americans in downtown New York are to be heard, all undocumented immigrants should be legalized. (Balita file photo)

If most pro-immigration advocates get their way, all 11 million undocumented immigrants will become legal in the U.S…and maybe more. But while potential immigration reform is becoming more likely as the year progresses, speculations arise as to how each issue within the current but broken down immigration system will be addressed.

Take border security for example. Since more boots have been put on the ground at the border, there have been less and less people who are being caught crossing the desert, or so the government claims. To the conservatives, this is great news. Although they want a more secure, if not a totally impenetrable wall at the border, they also point to the fact that the economy is so bad that people down south may find no incentive in coming here.

This brings to mind the four senators in the “Gang of 8” from the Republican Party, namely Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), whose main concern is how to secure the border first, before they deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants. 

At present, drones, cameras, the deployment of more Border Patrol and National Guard personnel and what’s left of the Minutemen seem to be reducing the number of illegal crossings. The other four are Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

In Thursday’s New American Media National Telebriefing on “Behind the Business-Labor Agreement on Immigration Reform: What Ethnic Media Need to Know,” America’s Voice Executive Director Frank Sharry said that the U.S. should not spend a dime more in fortifying the border. Sharry said there are already 21,000 Border Patrol agents deployed in the area and “we don’t need to waste more (funds) on agents as there’s already been a tremendous effort in securing the border.”

Sharry made it known that he backs ongoing efforts in preventing people from coming up north. “Sustained effort, sure, I favor that,” Sharry said, “but we shouldn’t be wasting more taxpayers’ money.” He said what’s more important is how to address the issue on why people come to the U.S. illegally and the magnet that attracts them to cross the border.

Speaking of magnets, work and Benjamin Franklin are what drive people to risk their lives in scaling the wall, crossing the Rio Grande, trudging the desert or navigating a crudely-built tunnel. For those who braved any of those routes – as difficult as it may have been, they were successful – and as result are becoming more optimistic. Some may even be thinking back on how they made it through the ordeal, ultimately, viewing their acquisition of legal US citizenship as the fruit of their hardships.

To many, this is just. To the conservatives, an “amnesty” means rewarding those who “violated” the law. The latter just need to cite that the 1986 amnesty that President Ronald Reagan implemented, who by the way was a conservative Republican, which resulted in more people crossing the border illegally. It would appear as if the federal government had forgotten that despite its perceived strength, the border is indeed a permeable entity.

Be that as it may, it seems more likely that when a bill is introduced, the GOP in the Gang of 8 will most likely agree in making the undocumented illegals legal because of last year’s elections, where the Latino vote decisively voted for their opponent Barack Obama. As a “compromise,” they will potentially make the undocumented pay taxes, learn English and go back to the metaphorical end the line. But that’s easier said than done.

In the same briefing on Thursday, this author posed the following questions: What have the advocates heard as to how much an individual will have to pay in taxes? And if they do, what will happen to the businesses that hired them (illegally) since these companies will surely be criticized as the “culprit” and the reason as to why the millions of undocumented individuals are able to stay here, find work and survive?

The Immigration Policy and Advocacy Center for American Progress Vice President Angela Kelley, who is based in Washington D.C., said there has been no word on the amount of taxes these individuals will pay as far as ongoing House Judiciary Committee hearings are concerned, but she admitted that businesses might get exposed.

Kelley said whatever bill they decide upon, it should have some sort of protection on the part of the businesses and that there should be no risks involved when the undocumented individuals submit their papers throughout the application process. “(The bill) has to function, so that it will become achievable. If it can’t be done, then you’re not solving the problem, ” she said.

A section in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provides that companies will be held liable for hiring undocumented immigrants and that businesses or persons hiring undocumented immigrants may pay a fine that may cost them as much as $10,000 “for each such alien.” They are also criminally liable. An article by the New York Times in May 2011 stated that the raids conducted by the Department of Homeland Security on businesses netted fines totaling about $43 million in 2010, which the paper said was a record. The same article said 119 employers were convicted. This is separate from the numerous raids on several factories all over the U.S., where companies said they tried to verify the legality of their workers but didn’t have the capability to know which papers are true and correct.

As to the question of who will benefit from the immigration reform, Kelley hopes that those who have been staying in the U.S. illegally for at least a year should be accommodated, which may increase the 11 million count. She recalled, however, that those who benefited from the 1986 amnesty program were people who stayed here continuously for at least four and half years. The law allowed nearly three million undocumented immigrants to gain permanent residency. 

Economic Impact

While many don’t like the idea of another round of amnesty, the Obama administration has been deporting record numbers of undocumented immigrants. Despite that however, a separate study by the Center for American Progress said deporting all 11 million “would drain $2.5 trillion from the U.S. economy over 10 years." The same study said mass deportation could cost U.S. taxpayers $285 billion over five years.

Pro-immigrant advocates have argued that the economic benefit of making the undocumented legal far outweighs the alternative, not to mention that deporting these immigrants can often have consequences for their children, who were born and raised in the United States. In the agricultural sector alone, landowners have said that no American workers would want to work at the farms despite the high unemployment rate in the U.S. that stood at 7.7 percent as of Thursday.

According to Washington D.C.-based Urban Institute, the total immigrant income in 1989, or three years after the 1986 amnesty program, reached $285 billion (citing 1990 census figures), which the think tank said “represented about eight percent of all reported income.”

Another study by White House Council of Economic Advisers during President George Bush (43) also stated that immigrants increase gross domestic product “by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool.”

Just recently, Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “A comprehensive immigration plan that includes a path to legalization could add $1.5 trillion to the economy over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $4.5 billion or more in three years,” in an article posted on Bloomberg.com – a huge amount indeed at a time when the U.S. needs more revenues to reduce its deficit.

For whatever it’s worth, it seems that both sides of the aisle will benefit from an immigration reform. Though the “one-time” 1986 amnesty may have failed to prevent the entry of more people illegally, it doesn’t change the fact that they are huge contributors to the U.S. economy because they came here to work. 

Is San Onofre nuclear plant irreplaceable?

Anyone who has gone to San Diego from Los Angeles and passed by the 5 Freeway must have seen the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station – or SONGS for short – located near the shore with two daunting half-domed, egg-shell like concrete structures dominating the otherwise serene scenery. Be that as it may, the plant has been one of the major sources of electric power for the city of Los Angeles and nearby cities some 65 miles away.

However, the San Onofre nuclear plant has been out of commission for a year now due to what is being said as “premature wear” on newly-installed tubes in the steam generators.  Critics blamed poor design as the main cause.

Built in the 60s, SONGS have had its share of problems ever since Bechtel inadvertently installed a 420-ton nuclear reactor vessel “backwards,” according to Wikipedia, in 1977. Also, multiple citations were issued against the plant for a variety of safety issues.

Though mostly owned and operated by Southern California Edison, restarting SONGS will depend on a decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission if the latter allows the company to restart the facility, which may be known in a few weeks, if not months.

According to Edison, SONGS generates  2,200 megawatts of power in two reactors, and provides 20 percent of the power to most of Southern California. Southern California Edison services some 14 million people with power generated from various locations and sources, namely natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind and solar farm facilities and, until it shut down last year, nuclear energy from SONGS.

In a video just released by SoCal Edison, the company presented an illustration on the importance of SONGS and why it would be costly to replace it, while building other facilities of other sources may take years, if not decades.

The video, called San Onofre and Grid Reliability, and which was also posted on YouTube, showed comparisons on why reviving SONGS is more practical. The video showed it will take 4,400 new towering windmills to replace the 2,200 megawatt of power that SONGS generates. Edison added it will also require 64,000 acres of new solar farms to do the same, which the company “mockingly” illustrated would stretch some 100 miles from Los Angeles all the way to Palm Springs – in a straight line – if all 64,000 acres of solar farms are built. Meanwhile, gas-powered facilities emit hazardous plumes up in the air, the video also showed.

In addition, neither solar nor wind farms can provide continuous and reliable power – 24 hours, seven days a week – unlike SONGS because weather and other natural elements may affect their power-generating capacity compared to a plant that produces nuclear energy.

Most important is that building new power plants means erecting new power grids, transmission lines, and other equipment to capture that energy and distribute them to households. SoCal Edison said such project may take 10 years to plan, apply for permits and to construct the new facilities, not to mention allocating billions of dollars which we all know California can ill-afford in these current economic times. And despite what environmentalists claim, SoCal Edison said the San Onofre plan provides “clean, safe, affordable and reliable” energy to millions of Californians.

According to a statement released to media, SoCal Edison is “doing everything they can to meet projected demand” as we head into the summer in the next few months. “Last summer, SCE customers did an amazing job in saving energy, and SCE also made some transmission improvements that helped keep the lights on for everyone,” the statement said. “SCE hopes that they can reach even more customers this year to improve the collective impact of individual conservation measures.” Therefore, resuscitating SONGS seems paramount so we can all enjoy an unfettered source of power anytime we need them, as the video from SoCal Edision seems to portray.

Asian-Americans to U.S. Congress: Reduce backlogs

AAJC chief says current visa numbers separate families for decades

By Rhony Laigo

Asian-Americans are tired of waiting to be reunited with their families. Arguably one of the better contributors to the American economy owing to their high educational level and creativity, Asian-Americans would like Congress to address the long backlogs in the family-based petitions so they can be reunited with their loved ones quicker and without waiting for decades.

In Thursday’s  national telebriefing hosted by New American Media, one of the three speakers, President and Executive Director of Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua, said the ongoing debate on immigration reform is of utmost importance for Asians because 90 percent of Asian-Americans come to the United States through family-based petitions. She said 60 percent of Asian Americans living in the U.S. are immigrants and that “nearly half of the 4.3 million people in worldwide family backlog are those who are now sitting and waiting in Asia to be reunited with their families here in the United States.”

In addition, Moua said that for every 11 undocumented immigrant in the U.S., one is an Asian-American, who most likely came to the U.S. legally but because of backlogs may have overstayed their visas and are now living here without legal status.

Moua also revealed that for every 10 American DREAMers – those who were brought here when they were young through no fault of their own – one is an Asian-American. They are so-called DREAMers, who are hoping that the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act become a reality. “Today, we have an Asian or a Pacific Islander family member who too is living under the shadow. Many of our young people are much  part of the Dreamer movement,” Moua said. “This is why we feel very  strongly (about the immigration reform) to help procure a clear and meaningful path to citizenship for DREAMers.”

Moua also underscored what she intimated were undesirable working conditions that some Asians have suffered at the hands of their employers. According to Moua, many are being denied of their workers’ rights and are being exploited by “unscrupulous employers who pay their workers substandard wages,” especially in places where the immigrant is employed under the H1-B worker visa program – the first step for them to become permanent residents but only if sponsored by their employers if no relatives are qualified to do so.

“This is not just a Latino issue,” Moua said, “Asians are one of the most diverse populations and we have to monitor and protect (the immigration system) from further erosion and so, we’re asking our leaders to address these inhumane backlogs in the procurement of immigrant visas.” Moua said that as “a matter of public policy, a sensible and a comprehensive immigration reform will benefit our community and will solve the “tremendous hardship” that many immigrant families are going through.

She also said that the current “enforcement only” method that the Department of Homeland Security is employing is separating many families while instilling scare in the community. Such method “makes the community less safe” because she said some are being stopped and interrogated if not harassed because “they are perceived to be foreign-sounding people,” not to mention that some are not proficient in the English language. 

According to Moua,  who was born in Laos and immigrated in 1978, her family had suffered from the same experience when her father tried to petition her grandfather and a brother but who both died before setting foot on U.S. soil. She said her father then was not qualified to file the petitions because of his financial status. “My parents couldn’t find a job even when they were already citizens. And when he was in a position to qualify, he couldn’t do it anymore because (they) have passed away.”

She said, “Many of us in our communities are separated by decades and decades (of long waits). This is a window of opportunity for (the lawmakers) to exert leadership so that our families will feel secure, safe and be reunited…and to take advantage of the American Dream to live in the U.S. and contribute to the economic vitality of this country.” 

Apart from Moua, those who spoke in the telebriefing included Angela Kelley, vice president for Immigration Policy and Advocacy, Center for American Progress, and Frank Sharry, founder and executive director, America’s Voice. It was moderated by NAM’s Irma Herrera.

For his part, Sharry said he believes the time has come for both parties to pass an immigration reform, citing last presidential elections as a gauge. He said that if the GOP wants to regain being competitive, the Republicans need to get the votes of the fastest growing groups who are Latinos and Asians. “Unless they get it right they will have a difficult time winning the Senate and retaking the White House.”

“The good news is, that is the central conversation that we’re having. It is about the 11 million. It is not about much about enforcement…unlike what was discussed in the last election debate,” Kelley contributed. But she said that the requirements and the waiting time, since the undocumented may have to go in the back of the line “have to be achievable. She added the proposal to treat the undocumented as “DREAMers” – who will only get work permits but must find a way to become citizens thru marriage or thru and employer – is “untennable.”

Kelley added that another important fact is that while many states now allow for same sex marriage, gay couples are barred from petitioning their spouses because the current policy of the DHS is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

‘One Malaysia,’ an economic model for a diverse nation

Malaysia celebrated its 55^th Independence Day last August 31 led by Malaysian King Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah and her Majesty Tuanku Hamimah Binti Hamidun flanked by government officials who were garbed in one pair of outfit: Black trousers and blue-collared white polo shirt emblazoned with the number “1” on the upper left chest signifying “One Malaysia.” Photo: Rhony Laigo at the Merdeka Square in Kuala Lumpur. 

Malaysia is only country in Southeast Asia that produces its own cars

(Note: The author who became a full-fledged journalist right after college is a witness and at the same a victim of Philippines’ corrupt society, whose worsening economic conditions back then forced him to abandon his country to work as a reporter abroad – just like the 10 million Filipinos who are employed overseas – and has been an outsider since 1991. Last month, the author visited Malaysia, then an inferior country compared to the Philippines a few decades ago, but now an economic power in Southeast Asia. The following article is the author’s attempt to present contrasting features of the neighboring countries as he tries to persuade the Philippine government to review its current policies on population control and federalism, and perhaps even emulate its Malaysian cousins, who welcome 22 million tourists a year compared to Philippines’ only four million foreign visitors.)

As a Filipino, I’ve always heard that in the 50s, a few years after the Second World War, the Philippines was one of the most progressive countries in Asia and was the leading country in the southeast Asian region until the 60s. When I was a kid, there was even an ad on television that said Philippine Airlines was “Asia’s first airline.” In fact the Philippines’ flag carrier still promotes that title sans the shining luster it used to enjoy. Well, we were illustrious, until Ferdinand Marcos became president in 1966 and then the country went into a downward spiral. Some 20 years later into his dictatorship, the Philippines became the “Sick Man of Asia.”

This month, the Philippines will remember that fateful day, September 21, 1972, when Marcos declared martial law. If not for the EDSA uprising in 1986, in which I was very much involved being a student activist at that time and a scribe for a college paper, the “Sick Man of Asia” may have been in a worse condition, no thanks to the plunder that the Marcoses and his cronies did to their own country.

Now, 26 years after the EDSA revolt, the Philippines has yet to fully recover. But our leader, current President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, whose both parents suffered a lot during the dictatorship – his father, Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino was assassinated, while his reluctant mother ran against Marcos and became president after the dictator was ousted (she survived seven coup attempts during her six-year presidency!) – may be looking at a country that is ready to face its economic challenges and hopefully be able to recover some of its lost prestige of the glorious past.

Back in 2009, I had the privilege of returning to the Philippines. Admittedly, a lot has changed...at least in Metro Manila. There have been signs of progress, construction was flourishing and many of our kababayans were employed as outsource service providers in companies more commonly known as call centers, and even leads India in this sector. Personally, I felt good…momentarily.

Just last month, however, I was fortunate enough to have been invited by the Malaysian government to take part and chronicle their 55^th Independence Day celebration that took place last August 31. As a Filipino journalist who has written several stories about the Philippines’ transition from a dictatorship to a democracy, seeing our Malaysian neighbors celebrate their independence day was an event I will never forget.

While we in the Philippines have yet to cultivate a full sense of national pride mainly perhaps because of our parochial differences, the Malaysians are marching towards greater heights, in spite of what I would consider a fractured multi-ethnic union of different cultures, religions and backgrounds. On the contrary, our neighbors down south feed on their own diversity, using their own creativity and competitiveness to become an envy of other southeast Asian economies, the Philippines included as it tries to make peace with two insurgent groups. Despite a majority of Malaysians being Muslims, rarely if none were news about terror threats, unlike in Indonesia where there have been acts of violence against innocent civilians.

Blessed with its own crude oil, Malaysia is the only country in Southeast Asia to produce its own cars, Proton and Perodua. The country is also among the world’s top manufacturing hubs for semi-conductors and other electronic components, employing hundreds of thousands of people, including foreign labor, many of whom are, you guessed it, Filipinos.

Malaysia’s infrastructure is also among the most developed in Asia, according to Wikipedia. In one of our tours, we got the chance to view the new city of Putrajaya, located some 15 miles outside of Kuala Lumpur, in a well-planned urban area where new government buildings are located. The city is beautifully landscaped with a massive man-made lake dotted with captivating bridges – there are nine spans around the city – because of their modern architectural design.

In addition, Malaysia’s railway systems are one of the best in the world. Its KLIA Ekspres also allows international airline passengers to check in their luggage at the train station, therefore no long queues, and enjoy a convenient high-speed but quiet half-hour ride from Kuala Lumpur to the airport, and with free wifi connections.

Kuala Lumpur of course is home to the tallest twin towers in the world – the Petronas Towers – each having 88 floors and stands 1,483 feet high into the sky. These buildings of stainless steel alone are a testament of Malaysia’s solid growth, whose economy is third largest in southeast Asia and is ranked 28^th in the world vis-à-vis the purchasing power of its 29 million people.

Speaking of population, there again lies my envy. While the Philippines has 90 million inhabitants – 7^th in Asia and 12^th largest in the world – Malaysia’s smaller population means more social services for its people. In my one week stay, I’ve tried my best to look for squatters and beggars in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, which were very clean by the way, to no avail. Contrast that to Manila’s large squatter population, which often than not, results in violent confrontations when the government tries to relocate them away from the metropolis.

Malaysia has 13 federated states and three federal territories, which just like in the U.S. is a form of government that the Philippines I think should also greatly consider to let regions become more self-sufficient and compete with one another.

Comprised of 60 percent Muslims, other religions are practiced freely in Malaysia, including Buddhism and Hinduism along with a variety of Christian denominations. The Philippines, meanwhile, has more than 80 percent who are Roman Catholic faithfuls, whose church leaders oppose the use of contraceptives, but that is another issue altogether. The Philippines also is the lone country in the world that doesn’t allow divorce.

During their Independence Day celebration, most, if not all, buildings and homes displayed the Malaysian flag. Among those who proudly paraded in the Merdeka Square were local Malaysian folks, some of whom drove their teksis (taxi) that carry the Proton brand, which much to my own chagrin, were symbols of how far Malaysia has gone in terms of progress compared to where I was born. I had goose bumps and my eyes welled up upon seeing them celebrate their 55^th year as a free sovereign Malaysia with great pride. I wished the Philippines would emulate the same kind of self-respect that the descendants of our own forefathers possess, a truly united nation.

As they passed by the grandstand during the parade, those who took part waved proudly to their king and queen and to their government officials who, except for the royal couple, were wearing one type of uniform, both men and women: black trousers with a blue-collared white polo shirt emblazoned with the number “1” on the upper left chest signifying unity and “One Malaysia.”

Asiatique: Bangkok’s new shopping attraction

Asiatique The Riverfront is Bangkok’s newest open mall shopping district that when completed will house 1,500 stores along with restaurants and theaters to serve the ever-growing number of tourists that visit Thailand and also its local populace looking for bargains. Photo: Rhony Laigo

Some twenty-five years ago, Bangkok and Hong Kong were the shopping meccas for RTWs (ready-to-wear clothes) as far as Filipinos were concerned. Those three letters then were the most widely used term for these production line-manufactured clothing that would soon force neighborhood custom tailors to close shop. For a Filipino journalist who covered the airport for years, bales of RTWs from Bangkok and the former British colony that swamped the airport terminal somewhat revolutionized the clothing industry in Manila, where I grew up, in the sense that suddenly fine-looking wardrobe of high quality material became affordable to the average person.

Since signature clothing line were expensive at that time not to mention scarce – they were only available to selected markets where the affluent would shop – RTWs from these Asian cities were most-sought after in the streets of Manila because Filipinos just loved imported items, and unlike the branded ones, buyers can haggle for even lower prices.

Once, I remember entering hotel rooms in Sta. Cruz, Manila with my late sister near Escolta – then the most famous cobbled-stoned street in Manila for high-end shopping – for these RTWs. They were illegal, I was told, but the “knowledgeable” people like my sister flocked the hallways of these hotels where “occupants” peddled clothes from Hong Kong and Bangkok, along with other imported commodities. It was a fledgling industry that allowed many, like myself, to buy and wear fashionable clothes. Whereas before Hong Kong was so popular because Hollywood celebrities made it so, Bangkok would soon become a household name in Manila because of their fine quality RTWs as far as the ordinary Manileño like me was concerned.

Fast forward to the present, Bangkok has become a favorite destination to many not just for the “biyaheras” (from the Spanish word viaje which means trip or travel), the term we used to call the travelling Filipino women who used to go to Bangkok and Hong Kong just to buy RTWs to sell in the Philippines. Now, anyone looking for bargains while touring a country rich in old-age cultures, authentic cuisine and fantastic destinations that are known the world over go to Bangkok for a hands-on shop-till-you-drop experience, the Asian version. 

What’s more, Bangkok and other cities in Thailand offer bargain hunters a wide array of just about anything the world has to offer and they are as diverse as the people of Thailand, where vendors use all possible places to market their wares both in land and water. Thailand of course is famous for its floating markets, where sellers paddle their way thru water channels to move their merchandise without worrying about other overhead expenses that shops need to bear.

Just recently, Bangkok opened one of its newest and most modern night markets to meet the growing demands of around 20 million annual visitors while also serving the needs of its local populace. Aptly called Asiatique The Riverfront, the open shopping mall combines the bustle and hustle of a night market, yet classy, and the relaxing character of its slow-moving Chao Phraya River.

Aside from clothes, handicrafts, souvenir items, musical instruments, electronic gadgets and other home merchandise, restaurants, theater and shows make Asiatique The Riverfront a one-stop-shop destination that the 5-11 p.m. nightly schedule may never be enough for anyone to explore the splendor of this sprawling shopping complex. And I’m just talking about District 1 as more shops will be built at Asiatique The Riverfont that will soon boast of some 1,500 shopping stalls, 40 “gastronomic” restaurants and many more outlets that is fully endorsed by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT).

This reporter was able to visit Asiatique just last month, courtesy of TAT, where I was able to purchase high-end printed t-shirts for my friends back at the office. You know, the kind where there are elephants and anything that would say that the shirt had come from Thailand. And when I say high-end, the prints were not just textile paint, they were embossed and glossy…with glitters, I might add. They were selling each for 150 baht ($1 = 30 baht) for a medium size and I was able to buy a few at more or less 125 baht each. By the way, size matters in Thailand as bigger sizes command a higher price. That’s just the way it is there, so you have to “pang” your way to buy your merchandise at a lower price. Don’t worry about negotiating for a better deal, it is to be expected.

 Located along the historical Charoenkrung road, Asiatique The Riverfront is also accessible by ferry boats that ply along the river. Aside from the Waterfront District, Asiatique The Riverfront will also house the Factory District where fashion and designer shops will be put up over a renovated 100-year-old sawmill in the area; a 2,000-square meter Town Square District for restaurants, winery and all other dining pleasures; and the Charoenkrung District where1,000 more shops will be located.

For more information on Asiatique The Riverfront, please visit www.thaiasiatique.com.