La Salle prof defends Duterte government for turning down 250M grant from EU. Read why!

Following the refusal of the Duterte government to accept €250M grant from EU, once again,  critics have found this as an opportunity to attack Duterte.

La Salle Prof. Van Ybiernas took to Facebook defending the president’s latest move that caught everyone by surprise, including his NEDA chief.

But before proceeding to state his argument, Ybiernas took a jab at political analyst Richard Javad Heydarian,  a vocal defender of the interest of the West.

Ybiernas, an NBA basketball fan, uses the analogy of teams giving up players for draft rights, hoping its gamble pays off, in case the player taken from the draft turns out to be a gem.

However, Ybiernas clarified, it would have been prudent for Duterte to have waited for EU to withdraw instead of being proactive and shit, telling them we won’t accept their money.


I don’t exist to contradict everything that Heydarian says. So please ease up on sending me screen shots of Heydarian’s social media posts or media articles. hahahaha

May pinanggagalingan yan at may mga interests yan as an expert and scholar who is constantly in need of research and travel —maybe even sartorial and grooming— funding kaya yan ganyan.

The West has been generous to him that’s why he feels the need to defend the EU and the United States against adverse publicity here in the Philippines. Unawain nyo na lang.

Now, I’m sure the reason why our government rejected the EU grants is political: to send a message that our government is not a mendicant and that the outside world needs to treat it with respect, and not chastise our government for every single domestic political action it undertakes.

Sayang ba ito? Of course. Grants are grants. But, like I said, the government is sending a message. the West cannot blackmail us with grants, aid, etc.

Is this a wise move? Well, time will tell. When Brooklyn gave Boston those draft picks in exchange for KG and Pierce, was it a bad move? You couldn’t say when the move was actually made. The evaluation came a few years later. When the Spurs gave up George Hill (now a borderline all-star with Utaz) for rookie Kawhi Leonard, was it a marvelous move at that point? Again, the evaluation came a few years later.

Right now, our government wants to stop the meddling of external forces in our domestic affairs, and the price tag is 250 million euros.

I think the message NEEDED to be sent. It’s the 250 million euros that makes me think if the price tag is a little bit steep because the EU isn’t going to stop criticizing —or trying to blackmail— the country, especially not now.

So my question is: will this act win the country its independence from EU interference or not? Chances are it will not.

It’s one thing when the US decided not to give us the Millennium Challenge Corporation grant. But it’s quite another for us to tell the EU not to give us the grant. I hope the distinction is clear.

If they withdraw, then we say: so what? we can survive without you. But it’s different when we tell them to shove their money up their ass. We should have waited for the EU to withdraw their grant and play the we-will-not-be-blackmailed-by-money card as opposed to taking the shove-your-money-up-your-ass position. Again, I hope the distinction is clear.

Bottomline, I agree that we should not be blackmailed by money. But we should have waited for them to withdraw instead of being proactive and shit, telling them we won’t accept their money.

In both cases, it’s about pride.
And it’s about money.
And it’s about optics.

Your reaction, please!


One Response

  1. Aphetsky Lasa May 18, 2017

Add Comment