COMMENTS TO THE ARTICLE LISTED IN BUSINESS MIRROR DATED MAY 11, 2009:
Rapu-Rapu Mining resumes under Korean operators
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Freedom of expression is hence guaranteed so as not contrary to law, norms and public moral. Hence the confluence of diverging opinions from these organizations is taken cognizance. This is upheld in the 1987 Constitution: Article XIII to wit:
ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS
Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure
Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Likewise it is also acknowledged that the State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. (Article 2, Sec 23) Further it is a fact that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. (Article 2, Sec 19)
The Other SIDE
The arguments and statements in the article listed in Business Mirror dated May 11, 2009: Rapu-Rapu Mining resumes under Korean operators can be described in the following: preposterous, biased, lousy, flimsy, unfounded and unflinchingly incredulous and fallacious.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 1 states that the environment group‘s commission is verifying reports of alleged marine pollution however the Figure 2 (last statement in the article) has concluded the alleged continuance of pollutive operation of open-pit mining.
Argument
It is illogical to conclude whereas they are still on the verge of verification.
Question
What tool/s of verification will they have to employ? Interviews with local constituents? Water sampling?
In research, in order to arrive in a most nearly accurate data, triangulation should be employed, i.e. community, regulators and the party involved (the company). Myriad repertoire of information should be exhausted. A mission is not commissioned to do research/ verification where the end result is the preconceived”truth‘that it wishes to uncover.
Water sampling. Okay. But how is the water sample ensured free from adulteration if the sampling was done unilaterally, i.e. no company representative to witness it was actually got in the premises (samples should be properly countersigned). This would ensure the integrity of the results free from adulteration. Laboratory should also be likewise concurred by both parties.
Figure 3
Figure 3 tells us that the person cited above is identified staunch anti-mining personality. Hence it is posited that the entire person‘s pronouncement will always be anti-mining (in local parlance lutong macaw).
Any result to be culled by the verification of the fact-finding mission will always serve the interests of this identified person. Please take note that there is no personal attack hurled to this person.
According to this, reports say that a ship was seen getting mine tailings from the dam.
Question
How can a gargantuan or even a liliputian ship or boat come closer even in inches or meter to the dam?
Fact
The reports can be referring to the concentrates loaded at the conveyor at the wharf.
Argument
This is extreme ignorance of the issue at hand. In logic this is classified as argumentum ad ignorantiam: proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof.
It is preposterous to think that the loaded concentrates which is the precious end product of the company will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
Figure 4
Figure is therefore a fallacy of false cause or non-sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.
The statement cited by the above person is inaccurate–by way of saying “probably‘. Such pronouncement is therefore not backed up by scientific and valid reasons.
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
In the very first place, it is not sea urchins that are being collected and buried in the shores. They might be referring to the crown of thorns which is a threat to the coral reef ecosystem. Indeed it is true: but crown of thorns and NOT sea urchins.
Again another unfounded truth posited by the Mission.
Figure 8
These fact-finding missions appear themselves to be messianic: that they are the savior of these localities with mining. It is unfair to compare Rapu-Rapu Project t o other projects (with all due respect to these cited above) since these have unique differences e.g. cultural aspect: the RRPP does not affect any cultural minority in its locale.
The last sentence in the article implies that the communities are so downtrodden with economic, social, cultural and basic human rights. The universality of this sad truth can be found in other respects of human existence. However fact of this in a single person or group of persons cannot stand for the whole.
Figure 9
Figure 10
The last statement stating the word ”plunderers‘ aside from a verbal fallacy which malapropism, is a malicious pronouncement and goes beyond ethics. The Mission has no right to label these ”people‘ as plunderers without due cause and proof.
IN SUMMARY
These comments are executed in an academic fashion, in the tenets of logic and reason and amalgamation of facts. Further, these are presented for the sake of argument, fair play, norms and critical judgment.
Arguments cited do not in any way discriminate any persons, organization or entities. All comments are performed in an objective manner.
End
