Origin of the Term ‘Chinese Wall’

A ‘Chinese Wall’ is a commercial term that means a virtual barrier that is applied within a company or organisation to maintain confidentiality between the two parts.

But is this term a comparison to the Great Wall of China? if so on what basis, and how did it originate?

In order to get to the bottom of this one it is first necessary to understand something of the history of the ‘Great Wall of China’ or more accurately the history of Chinese ‘Walls’

There is no doubt that China is famous for ‘The Great Wall’ but the first point to understand is that the picture postcard image of the wall that we usually associate with it is a relatively recent structure built during the Ming Dynasty and that wall building in China has a much longer tradition stretching back more than two thousand years before the construction of this most recent phase.

Many of the Chinese dynasties built or rebuilt walls for various reasons, the earlier ones to fortify smaller kingdoms that are now just regional boundaries in current day China. Later building was to lengthen, join up separate sections and to improve, and building on such a grandiose scale served to glorify and strengthen the dynasty as much as to provide physical defence.

The scale of the walls is without doubt impressive; at over 5000km total length and at many different separate locations they are still not all comprehensively mapped and surveyed, geographically let alone historically. Further sites are still being discovered and unearthed even today, the wall is monumental in years as well as in kilometers.

It is very likely that reports of Chinese walls got back to Europe from as early as the 13th century by way of the overland merchants and travellers using what we now call the Silk Road trading route. The Venetian Marco Polo is the most famous of these people however any mention of a ‘Great Wall’ is conspicuous by its absence from the chronicles he published and to which he owes his fame.

This absence can be explained in several ways, but the essential point is that at the time of his visit eight hundred years ago, the Ming Dynasty wall in the Beijing region which we are all now familiar with, had yet to be built. The term ‘the Great Wall’ is purely a western invention and was certainly not established in Marco Polo’s day.

Also his hosts, the Kublai Khan and the Han Dynasty were not wall builders at all but had effectively breached the wall built by earlier dynasties when they invaded from Mongolia in the north in order to gain power over the Chinese in the south. The walls would therefore not have been considered by his hosts as their own creation and may even have been viewed with some contempt. It is also likely that having ceased to serve any purpose almost one hundred years before, in many areas the walls were in a poor state of repair at the time of his travels in the 13th century.

During the Han Dynasty the walls took on new purposes and no longer performed purely as defensive structures. In some regions the walls became an important feature to exert control over the conquered Chinese, initially providing defence to the Chinese in the south against further attack from the uncivilised Mongols of the north in return for which taxes could be collected. Later the walls prevented travel and migration in both directions with the advantage that the dynasty could capitalise on the resultant trade. The walls provided a useful focus and means of communication for the governing organisation of the day.

With the benefit of this limited history it is now easier to see how the ‘Chinese Wall’ term has arisen:

If a company chooses to operate a Chinese wall, the workers and more junior management can be likened to people on opposite sides at the bottom of the wall. Each is able to manage its own part of the company in isolation but with complete privacy from the other part of the company on the other side of the opaque ‘wall’. The executive level of the company on the other hand, can be seen as stationed on top of the wall and because of this position, have complete vision and control over both company divisions below. They can if desired, facilitate limited communication between the two sides such that confidentiality is maintained but more importantly can exercise high level management to maintain the integrity of the Company.

This arrangement closely resembles the modern day features of a Chinese Wall arrangement and although whilst admittedly short of conclusive evidence provides a neat answer to the riddle.

It only remains to say that it is common knowledge in business that a Chinese wall, whilst often theoretically providing a solution, in practice is usually less successful and in some instances may be considered not appropriate. For example where legal confidentiality is required to avoid conflict of interest there is often a problem.

In its more general sense, the management structure of many modern day Asian companies and conglomerates feature a very deep, multi layered and firmly established hierarchy with a high degree of opacity laterally which can be said to feature the Chinese wall principle. This model is considered to provide managerial benefit even though it is not widely promoted under western style management principles.

Advertisements

Delusions of Growth

Growth is the word that gets used more often than any other in economics reporting and in some respects we have lost sight of the fundamentals behind it.

It refers to GDP (Gross Domestic Product). This is the value of ‘the’ economy. Or could be compared to the turnover of a company. Growth is the annualised increase in GDP usually expressed as a %.

Although it’s a figure that is calculated and should therefore simply be a factual result of the millions of activities that make up the economy, it has taken on a much bigger meaning. Even though what happens in the past should not necessarily be a guide to what happens in the future, growth and its forecast is nevertheless considered to be THE fundamental indicator for future financial planners both individual and government as well as for assessing the general health of the economy and supporting the currency.

If we are growing, our living standard is improving or at least not declining, we can relax, maybe even invest in the future. Growth has become our comfort blanket, our security for the future, an assurance.

Western economies have apparently enjoyed almost uninterrupted economic growth certainly for living memory and even recessionary interruptions have not broken the relentless upward trend. This underlying expectation of growth remains the base assumption of economists, and most other commentators, but is it all true?

If we start to examine the fundamentals, the cracks start to appear.

Compounding theory shows that indefinite growth is not possible and that long term growth should not be expected.

If an economy has a 10% annual growth rate, after 10 years the increase in GDP would be more than one and a half times (1.59) the size of the original GDP. For a developing economy where workers are moving from agriculture to industrial production such an increase is possible but for a developed industrialised economy, most unlikely.

If that 10% year on year growth continues for 50 years, the increase in GDP would be more than one hundred and sixteen times (116.39) the size of the original GDP which if prices are consistent is clearly impossible. Most of that increase is the result of compounding and not growth. If the amount of the initial 10% is maintained, the increase after 50 years would be only five times the size of the original GDP which equates to a year on year increase of only 3.5%.

Therefore for a consistent yearly increase in GDP the growth % declines year on year according to the compounding principle. This factor rarely gets a mention by economists and statisticians who seem to assume that past growth should be the baseline for the future.

In practice the annual increment is unlikely to be consistent and an initial high growth % would naturally significantly reduce to less than 5% after industrialisation very much as we have witnessed with China over the past 20 years.

Growth is not equal to increased living standard and despite the many report to the contrary, there is no link. GDP per capita indicates living standard and of course depends on population size as well as GDP.

If the components of GDP are considered together with the propensity for change in each case, a better indication of the current and future expectations for growth can be derived.

Component Past Change Expected Future Change
Production Has already peaked. Scope for increase is a function of available market which is necessarily limited Continued decline. Scope for increase is a function of available market which is necessarily limited
Population Most western economies have had declining endemic populations for some years and any increase is as a result of immigration only Unchanged trend
Employment Declining employment during the past 10 years due to improved technology, automation, globalisation etc. Unchanged trend
Price Increase of approximately 5% Year on Year Decrease

This raises some interesting points:

Production can only seriously be considered in the context of a globalised world. Demand is finite, production is finite and individual economies are competing within a finite market.

If immigration is taken into account, population should also be considered as finite in a global sense. Forecasts of population change are robust and are very unlikely to be significantly incorrect. Western governments in some cases have allowed populations to increase possibly to boost growth, clearly this strategy cannot be sustained for the long term.

Inflation is a vital element of growth and if prices do not continue to increase it will become impossible to maintain any plausible forecast of growth. This is why all western governments hate deflation so much and are effectively still deny its existence in many cases.

So for the western economies, all things being equal, unless markets and production can be significantly increased there is no reason to expect that growth will occur, in fact based on these ‘normal’ components the prognosis for growth doesn’t look good.

Of course the situation is actually much worse, because for the past 30 years growth has been bought and paid for with debt and would not have occurred otherwise. Successive governments have intentionally induced additional growth by borrowing and spending to promote consumer demand and investment. If that artificial stimulus effect is removed from the equation GDP has remained fairly constant, any increase being one or two % only for some of that period.

This would suggest that for a developed western economy sustained growth should never have been considered as inevitable and at the present time any further growth cannot be assumed.

So to complete the exercise it should remain to consider the ongoing effect on the growth to western economies, given the reduction / cessation of artificial government stimulus and possible negative stimulus due to repayment of debt. Of course negative growth is no longer growth but shrinkage. The extent is unknown and there are no established parameters for prediction but based on the above fundamentals, and with no artificial stimulus, it would appear that GDP’s of western economies will reduce at least for a period of several years and possibly for a period commensurate with the period over which artificial stimulus has been applied.

Therefore based on the above there has been no real growth for the past 30 years and we have been lied to or misinformed by governments and economists alike who may or may not have been deluding themselves as well as us.

It is also inevitable that in the years to come, growth will be viewed increasingly as a crude and irrelevant indicator.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics:

I thought it would be interesting to have a look at who (internationally) were the biggest polluters or to spin it positively, the most environmentally responsible. There has been so much talk and so many failed treaties, but is it possible to remove the rhetoric and see which nations are actually in a position to be able to preach to the others?

To approach this from the perspective of individual responsibility, one of the key issues must be to separate emissions caused by industrial activity from those caused by individuals. I fully accept that this approach will attract some criticism because, of course we are all ultimately responsible for the well-being of the planet be it directly or indirectly. Anyway still worth trying.

Well, some interesting conclusions, but I can say now that I wasn’t really able to get a satisfactory answer.

Comprehensive statistical data on emissions is produced by such organisations as World Bank, UN, IMF, CIA, etc.  So what can we learn from this?

Very difficult to make any conclusions without much more analysis.  Maybe it would help to consider some places I know something about to be able better discern some answers.  So I extracted data for four countries where I have variously lived and worked, UK, UAE, Malaysia and Philippines.

These places have totally different profiles not only in terms of Greenhouse emissions but also, population, industrialisation, exports, etc. etc.   We can also get stats for GDP and service sector GDP together with population.  Still not possible to get a realistic answer but maybe we can an indication if we calculate the emissions per capita based on the non-industrialised part of the economy.  That’s about as close as we can get based on this data.

The Table is here:

Featured image

Conclusions?

Several really…..

  1. Its not possible to get a reliable answer from the available data. None of the organisations collecting this data have a core interest that is remotely close to this subject, maybe that starts to explain why the available stats are not at all focused on it.  Surely that has to change if we are to really address the related problems by getting to the real causes and monitoring any progress and if necessary to hold governments / organisations / people accountable.
  2. My statistical analysis skills are severely limited.
  3. What a hugely complex problem this is.
  4. The available stats are a good start but they don’t really cut it…..Responsibility has to start on a personal level but all the stats are directed at government level and therefore anodyne and meaningless to individuals.

The Willys M38A1 Jeep

This is the story of my jeep.

In 2009 it transpired that my niece’s family were trying to upgrade transport and wanted to sell their old jeep, was I interested in getting it?  It had been used by them on the farm for ploughing in the rice paddies amongst other things. Here it is in its cleaned up condition ready for sale…..certainly not one careful previous owner!  Oh and there are no papers with it so no one knows much of its history.

DSC00440cDSC00439

At this point (as a Brit) I had absolutely no knowledge of Jeeps at all. Anyway for 80,000 Philippine Pesos it seemed like a worthwhile project.

My relatives kindly drove my new jeep down from Bulacan to Mindoro and it quickly became clear that it was far from road worthy, the brakes and radiator were completely useless and the clutch not much better.  It turned out that it had stayed in second gear for most of the journey to Mindoro with a big tank of spare water on board for fear of being able to stop or boil the engine.  So I knew there would be lots of good business for the local jeep repair guys as a result.

But more interesting for me was what had I bought and what was its history?  It was obviously 40+ years old and from the sticker on the windscreen had been owned by the Philippines Telecommunications Authority in its earlier life.  The big question was whether it is a CJ5 or the militarised version the M38A1? It turns out that there are lots of differences but to a non Jeepee bloke most of them were not immediately obvious.

The identification process was not helped by the fact that the vehicle ID plate has been removed and there have obviously been some serious modifications done to it over an obviously chequered history including possibly the CJ5 badge.   But given that we are in Philippines, I would have been surprised if this were not the case – the mods include:

  • Willys 2.2L petrol engine replaced with 2.5L Mitsubishi 4DR5 2.5L diesel
  • Steering column (1980s Japanese)
  • Battery compartment sealed up
  • Doors, rear hood and steel superstructure
  • One piece windscreen with wipers at the bottom not the top
  • Wheels and tyres
  • Exhaust altered
  • The chassis number is completely different to anything I have seen listed and might have been added locally

My enquiries to the ex-military jeep owners fraternity in the US got me absolutely nowhere as it became clear they were much more interested in trying to stop me (a non Yank) proving that it was a military grade 38A1 than to try to form any objective opinion. But thankfully there are some useful sites that list the differences and there is still much remaining evidence.

The most telling of these is that the electrical system including the regulator, starter motor ignition system etc. etc. is 24V.  It is also a fact that from a driver’s perspective it is quite heavy, more like driving a small truck than something car sized.

The good news is that I have now fixed most of the serious issues and have converted (sorry not restored) as appropriate for its ongoing use to carry people and other materials.

1387859124715

1387859159936

IMG_20140413_181100

Anyway at this point I still do not know the exact year of manufacture although I have established that it is the M38A1 which were produced from  1952-1957. That makes my car older than me which is the first time that’s happened although I did get close once before with a 1963 MG Midget.

Some minor modifications made by November 1953 after Willys Overland was acquired by Kaiser in 1953 and became Willys Motors so this narrows it down to 1953 – 1957.  Some further details and old pictures of this model as follows:

  • This model is known as the ’round-fender’ Jeep that would eventually become the CJ5.
  • 101,488 units manufactured (80,290 domestic use / 21,198 foreign sales)
  • The M38A1 was modified as a platform for the 106mm recoilless rifle and was quite different that the CJ5, having a stronger chassis and reversed front spring shackles, in addition to the military accoutrements such as standardized GI instruments and a 24 volt electrical system.
  • Ford of Canada built the M38A1 CDN version as did Kaiser-Jeep.
  • Finally, an affiliate of Kaiser in Holland assembled M38A1 jeeps in Rotterdam using US-made parts.
  • The M38A1 military jeep was replaced in the 1960s by the M151 jeep.
  • In the US Military it was known as the quarter Ton Jeep since its inception in 1941 as one of the preparations for the USA’s entry into WW2
  • Quarter Ton was the payload, this model actually weighed 1.2T in its original form with a design payload of about half a Ton.

1952 Willys M38A11955m38a1small1975 Model SWB J26 Mitsubishi Jeep which is based on the CJ3B

jeep%20parts_29

id_m38a1_4_full

The history of the Jeep is another long story in its self, originally commissioned by the US army in 1941 it involves many famous American car brands including Bantam, Willys, Ford, Kaiser, AMC and Chrysler.

Although probably not related to this particular Jeep the M38A1C was the version equipped with the M40A1 and M40A2 recoilless rifle. These were used extensively by the USMC including in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and Egypt.  Its design included a parallel mounted M-8C .50 cal. spotting rifle. Rounds provided were HEAT, high explosive plastic-tracer (HEP-T), and antipersonnel-tracer (AP-T) (flechette) rounds.

jeep%20_105%20gun%20jpgid_m38a1_w106

id_m38a1_1964nov10AW_m38_opt

This is a serious weapon, it is 3.4m long and weighed 209kg and has a range of 6,870m and can pierce 400mm of armour. It is the same weapon as the six that were fitted to the Gavin ONTOS tank.  I was interested to know whether such a big calibre weapon could really be recoilless when mounted on a relatively small Jeep? There are many youtube  of it being used, mainly in testing / marketing demo as it still features in the armoury of many militaries around the world and the answer judging by the videos seems to be yes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjXutT92BwM

The Manila Galleon

By the time Rey Lopez de Villalobos landed in Leyte and declared the Philippines to be Spanish in 1542, Spain should have known only too well of the immense distance and perilous journey between Sevilla Spain and Philippines and the difficulties that this would present for communication and provisioning of Spanish settlers in the years to come.

More than 20 years before his landing, in 1521 Magellan had landed in Philippines having left Europe in 1519 and sailed via Cape Horn and, although Magellan got killed, what was left of his fleet completed the circumnavigation of the globe arriving back in Spain to report the news almost three years later. Garcia Jofre de Loyasa’s expedition left Spain in 1525 and also took the long sea route via Cape Horn where three ships were lost to storms. Loyasa died before reaching Philippines. Saavedra’s expedition reached Philippines in 1527 having sailed from New Spain (Mexico) and was successful only in as much that it rescued  120 survivors of former expeditions.

No settlement had been established over a twenty year period and it looked fairly certain that the journey between Spain and its new colony would always be problematic. However by 1540s Spain had become well established in Mexico and essentially it was logical for the administration in ‘New Spain’ to handle further journeys to the Philippinas vicariously on behalf of the mother land. Legazpi’s expedition sailed from Navidad New Spain (Mexico) in 1564 and Spaniards arrived at Cebu in numbers where long term plans were made. Later in 1571 his settlers transferred their base to Manila and thus began what has become to be known as the ‘Manila Galleon Trade’ which continued relentlessly for another two hundred and fifty years.

The 15,000 mile journey from Spain consisted of three separate parts. First a two month voyage from Sevilla on the Mediterranean coast via Havana to Veracruz on the eastern seaboard of Mexico. Then a months journey across land by mule train via Mexico city to Acapulco on the western seaboard.

Last and certainly not least there was massive unbroken sea journey across the pacific between New Spain and Manila Philippines this was at least three months on the way out to Manila but approximately six months for the return trip due to sailing against the trade winds.

To put this huge distance in perspective, London to Sydney Australia being the longest direct passenger service is only 11,000 miles and even now in the days of jet travel the flights still takes 23 hours! The Manila Galleon journey has the record as the longest distance trade route in history, it must also rank as the route with the longest journey time and probably the most complex and arduous. Given that it persisted for 250 years it also must be among the longest ongoing term for any unchanged trading route.

The route was necessary not only for provisioning of manufactured goods from Spain to the newly settled Philippinas but also for any communication in between. From Spain to Manila this would take six to eight months  however the return trip could take almost a year due to the direction of the Pacific trade winds.  Logistically this meant that a round trip for example to receive a response to a communication would be more likely to take three years due to mismatch between seasonal departure and arrival times of each leg of the journey. Clearly these time scales are based on successful voyages, but the reality was that significant risks were posed from bad weather, perilous seas, navigational error, piracy by the Portuguese, Dutch or British, mutiny of the crew and any other mis-hap that could beset a galleon.

Over the years many hundreds of these boats were lost to the seas along with passengers, crew and cargo. Most of the Manila Galleons were built in Philippines and crewed by Philippinos. These were huge ships that needed between three and four hundred crew in addition they would carry passengers and three hundred tons of cargo. Compared to modern ships, they were short and tall and the forty foot draft was a real hazard in shallow waters especially the coral reefs around the Philippines. Several galleons almost completed the voyage only to get wrecked just before arriving in Manila in the treacherous rip tides between the islands.

The “trade” was multi purpose and its economics are still poorly understood. Certainly there was a buoyant market for all sorts of Asian goods in Europe and also in New Spain.  Many goods were exported in this way including silks, fabrics and ceramics manufactured in China, local good and spices, together with products from other places in Asia including laquerware from Japan, jewels and cottons from Indochina etc.  Manila and some of the other Philippines islands had been trading with visiting ships from the surrounding places such as Fujian, Mallacca, Thailand and Japan since before the Spanish arrived.  Thus the additional outlet for the goods enhanced trade. Many of the goods would be sold to merchants in a huge fair just outside Acapulco after arriving in New Spain which was keenly attended from all around. On the return leg there were no doubt goods from Europe not obtainable locally, but the key ingredient was cash in the form of silver originating in the mines of Peru and other parts of South America which of course was used to pay for the return cargo. So Manila became something of a trading entre port in 16th and 17th Century South East Asia.

But irrespective of whether the trade was good or bad and there are conflicting opinions on this; Manila never turned into a Hong Kong, or at least there is little evidence now that the trade has added significantly to the long term wealth of Philippines. This seems to be for a variety of reasons including the following:

  • Most of the Spanish posted to Philippines had objectives other than to profit from trading. They were mainly either salaried bureaucrats responsible to government or otherwise missionaries interested in religious teaching and conversion.
  • There were relatively few Spanish settlers in Philippines, probably around 5,000 who remained relatively separate and unintegrated. This limited any growth of a home market for goods from a wealthy middle class.
  • There was no available skills base in Philippines that could be used to manufacture goods for export or to add value to goods being traded although later production of sugar, tobacco and coffee was started.
  • To some extent the trade was one way traffic. In the early years at least there was an insatiable demand for the Asian goods that were landed in New Spain together with a ready supply of silver. However there was no equivalent impetus for the return cargo given that gold or silver or any other means to pay in Philippines was limited to the wealth of individual traders.
  • The trade in silks and some other goods was not always profitable due to competition from elsewhere and volatility in the supply of silver.
  • Expansion of the trade both to New Spain and other parts of the Spanish Empire was limited by the Spanish government probably to protect industry in New Spain and Peru. The number of sailings in a year was limited to one in 1587.
  • Philipinnes never became a separate Viceroyalty under the Spanish Empire but was administered by the Viceroy of New Spain whose interests of course were principally for the betterment of New Spain and this to some extent, conflicted with the interests of both Spain and Philippines.
  • Other trading partners also adopted protectionist and restrictive trade policies especially Japan and China.
  • Many Chinese settled in Manila in order to profit from the trade. Although they were tolerated and well utilised by the Spanish they were not considered to have equal resident status and therefore much of their wealth ended up in China.
  • Many of the merchants from New Spain would travel to Philippines in order to make their trade directly with the foreign merchant, thus the Philippinos were effectively cut out of the trade.
  • Manila as a port began to get a reputation for being overly bureaucratic and risky in terms of piracy, theft and corruption.

That said the Manila Galleon played a crucial role in establishing Spanish dominion in the late 16th and early 17th Century as well as in supporting growth of Philippines by supplying sought after goods from Europe and the outside.

Strangely when in Philippines it is still easy to sense that there is a distance from the outside world. Maybe its due to modern day restrictions on imported goods both legislative and to some extent contrived by the still uncontrolled customs authorities. Or possibly due to the fact that Manila has never become a transportation hub either by air or sea, and remains a destination port.  Most likely its because Philippinos up and down the place are quite content with the way they are and are in no hurry to emulate any other place in the world. Bravo them!

But there are other modern day carry overs from this story….. One is that Philippinos make up a big proportion of officers and crew in the merchant navies and cruise ships all around the world after the sea faring tradition was well and truly embedded all those years ago. Another one could be the fact that as a result of its sea faring exploits, over the years Philippines more than any other country, has been supported by its overseas workers often to the tune of between 10 and 20% of GDP. Also Philippino overseas workers everywhere, to a man (and woman), make a point of sending home to the family a box of goods at least once a year usually for Christmas. The famous Balikbayan Box, legendary throughout Philippines. Is this out of necessity or tradition? Well I’m sure there are plenty of cases of necessity and of course as part of the spirit of Christmas, but although I’m not a Philippino I’m sure its not easy to forget that Philippines throughout its history has been reliant on provisions being put on board for that once yearly voyage and deep down somewhere in that culture there is still a belief that it continues to be necessary.

Why did Charles 1 of Spain Relinquish Sovereignty of Philippines so Quickly after he Achieved it?

Magellan’s expedition 1518 – 1522 circumnavigated the globe via many places including Cebu Philippines. Although Magellan was a Portuguese, he was under contract to Spain who had funded his trip on the basis of his crucial advice that he could approach the Spice Islands from a Westerly direction and that there were many islands discovered by Portugal that lay within the Spanish sphere.

However only a few years after his return, in 1529 Charles signed the Treaty of Zaragoza which agreed a new demarcation line at 297 leagues east of Malacca which would divide Spanish territories to the East and Portuguese territories to the West and dictate title to any newly discovered lands accordingly. Charles essentially contracted out of any further claim to sovereignty of the Moluccas (which included Philippines) for the sum of 350,000 ducats.

Why this irrational behaviour? There are many likely factors…..

Was it because Charles was made aware that the Portuguese had already reached the Spice islands as early as 1512 and that this was unbeknown to him at the time of striking his deal with Magellan? If so he was conceding to Portugal that he had lost the race for the Spice Islands and that Magellan had effectively come back empty handed for Spain.

Or

Was it because he was unaware or even mislead about the geographical position of unexplored territories in the west of the Pacific? He certainly knew well that he was at a tactical disadvantage to Portugal due to the much longer route from the West as compared to the from the East. Its therefore likely he opted for the certainty of a demarcation line in the mistaken belief that there were other undiscovered land masses to which to he could claim title.

Or

Was it because he was desperate for the cash? Not as strange as it sounds; the Spanish crown was formally declared bankrupt in 1557, 1560, 1569, 1575 and 1596.

Or

Was it because Charles was confident that he would in time, be able to prove that Philippines fell within the Spanish meridian as stipulated in the treaty of Zaragoza in which case he would have to repay the money to re-claim the territory? Of course he was never able to prove this.

Or

Was it because the Portuguese were able to convince the arbiter of the treaty (the Pope) that they were already established in the region and were successfully evangelising the local poulations there?

Or

Was it because since getting married in 1525 his actions were heavily influenced by his wife and family? She was the sister of John 3rd of Portugal. Also John 3rd was married at the same time to Charles sister therefore Charles was heavily outnumbered by his in-laws.  This would seem to be a key factor.

The Oldest Churches in the Philippines?

Oriental Mindoro is surprisingly rich in history and has possibly the oldest buildings remaining in Philippines. There are at least two very old ruined churches hidden away; one is known as Simbahang Bato (stone church at Bato) at Banagay Bancuro just to the south of Naujan, the other is in Barangay Anilao further south. [picture]

So many questions…..who built them, for what purpose, when, and why in these particular locations? Conclusive records do not exist but we can start to build the picture…..

All Philippinos are all taught the Spanish version of history, most of it written by Spanish Jesuit priests stationed in Philippines, but actually their version only tells half of the story. As is always the case history is written by the victor and further elaborated by generations of teachers and to some extent historians, sometimes this can distort or even conceal the truth. In this case Philippines history taught to successive generations has served to cement the very basis of the Philippines nation which in its early days was certainly not firmly established.

Now with the benefit of the vast amount of electronic data now available for all, we can re-examine and start to question the established thinking.

Spanish and Portuguese history in the 16th Century is complex but it includes the following issues many of which seem to be pivotal to the above questions and when considered together help to lead us to some of the answers we are seeking.

Although not as well documented as the story of Spanish settlement of Philippines, Portuguese influence in what we now call South East Asia and what was then known as the Indies and more specifically the Moluccas, was both widespread and dominant. It is a fact that Portuguese influence was generally earlier than Spanish activity and this partly accounts for the fact that there are several surviving first hand accounts of Spanish experiences in Asia but generally much less Portuguese data available. This imbalance in has tended to generate history from history and to some extent conceal the impact of Portuguese activity in the area that existed for many years before the Spanish became the dominant power.

Portuguese influence in the area predates the arrival of the Spanish by a considerable margin. The Portuguese were established in Goa by 1510 and very quickly within the next 50 years effectively explored and build many forts and trading posts. On the other hand the Spanish never became fully committed to establishing a base in Asia until after the 2nd half of the 16th Century and even after this initial commitment progress was limited effectively until the start of the next Century.

The treaty of Tordesillas 1494 between Spain and Portugal gave the Spanish title to any new territories they were to ‘discover’ having approached from westerly direction from a longitudinal line 370 leagues west from Cape Verde Islands and effectively prevented Spanish exploration in an Easterly direction from Europe, a sphere of the world which anyway, was effectively off limits due to Portugal’s naval dominance.

Portugal’s objectives in Asia and elsewhere in the world contrasted with those of Spain. Portugal never cemented the concept of a colonial empire based on territory as Spain did, its objective was to optimise financial gains from trade by controlling and optimising maritime trading routes rather than by establishing land based territory and governance.  The Spanish on the other hand, sought to colonise and administrate by establishing governance over local peoples by the physical presence of Spaniards, bureaucratic control and religious conversion. This essential difference partly explains the speed with which Portugal was able to become established in many parts of the world during the late 15th and early 16th Centuries. It also helps to explain the demise of Portuguese dominion later in the 17th Century by which time maritime supremacy had become much more risky and expensive to achieve.

There is no doubt that Spanish expansion was both supported by and driven by religious fervour. On the other hand, Portuguese exploration and settlement was for the overriding objective of optimisation of trade to Portugal’s commercial benefit. This model by definition sought to include and tolerate those with other religions in order to keep the peace, promote trade and allow for further expansion.  This contrast in the relative importance attached to furthering and expanding the Catholic faith was at the root of the papacy fully sanctioning the Spanish quest for religious expansion on the back of self financed commercial and military aggression to assert religious conformance especially in the 1530s and 1540s.

Charles 1st of Spain was also the 5th Holy Roman Emperor from the age of 19 until his abdication at the age of 54 and provided a further platform for Spains colonial ambitions. As the Popes, temporal executive on earth there was no doubt considerable pressure on Charles, either actually or self-imposed, to establish a lasting Catholic presence in Asia.  Pressure which intensified as he reached the age of retirement and he was increasingly able to assert that he was unable to achieve his religious objectives based on the Portuguese model of colonialism and that nothing short of a Catholic Republic would achieve his ambitions and provide him with a fitting legacy in return for his life’s work.

Spanish objectives for the Philippines started to materialise even though political agreement with Portugal had not been reached in Europe. It appears inevitable that agreement at least at a familial level must have come about after 1525 by virtue of John 3 of Portugal marriage to the sister of Charles 1 of Spain and at the same time Charles 1 of Spain’s marriage to the sister of John 3 of Portugal.   However the Treaty of Zaragoza with Portugal in 1529 flies in the face of such agreement as Spain essentially contracted out of any further claim on the Moluccas and receives 350,000 ducats and a new Demarcation line at 297 leagues west of Malacca is set which technically also includes the Philippines [link].

By 1542 however, Charles is sufficiently emboldened, possibly by the evangelical influence of the Counter Reformation, and supports an expedition from New Spain (Mexico) as a result of which the ‘Felippinas’ are declared Spanish.

Spanish settlement in Philippines was slow for a long time after this mainly due to the tortuous geographical route which included a two month journey from Sevilla on the Mediterranean coast of Spain via Havana to Veracruz on the eastern seaboard of Mexico, then by land to Acapulco on the western seaboard after which a massive sea journey of at least three months was necessary across the pacific to Manila Philippines. This route was necessary not only for provisioning of manufactured goods but also for any communication between Spain and the newly settled Philippinas. In one direction this would take eight to ten months  however a round trip for example to receive a response to a communication in practise due to mismatch between seasonal departure times of each leg would be more likely to take three years.

More Spanish settlers arrived in Cebu by this route with Legazpi’s expedition in 1564 however there was no Spanish presence in Manila until 1572 and significant building did not take place there until 1580s. In the 1560s and 70s Portugal did not recognise the existence of Philippines and were effectively at war with Spain in Philippines. The Portuguese fleet blockade Cebu and later Manila several times between 1565 and 1572 and demanded departure of the Spaniards. True accord was not reached until 1580 when there was full political union of Spain and Portugal following a Portuguese succession crisis which allowed Spain to effectively govern all of Portugal’s affairs thereafter until 1640.

There are some surviving first hand accounts that there was already some Portuguese settlement in Mindoro in 1570 before the Spanish had even settled Manila. [Reference]

There is also surviving first hand evidence that Chinese traders were regularly visiting Mindoro before 1570 to trade manufactured goods for natural produce including lumber, fish, game, wildfowl and possibly rice. In particular a settlement on a river Bato is stated as a trading place [Reference]

On the other hand the first Jesuits under Spanish governance did not arrive in Philippines from Mexico until 1581 and the building of mission stations took place from 1595 starting in Manila. The Jesuits were organised along militaristic lines hence their reputation as the soldiers of God, they recorded their endeavours meticulously and have identified the location of the churches they built of which there were many, however there is no mention of any church in Mindoro.

Place names also provide some evidence. Anilao the present name of the Barangay in which one of these buildings is situated suggests a Portuguese influence.  Mindoro is also a corruption of the Portuguese which on some early Portuguese maps is referred to as ‘Vindoro’.

Architecturally, the church at Bancurro seems not to be in the Jesuit style whos churches are generally much grander and more extravagant. This one appears more rustic and functional. It also appears to be more 15th Century than 16th Century.   The many carved stone sun logos are the ‘black sun’ emblem associated with the Jesuits but the central heart emblem belongs to the Augustinian order which would predate Jesuit period. There are also still some signs that the five or six sun logos were added after the original construction. [picture]

The Portuguese built what they called ‘feitoras’ (trading posts) and ‘fortalezas’ (fortification) and many were built between 1510 and 1550 in S E Asia. Building of the Church was often concurrent with establishment of the trading post and in many cases the church was the only stone building. On this basis the church would have been truly multi purpose, serving not only as a place of worship but as an administrative centre, storage place, for defence and also detainment. In Africa the Portuguese word for church ‘igreja’ has become the Swahili word for gaol.  The first Christian church in Malacca was built by the Portuguese in 1521 on top of the hill for defence and was only later used as a church when its defensive function became less important.

The Portuguese established a trading post at Ternate (Spice Island) in 1522. It is also recorded elsewhere that in 1538 the Portuguese Bishop of Goa despatched missionaries to Mindanao and that many natives were baptized, this strongly suggests that a church(es) must have also been established.

Later in 1557, a trading post was established by the Portuguese in Macao. The coast of Mindoro is directly on this trading between the Spice islands and Macau therefore settlements on the route would have served the usual dual purpose of increasing trade and securing the existing trade route.   The Portuguese had a much more Laisez Faire approach to expansion as compared to the Spanish model, administration was minimal and growth of the trading network took place on an organic opportunistic commercial basis without control and direction from the mother country. To some extent the Portugese settlers were freelancers with no real ties to Portugal.  it is perhaps not surprising that good records do not exist.

These outposts were intended to further commerce and trade by providing for maintenance and supply of Portugal’s maritime presence but also to intercept trading ie. to exert control over a port. Without exception settlement and building took place where there already existed a flourishing trade of some sort. In both instances these buildings in Mindoro are located several kilometres from the coast.  This suggests that both were built purely as churches possibly to evangelise the existing population or to support new European Settlers as a church and possibly as protection from hostile invaders. In the case of Bancurro church there is evidence that the location may once have been on the bank of the river which has since changed its course.  Both churches may have been built inland as a means of protection from invasion by seaborne Morro raiders from other islands although folklore would have it that this strategy was not always effective.

The first Jesuits in Asia were Loyola and Xavier whos trip was initiated directly by King John 3 of Portugal. Thomas J Campbell states in his book ‘The Jesuits – 1534 -1921’ on the travels of Xavier in the Moluccas in 1546; ‘Up and down the islands of the archipelago he travelled meeting degeneracy of the worst kind at every step. But he established missionary posts, with the wonderful result that ten years later, De Beira whom he sent there, had forty seven stations and three thousand Christian families in these islands.’  

The whereabouts of all of these mission stations, assuming that they existed, has never been comprehensively established however it is reasonable to expect that several of them would have been located in present day Philippines. Portuguese maps of this period not surprisingly include modern day Philippines as part of the Moluccas even though not all of the islands were shown or even known about. However some of the modern day island names are recognisable on early Portuguese maps including Cubu (Cebu), Negros (Negros) Polaguan (Palawan).  There is also a reversal on some maps of this era of Mindanao and Mindoro, clearly there was some confusion about the whereabouts or even the existence of both.

The history of the Portuguese St Pauls’s church in Malacca is of interest because although it was originally constructed in 1522 it was later gifted by the existing church in Malacca to the Jesuits and the deeds handed to Xavier in 1548. This was at the height of the Counter Reformation in Europe, although there is no doubt that the Jesuits were self appointed as the spearhead of this quest to win new converts to the faith and to consolidate and purify the existing fold, to some extent their reputation preceded them. Certainly also their religious zeal as the ‘soldiers of god’ backed directly by the Vatican was second to none amongst the existing catholic denominations. To co opt existing churches and their congregations was a means of instantly boosting the number of so called ‘converts’.  In the event that the two buildings in question existed in 1548 it is probable that they also would have been ceded to the Jesuits at the same time as St Paul’s.

It therefore seems likely that these two churches in Mindoro were built by early Portuguese settlers in 1520s or 1530s. Alternatively they may have been built by the Portuguese immediately following the journeys of the first Jesuits in 1546. In either case the churches were built by Portuguese and most likely pre date the existence of the Philippines.