Soldiers' choice; Ayungin unsustainable

There are two defense postures I do not agree with. One is the insistence of Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro that, as is the practice, soldiers should not be made to contribute to their own pensions upon retirement. The other is the proposal, I think by some senators, to make a permanent base out of a grounded Navy ship on Ayungin shoal.

I submit that soldiers, always ready to die for their country, make a very special contribution to the nation and should be rewarded in a very special way. But there are many ways of defining special without having to exempt them from contributing even a single centavo to their own retirement pensions. That is unfair to everybody else. It is not special. It is dishonorable.

It is true dying for one's country is a terrible sacrifice for any soldier to make. But unlike other countries that employ a draft or a conscription process, we do not pluck our young men from the streets and herd them off to the army against their will. Everything is a matter of individual choice. It is a life of one's choosing even if one may have to die for it.

On the other hand, it is not only soldiers who are called to defend the country when the need arises. It is the duty of every citizen of a country to come to the defense of that country when it comes under attack by foreign invaders. In times of war, there are no special categories of people. Everybody becomes a defender of his country, to die for it if necessary.

And so I do not think it is a valid argument to use a soldier's willingness to die for his country as an excuse to grant him special exemption from contributing to his own retirement pension just like the rest of us are doing. He did not have to be a soldier if he did not want to. He became a soldier because he freely chose to become one.

As to the proposal to make a permanent base at Ayungin Shoal anchored on the presence of a deliberately grounded Navy ship there, I do not think it tenable or wise to do so. There are no practical benefits to be derived from such a move. Ayungin right now is the focal point of a cat-and-mouse game China sadistically chooses to play with us.

No environment can be more hostile than Ayungin, given the state and resources of our military. It is indefensible from both armed attack and the elements. It is a great challenge to maintain and resupply even with just the most basic needs. Why Ayungin when we already have many permanent, secure and well-equipped bases across the archipelago, some with US assets.

I think the only reason for the proposal is that some proponents are driven to overly romanticize the issue. Not to trifle with what is going on, especially China's despicable harassment and bullying in the West Philippine Sea, but some of us get easily carried away by a heightened sense of patriotism when clearly the call of the day is just to play it smart.

If it suits our interests, we can even allow the United States full access to all our bases. That will have far more practical and logical benefits to the current situation instead of building a base in Ayungin. For all intents and purposes the proposal is but a fist in the sky, hurled in anger with no real intended purpose than to revel in its hurling.

One other thing, we keep commenting on WPS issues without probably even having read the arbitral ruling at their very core. In the ruling, Ayungin (Second Thomas Shoal) is a low tide formation and is therefore legally just a rock with no entitlement to any economic zone.