No to Mining? Ah, basta . . .

One afternoon in my younger years I accompanied my father to purchase a treadmill for the family. The address in the newspaper clipping led us to a private residence. Since the gate was open we walked right in and knocked on the screen door. There was no response. Several repeated attempts brought no result.  Even calling out accomplished nothing. We knew we had the right place because of the sign at the door.

Finally, I pulled the screen door open and walked in, calling out. Eventually the owner emerged and we made our purchase.

On the way out my dad was furious. “You don’t just walk into other people’s houses!” he snarled.

“But no one was answering,” I protested.

“Well, you just don’t do that!” He shot back.

“So what should I do, then,” I asked.

Instead of a reply my dad growled something unintelligible under his breath, then angrily muttered: “What should I do…what should I do…” in that unique mocking tone older people use when the only rejoinder they can think of is to mimic you.

I came away from that experience with a mixture of vindication and frustration. With all due respect to my father, may he rest in peace, I felt a young punk's smugness at the time because I was apparently in the right even if my father would not admit to it. On the other hand, I was sick and tired at the realization that I live in a society that is all the time telling me what I SHOULDN’T do but hasn't the foggiest idea what I SHOULD do.

In an opinion piece in the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled Forbidden, author Michael L. Tan believes ‘We are a nation of “bawal” (“do not”).  Look around and see how we are surrounded by bawal signs: Bawal pumasok, bawal umihi dito, bawal manigarilyo, even bawal mag-istambay (Do not enter, do not urinate here, do not smoke, do not “stand by”).

Tan attributes this to our history under a puritanical church and a succession of authoritarian governments since colonial times, so it is no wonder we are a ban-happy nation. We even have seasonal bans, like liquor and gun bans during election season. (Though apparently perpertrators of election-related violence didn't get the memo...)

Well and good. I’m all for greater order. I have often fancied that I would be a model Filipino citizen in Singapore with all its bans, modesty aside.

But it would seem this fascination for forbidding instils the idea that banning something is the be-all and end-all. The ban mentality is by no means limited to people in authority. The daily news carries a regular staple of protestors carrying signs with words like Ibasura (Junk), No to.., and Out now. Even calls for such and such person to resign is demanding his or her junking.   

So are all these bans for a good cause? To answer that, I apply one simple Rule of Thumb born out of that experience with my late father:

CAN YOU PRESENT A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE?

It is not enough to say Ah, basta . . .  (a Pilipino expression which defies any literal English translation. Roughly, it means: Just don't...)

Sometimes alternatives are available. No smoking? Well smoke somewhere else or quit. No jaywalking? Use the crosswalk, Einstein. Gotta pee? Find a washroom or seek cover (or just cross your legs…).

But as we get less personal and more general in our objections, things get a little more complicated. I’ll support any call to stop corruption or military/police abuses. But other issues are less clear-cut.

Ban old jeepneys? They are one of my daily irritants, but unless someone can come up with a solution to our chronic lack of efficient transportation, then we're stuck with these dinosaurs and their equally troglodyte drivers.

Junk the Visiting Forces Agreement because of supposed abuses by visiting foreign military personnel? Okay, but what do we do if China or some rogue nation comes knocking? Fight them off with our military castoffs? Yes, the outrage against abuses is valid, without question. But the alternative is leaving the entire country nearly defenseless.

I was reminded of this mindset when Philex Mining recently bagged top honors among 263 Publicly-Listed Companies in Corporate Governance in the 2015 ASEAN Corporate Governance Awards.

And quite predictably, among the laudatory posts on social media came the cries of No to Mining!

Mining, the detractors claim, is responsible for environmental destruction and violation of human rights, especially those of the indigenous people.

Without question, there are some catastrophes where mining was involved. The recent tragedy of a powerful mudflow from an iron mine in Brazil is such an example. Even the much-lauded Philex Mining, long held as the standard bearer for responsible mining, was not spared when its tailings pond was breached by unprecedented torrential rains in August of 2012.

But to say that mining caused these evils would be like saying cars cause accidents. As a survivor of a hit and run, I do not blame the vehicle but the brain-dead primate who had been driving it.

The award for best in Corporate Governance doesn't just mean Philex was profitable. Here are some of the categories in the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard:

Excerpts from ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard

Clearly, the ACGS takes the environment and communities very seriously, and in these, a mining company excelled over more than 200 other business establishments of different kinds in the entire ASEAN region. In addition, mining is a major contributor to inclusive growth and social benefits.

The irony is that those who attack mining on social media do so with laptops, PCs, tablets, cellphones and so forth, all items produced from the fruits of the very industry they malign, like copper, palladium, nickel, platinum, and even gold. Ditto with the microphones and bullhorns they use in their street protests. There's the iron for the nails and steel bars for the buildings they live and work in in and for the vehicles that brought them to the rally. With new technology, new uses for these minerals are discovered. Again, I pose the basic question:

If we ban mining, where do we get our minerals?

Get our minerals from other countries? There’s just two things wrong with that. One is that we use up valuable foreign reserves, not only paying more to have them shipped here, but enriching another country's economy instead of our own. Secondly is that this is an example of not in my backyard mentality: We ban mining because of the destruction it causes our country but it’s all right to patronize the industry (and thus, advance the supposed destruction) in other countries. Hypocrisy.

Nationalize the industry? (The leftists' answer to everything if not their ultimate aim.) How does government control make mining suddenly less prone to accidents? Moreso with this government which has thus far displayed an unprecedented level of ineptitude and corruption.

(In fact, a high-profile official in the ruling party is allegedly protecting a small-scale mining company engaged in over-extraction of nickel ore.)

To ban mining because of the carelessness and corruption of a few would be like banning kerosene lamps and candles because of fires. If we do ban mining then frankly, the only alternative I can think of is what Pol Pot of Cambodia had in mind: Move out of the urban areas and live like peasants in huts made from indigenous materials. If the haters of mining are prepared to do this, to discard their cellphones, computers and vehicles, then I salute them.

But in my experience, when you press the anti-mining forces for a viable alternative, all they can do is continue to rattle off a litany of the 'ills' of mining, topping the whole pile of non-sequitirs and sloganeering with their automaton-like mantra: No to Mining! Classic Ah, basta... mentality. Repeating the same thing over and over does not strengthen your argument, people. 

I don't doubt for a moment that there are mining companies less law-abiding than Philex. These are more often than not the illegal small-scale mining companies who are not the artisanal pick-and- shovel operations prescribed in RA 7076 Small Scale Mining Law, but major operators with heavy equipment. But being classified as small-scale grants them exemptions from the restrictions imposed upon major mining companies. The big mining companies comply with the Mining Act of 1995 which among other things provides for environmental and social protection and improvement. Philex even goes the extra mile of planting trees not only in mined-out areas as required by the Act but in places where trees never grew. 

Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Mining Act of 1995
(Images by Jilyn Amoroso)

Yet these illegal companies that flout the law and do not pay proper taxes if at all are ignored not only by the authorities but by the anti-mining activists. There is more political currency in the populist line of attacking big business, tossing about inflammatory buzzwords like 'oligarchs' and 'destroyers of the environment', attributing the crimes of the illegal companies as representative of the entire industry. And predictably, the Aquino administration in its constant pursuit of popularity points swallows it whole by drafting Executive Order 79 which freezes all new mining contracts. It also promotes a revenue sharing scheme that increases taxation on mining which is already paying enough taxes, royalties and permits comparable to other mining countries. The new scheme would impose taxes that would eventually kill the industry, so the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines warns. Mining is a high-risk venture for investors; it requires not only massive capital over an extended period of time but a long wait before the profits start coming in.  Even then, the market is extremely volatile. As of this writing, the industry is suffering from depressed metal prices in addition to restrictive legislation. To make it even more unpalatable with punitive taxation will drive away already wary investors.

(Check out this video on the stringent requirements imposed on major mining companies to keep them responsible.)

By all means, if a mining company, big or small, breaks the law, prosecute them. Even though Philex Mining was eventually cleared of negligence for their accident, they were still fined P189M, which they paid without complaint and ahead of schedule in addition to the P4B for cleanup and rehabilitation. Unsatisfied, the aforementioned activists declared the spill toxic, a claim debunked by reputable scientists (not the bogus one presented by the protestors). The leftists even went as far as to accuse the company of causing 'zero fish catch' in nearby Balog Creek while conveniently forgetting to mention that Balog Creek was not a fishing ground to begin with.

Don't punish the industry with lies, deception and generalization. Punish the perpetrators. We must break free of that mindset that when a law is poorly enforced, the answer is to draft more laws that will just burden the law abiding and be ignored by the lawbreakers. In effect, anti-mining legislation only clears the field of competition for the illegal miners and actually encourages the violations.

Enforcement of the existing law is the key. This goes for anything, be it mining, smoking, traffic, VFA abuses, etc.

With the Philippines being third in the world for gold reserves, and with US$840 Billion in untapped mineral wealth as per the US Department of State  , to say that we are sitting on a gold mine doesn't even begin to describe it. 

(Image from Chamber of Mines of the Philippines)

All that wealth just laying there untouched out of ignorance and promotion of political agenda will go a long way to paying our burdensome debt as well as enriching our nation.