|
Post by Registrar on Feb 18, 2013 15:35:27 GMT 8
There's always a wealth of unfinished projects cluttering up my mind, and one of them is my effort to track down details of the men who were killed on Corregidor, not just of the Paratroopers and the 3/34th Infantry, but also those who were killed as the direct result of the retaking of the island. This has lead me through a number of other units, such as 603 Tank Co., 2 ESB, 592 JASCO. One of the difficulties that I have had is that the Unites States Navy keep their records compartmentalized, by breaking them up into Task Forces. For instance, two ships may take casualties in the same operation, but each of those ships may be of a different Task Force, and thus their casualty records may be filed in two entirely different places. One can't simply look up "Corregidor, USN."
It's also significant. and sad, that there were a lot of men killed in the Corregidor Operation that simply have never been included in the total of what the island cost. We're not dealing with small numbers, either. By my recording, so far, there are 24 men killed, who I have not yet identified - for instance, 7 on the USS LA VALETTE, 3 on USS RADFORD, 3 on YMS-46, 8 on USS HIDATSA, and 3 on a LCI(R).
Thus it is with mixed feelings that I add two more men to the listing of the "other units", and I shall relate their story, as briefly as I have it to tell. Their listings are now linked at: rockforce.org/rock_force/taps/kia_draft_listing.htm If anyone is wanting to pursue the research next time you are at the Washington Navy Yards, just give me an "ahoy". Like much in our respective realms, the researching is its own reward.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Feb 14, 2013 9:22:17 GMT 8
The article by Peter Parsons (above) has been taken up and spread by BACEPOW (Bay Area Civilian Ex-Prisoners of War) and has resulted in a flurry of correspondence. Peter has been sharing these with us, for publication. This correspondence is published together with Peter's edited reply. - Registrar
Dear Peter,
I've received a copy of your article about The Battle for Manila by a roundabout way from a woman whose family was with mine in Santo Thomas during the war in the Philippines.
I am certain that your father, Chick Parsons, knew my parents! I remember hearing his name spoken often by my parents, as they perpetually talked about life in Manila before, during and after the war.
For years before the war my father, Roy C. Bennett, was the editor of the Manila Daily Bulletin newspaper, and was the first civilian captured by the Japanese, when they marched into Manila. The Bulletin was the most influential English language newspaper in the Far East, and he had been writing scathing things about their aggressions in China, and throughout the Orient for months, so the Japanese hated him!
He was taken first to Bilibid Prison, then to Fort Santiago, where he was tortured repeatedly. The Japanese wanted him to provide favorable propaganda, which he flatly refused to do. The Japanese were afraid to simply kill him, as what he had written had been under the American flag, and he was too well known.
So the Japanese gave his wife, my mother Margaret Bennett, a pass to remain in Manila, under the theory that she would do some "treason" act, such as sneaking money and medicine, to the Filipino guerrillas, then he would be held responsible for his wife's bad actions (though they were prevented from having any contact), and thus he could be executed for treason! The cover story was that she was needed to care for her invalid, honorable, elderly mother, and my sister Helen and I could remain with our mother and grandmother. Of course my mother funneled money and medicine to the hills, she just never got caught at it!
When my grandmother died (thus no more cover story), and my father was near death due to starvation and brutality and too many people had learned of his courage, the Japanese transferred Roy to the civilian camp, Santo Thomas, and ordered the rest of us interned there also. Luckily we all survived, though a skinny bunch we were.
As to your father's efforts to lay blame for the destruction of Manila where it belonged, on the Japanese, I clearly remember that before the American Army came storming into Manila and straight into Santo Thomas, we spent several nights in camp, watching the surrounding city burning, we were terrified that we would be burned too.
Though at age eleven I didn't understand a lot about what was going on, today I still have very clear memories of things as they happened, and learned the meanings of much as my parents and their adult friends talked endlessly about that time for the rest of their lives.
Joan Chapman Pasadena, CA.
Dear Joan,
Your email has moved me as few others. Of course my dad knew yours, and your mom. Roy Bennet, and his wife were true heroes in anyone's book. I believe that the Bulletin Bldg was among the very first targets of Japanese bombs. Was Romulo working for the Bulletin back then?
My dad was in Fort Santiago for about a week. He did not undergo anything as dire as your dad, although he had to be hospitalized when they released him. He then spent about 6 weeks at STIC. It sounds like your dad did not get into STIC until after June, 1942, when my dad was released.
Your account of seeing fires in Manila starting "several nights" before the arrival of the Yanks is extremely important evidence as there are still those who believe that all the burning and killing only began when the US troops had encircled and trapped the poor Japanese defenders.
But please keep in touch.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Feb 11, 2013 18:34:00 GMT 8
Here's a thoughtful article which, I am pleased to say, deals squarely with the revisionist narratives concerning the Battle of Manila, and is to be recommended for this reason. Unfortunately, it does not mention the role of the Makapilis. - Registrar)
Yamashita’s guilt, Korean atrocity, other misconceptions about liberation of Manila By Benito Legarda Jr. * Philippine Daily Inquirer 11 February 2013
It is the month of February again, the month in 1945 when the Japanese chose to turn our fair city into a battleground and killing ground, as Ambassador Juan José Rocha has said, leading to the death of some 100,000 noncombatant civilians, the destruction of irreparable heritage, and the near-obliteration of public utilities.
We need to be reminded of these events due to our notorious historical amnesia.
There are also misconceptions about the Battle for the Liberation of Manila that distort our recollections of that tragedy.
The first is the notion that the barbarities were committed by Koreans, not Japanese. This appears to be Japanese propaganda aiming to shift responsibility for the atrocities to others.
Ricardo T. José, our leading authority on World War II, says this cannot have been the case, as there were no Korean combat units in Manila. The only divisions recruited in Korea, which very likely consisted of Japanese residents there, were sent to Mindanao and the Cordillera, not Manila.
Most Koreans in Manila were waterfront laborers or prison-camp guards, as were the Taiwanese, and they surrendered without fighting. There were a few Taiwanese incorporated into Japanese units, and a few survivors appeared in the rather distorted NHK film where the killings of civilians were portrayed as antiguerrilla actions. Women, children, nuns, priests, foreigners—all guerrillas? Ridiculous, of course.
American shelling
The second misconception is the comparative number of casualties between Japanese massacres and American shelling. Someone has gone so far to say that the shelling killed more than the massacres did.
More sober estimates tilt it the other way. Gen. Ramon Farolan estimates that 60 percent were killed by the Japanese. Memorare Manila 1945 Foundation sent out a questionnaire to survivors in 1995, and came up with an estimate of 70 percent killed by the Japanese. A statistical sample of sorts can be culled from Antonio Perez de Olaguer’s early postwar book, translated into English as “Terror in Manila—February 1945.” This contains a list of about 250 Spanish nationals killed during the Battle for Manila, giving the cause of death, and the resulting figure is 85 percent killed by the Japanese.
This is not to minimize the seriousness of the often excessive and indiscriminate American shellfire. The mother of Memorare president Rocha was killed by an American shell, as were my Spanish teacher Doña Laura Felix, sister of Justice Alfonso Felix Sr.; and my high-school teacher, Ricardo Pimentel, SJ.
Ultimately the fundamental issue is not about comparative casualty figures, but the moral responsibility for making Manila a combat zone, thus necessitating the use of artillery. Clearly this was the sole responsibility of the Japanese.
Not guilty
The third misconception, assiduously promoted by revisionist historians, is that Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, overall commander of Japanese Forces in the Philippines, was not guilty of the killing and destruction in Manila.
THE JAPANESE decided to make Manila a battleground instead of declaring it an “Open City.”
Starting with a book by his defense counsel, Frank Reel, which is more of a defense brief than a balanced narrative, it has been claimed that he had lost contact with the combat units (highly unlikely in the age of radio communication), that the army troops he left behind were there only to destroy or evacuate military supplies, and that he had ordered a pull-out of units from Manila, which was disobeyed (by Admiral Iwabuchi, who was conveniently dead).
The fact of the matter is, Yamashita denied the pleas of Filipino officials to declare Manila an open city, as MacArthur had done in 1941. This clearly showed he intended to make Manila a battleground.
Rather than pulling out military units and supplies, Manila was bristling with artillery, and six months’ worth of supplies were stored in the Finance Building, bespeaking a deliberate plan to endure a long siege. Several strong structures were fortified. Having gone to all this trouble, why would he order a pull-out?
Track record
It is also hard to comprehend why, if the remaining troops were simply to evacuate or destroy supplies, it was taking them weeks to do what MacArthur had done in a few hours in 1941. The Pandacan oil depots were blown up in an hour on New Year’s Eve in 1941, and supplies not taken to Bataan were made available to the public when the warehouses in the Port Area were thrown open.
Why did Yamashita not do the same thing if he really wanted to spare Manila? Obviously he did not want to. Yamashita already had a track record of massacre with the killing of thousands of Chinese after the fall of Singapore in 1942.
On the doubtful premise that Yamashita wished to avoid combat in Manila, he could have known very early on that fighting was, in fact, going on, from Domei News dispatches reaching him.
Ambassador Miguel Perez Rubio, President Aquino’s protocol officer, was in a Kempeitai jail in Baguio at that time and saw these Domei dispatches. Unknown to him, his whole family in Manila was being massacred.
Most atrocities
The Americans did not completely encircle the Manila garrison, consisting of over 12,000 Marines and nearly 4,000 Army troops, until Feb. 12, so they had nine whole days to get out if they really wanted to. Did they?
While the Marines committed most of the atrocities, it was the Army troops along the Pasig who did the initial burning and demolition of residential and business areas and the killing of civilians in Sta. Cruz and Tondo, even before the Americans were firmly established in Manila. Japanese testimony at war-crimes trials is shadowed by the well-founded presumption of perjury.
Captain Toshimi Kumai narrates instructions given to fellow POWS by Yamashita’s chief of staff, Gen. Akira Muto: “You should never say, for the sake of Japan, for the sake of the Japanese Army, that anyone who graduated from the Imperial Military Academy had ever ordered killing of noncombatants… The high-ranking officers meticulously followed this policy…” (The Blood and Mud in the Philippines: Anti-Guerrilla Warfare on Panay Island,” p. 126; Iloilo City, Malones Publishing House, 2009).
In short, lie for the honor of your Army and your country.
No wonder American lawyer William Quasha, when I asked him about the Yamashita trial, bluntly told me that Yamashita was a damned liar.
* Mr. Benito Legarda Jr. is a former deputy governor for economic research of the Central Bank of the Philippines,and a National Book Award-winning historian. He was a board member of the National Historical Institute (2003-2010), and is on the board of advisers of Ayala Museum.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Feb 10, 2013 11:08:24 GMT 8
Anyone who has been following this forum for any length of time knows that we have been lamenting the direction in which Corregidor has been drifting - i.e., in no direction at all. Kudos are due to CFI for their efforts to prevent the deterioration of the buildings, and their efforts to keep the trails open. But those miserable Zip Line and ATV exploitation business initiatives by a commercial operator give the opposite impression of what the island should be promoted for. For years we have been saying (to the point of nagging) that the introduction of unsexed (oversexed) domestic cats has been bad policy, directly incompatible with the development of any bird-watching initiative. Corregidor should be promoting its sea-turtles, and declaring the immediate area surrounding it as a fishing no-go zone. It should be insisting that ALL garbage brought to the island be removed from the island, not dumped on it. But most of all, it has been the failure to envisage Corregidor as an Eco-Historical Destination that is letting its future drift. Come on Corregidor, get with the program! Even DENR and DOT have embraced the policy that Eco-Tourism is not incompatible with other forms of tourist activity.
Registrar LIVING JEWELS Philippine Daily Enquirer Saturday, 9 February, 2013
It is a perfect fit, making the Philippines synonymous with the amazing flora and fauna found here—and earning tourist dollars in the process. Last week the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Tourism (DOT) announced they were joining forces to push local natural attractions to boost Philippine tourism. Brimming with bright promise, this planned collaboration between two Philippine departments is a very welcome development.
Officially called “Partnerships for Biodiversity Conservation: Mainstreaming in Local Agricultural Landscapes,” the collaboration is part of a $17-million project funded by the Global Environment Facility of the United Nations Development Programme. It will promote among local travelers and foreign visitors natural attractions in the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Aklan, Antique, Cagayan, Capiz, Davao Oriental, Negros Occidental, Occidental Mindoro, Quirino and Palawan.
Aside from telling the world about the rich biodiversity found in the Philippines, the project will alert tourists about the urgency of protecting our natural resources and, at the same time, generate livelihood opportunities down at the local communities, too. Ecotourism projects are the rage, after all.
The DENR has pointed out that the Philippines has been named one of the planet’s 17 “megadiverse” countries, boasting one of the highest rates of newly discovered species anywhere in the world and the highest number of endemic species in the Indo-Malayan region. “These endemic species are our living jewels,” Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said in December. “They are irreplaceable and unique components of our awesome environment heritage.” Among the newly discovered species are 29 rodents, two bats, four birds, 44 reptiles, 29 amphibians and over 160 plants. The stars of the DENR-DOT mash-up are classic creatures such as the endangered Philippine eagle.
A component of the program is a guided bird-watching trip to Mt. Hamiguitan, which will offer a chance of glimpsing the rare monkey-eating avian soaring in its natural habitat. Other offerings will include snorkeling and dive trips, but with a twist—they will be in overfished spots. “Instead of deriving income from fishing, the community can earn their living from tourism,” said Mundita Lim, director of the DENR’s Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau.
That’s because the program will advocate environment protection and avoid becoming a mere naked cash grab unmindful of damaging ecological sites. “That is what (you mean by) sustainable,” Lim said. The risk, of course, will be astronomic if these projects are developed and implemented without the guarantee that biodiversity will be protected and preserved. Care must be taken that, say, a bird-watching trip organized for tourists will not result in the destruction of the birds’ habitat, or a diving expedition will not bring harm to reefs. As in any endeavor, the education of the front-liners in these ecotourism venture is imperative.
All this is even made more urgent by the Philippine government’s resolve to increase tourist arrivals and, by extension, to expand the economic impact they provide. Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima said that the administration of President Aquino seeks to double the number of tourist arrivals to 10 million by 2016, as the country logged a record-high of 4.27 million in 2012, up 9 percent from 2011. The DOT and local travel agencies project some 5.5 million foreign tourist arrivals this year. The government wants to do even better, and the DENR-DOT project is indeed a welcome shot in the arm for the tourism industry, which has the potential of bolstering the expected crowds in heavily-promoted destinations like Boracay and Puerto Princesa with added attractions and new tourism come-ons.
As they move forward with this ecotourism initiative, the collaborating agencies must make sure they do it well, and do it correctly. The Philippines is now on many lists of top destinations in the world. It’s both boon and bane, opportunity and challenge, and the Philippines has to make sure that it protects its immensely rich biodiversity even as it collects tourism revenues. The DOT’s “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” campaign, to be sure, can be aided by this daring new way of pushing the Philippines. And the country can show the world that “hope” is not only “the thing with feathers,” to borrow a line from Emily Dickinson, it can also turn into reality in the thing with scales, fur and flowers.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Feb 3, 2013 12:48:57 GMT 8
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR CRIMES by Maj. William H. Parks, a scrupulously well researched and cross-referenced article, is now published on battleofmanila.org. It's not there for a "light" read. It's there so you know what really went on when a revisionist starts blowing smoke up your ass.
Because of the document's length (100 pages of A4 - 46,000 words) it is presented in four parts. The section dealing with the Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita is in Part II, Section B.
Registrar
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jan 29, 2013 16:21:07 GMT 8
I will mention what I have on the initial interviews of Sakakida by CIC. They were conducted 27 September 1945 and 25 October 1945. I'll more readily identify them when I am in a position to do so of their description, lest someone want to attempt an FOI on them. They are ( or at least they were) in the DLIFLC Historical files.
What is notable is that when the CIC investigator asked Sakakida point-blank on two different occasions if he had passed information to the Allies, Sakakida categorically denied it, even though it would have been to his advantage to admit it.
Subsequent authors have made much of Sakakida’s contact with Horacio Consing in July 1944 and through Consing to Ramsey’s guerrillas. But this was an abortive contact and led to no information being passed. Indeed, Consing was arrested within weeks of his initial contact with Sakakida and later executed.
Lou Jurika and Peter Parsons (and to a much lesser extent, myself) are not the first to have cast stones in Sakakida's direction. There was a symposium at the MacArthur Memorial, Norfolk VA on 22 October 1994 at which Fr. Jaime Neri, a notable Guerilla contemporary, raised questions about Sakakida's claims. Gustavo Ingles, in his "Analysis of Richard Sakakida's Claims to 'Heroic' Activities of World War II" raised the issue again in March 1995, a copy of which found itself in the DLIFLC historical files. He deposed a sworn affidavit on 28 June 1995, and this ended up in the MacArthur Memorial library. He published the issue again in a letter to the Honolulu Advertiser, 24 October 1995. Fr. Neri was responding to the proposal to award a "War Medal" (the Medal of Honor) and attempting to block it. There was pushback from Congressman Akaka (D) and other media placements supporting Sakakida.
For press reports on Neri’s charges, see Robert H. Reid, "Filipino Veterans Seek to Block War Medal for Japanese-American," Associated Press, 8 September 1995; Kirk Spitzer, "Akaka Backs Controversial War 'Hero' Despite Detractors," Honolulu Advertiser (15 Sep 95); Mark Spitzer, "Friend or Foe, Fact or Fiction? Vet's WWII Heroism Challenged," Honolulu Advertiser (24 Sep 95); and Kirk Spitzer, "Spy Never Sought Heroic Role," Honolulu Advertiser (25 Sep 95).
Fortunately, someone within the Powers That Be decided that it would not award the MOH. No doubt, there were some Democrats in Hawaii who were disappointed in this. On the other hand, I am thankful for it, for I would not like to be accused of attempting to bring the MOH into disrepute, when clearly that is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jan 28, 2013 16:14:36 GMT 8
Manchu2,
Thankyou for furnishing me with a copy of the History of the Counter Intelligence Corps Volume XXIII, by Maj. Ann Bray, published in October 1959. I have created an extract of the pages concerning Sakakida, and there is now a permalink to the extract contained in the footnotes sections for each of the Parsons and Jurika articles in the Secret Corregidor section of the Corregidor Then and Now Website. You are quite right that it is unfortunate Maj. Bray was not able to go back to the original interviews of Sakakida. These, no doubt, were more like an interrogation than an interview, and had she seen them at the time she was compiling the History, a great many books would not have begun to repeat the bogus legend that Sakakida started to grow, and we would not have had that unfortunate Sakakida-Kiyosaki publication, A Spy in Their Midst. Illustrating how the legend grew out of Maj. Bray's report isn't difficult. Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting later used Bray's unpublished history as the source for their popular history, America's Secret Army: The Untold Story of the Counterintelligence Corps (London: Grafton, 1989), 80-97. This version of Sakakida’s story was read into the Congressional Record by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) as a memorial tribute on 30 January 1996. Duval A. Edwards also used Bray for his Spy Catchers of the U.S. Army in the War with Japan (The Unfinished Story of the Counterintelligence Corps) (Gig Harbor, WA: Red Apple Publishing, 1994).
Sakakida also received brief mention in Bill Hosokawa, Nisei: The Quiet Americans (New York: William Morrow, 1969), 418; and more extensive treatment in Eric Morris, Corregidor: The End of the Line (New York: Stein and Day, 1981). Hosokawa based his account on a personal letter from Sakakida in the mid-1960s; Morris based his work "almost exclusively," he said, on interviews with the veterans themselves in the late 1970s (p. viii), but it contains numerous errors.
One wonders, then, why the Defence Language Institute Foreign Language Centre got involved in the picture in 1996, but their Command Historian James C. McNaughton essentially did what Maj. Bray had been unable to do - he went back to the original interrogations, and compared them with the stories Sakakida began to put around post-war. (To be fair to Maj. Bray, her job was not to be a spy-catcher, but to write a detailed history of the Counter Intelligence Corps , which appears to me to have been a job the size of the Encyclopedia Americana.) Sakakida just seemed to have the personal good fortune to have slipped through one of the cracks.
Back to McNaughton - his paper is called "The Story of Richard M. Sakakida" and true to the title he gave it, he dissects the story, and finds some very interesting inconsistencies.
I have managed to acquire a copy of his paper, which is not classified, but for now I feel constrained from publishing it for a few reasons. Firstly, it was supplied to me clearly marked as a DRAFT, which as far as I am concerned, means that it does not express what the author thinks of the issue in its entirety. Secondly, it's not difficult for me to imagine why he never signed off his paper, given that in 1996, Sakakida had attained both a high rank and high regard for his post-war service to the U.S. Mr. McNaughton, though a Command Historian, is neither a Chapman Pincher or a Peter Wright, for whilst in government employ, he is not paid to be. But I genuflect to him, because he disassembles key aspects of the Sakakida legend, and warns current historians lest they fall into the very trap that Denny Milligan did in his book "LEST WE FORGET: The Brave & Honorable Guerrillas and Philippine Scouts of WW II" - to assume that there is any such thing such as certainty in the world of Counter Intelligence. It's a shame Milligan didn't have the McNaughton paper, we might have save a lot of time.
McNaughton does conclude that even though Sakakida's captors forced him to use his language skills in the kangaroo trials of American and Filipino prisoners of war, trials that were later judged to be war crimes, he came through intact in body and spirit, his honor intact and his loyalty beyond question.
Well, RHIP, as they say.
I am leaving it to Peter Parsons to eventually bring much of what McNaughton says into the public domain. It will come as no surprise to those who have been reading this thread in its entirety that even McNaughton warns that the stories of Sakakida sending messages to MacArthur, and being instrumental in a mass jail break, and other tales of derring-do cannot be relied on. If you have stayed with me this far, I am sure you don't need a translator to tell you what that means.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jan 25, 2013 21:08:19 GMT 8
I prefer we not have any discussion concerning China and the Philippines issue for four reasons. Firstly, I do not doubt the maturity of our members. It is the possibility of outsiders getting involved who are not quite as mature. Secondly, I think that our core nature involves the US historic experience and the Philippines, in the widest sense. China is exterior to the historic examination. Thirdly, I do not want persons from China joining on the basis that they have only a single interest causing them to join. Fourthly, some years ago we suffered multiple spam attacks out of China. Eventually, I worked out the best defence against them was to have this site blacklisted by the Chinese authorities. This was done by posting hundreds of links to discussions banned from access in China. At that point, the spam attacks ceased.
It is peculiar but in my house at present, we have two long term child students, and two short term students, all Chinese. And they 're killing my bandwidth!
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jan 24, 2013 20:49:44 GMT 8
Yeah, that blue paint is trashy, isn't it! Don't those people have access to one decent Hollywood-type scenery painter who can make the blue disappear?
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Jan 22, 2013 6:33:11 GMT 8
PNoy orders DBM, DOT to find ways to rehabilitate Corregidor wharf
Dateline: 6 May, 2012
President Benigno Aquino III directed the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Department of Tourism (DOT) to find ways to rehabilitate the Corregidor Island wharf, where the structures are several decades old. The orders were issued as Aquino visited the historic island Sunday to mark the 70th anniversary of the Fall of Corregidor during World War II. “Kanina, pagdaong ng BRP Ang Pangulo, napansin natin ‘yung kalagayan nitong wharf at medyo marami nang kailangan i-repair, so binanggit natin siya sa ating kalihim ng Budget and Management na kung puede titingnan ito,” the President said.
[GOOGLE TRANSLATION - Earlier, BRP pagdaong of the President, we noticed that those who walks this wharf and pretty much need to repair, so we named him our Secretary of Budget and Management that Could look at it.] Aquino also said the Department of Tourism coordinates with the Corregidor Foundation, which runs the island. “Ito (Corregidor) ‘yung isa sa pinakamalapit na sites kapag may dumarating tayong mga turista. Kailangan nating mapaayos, mapaganda nga ito, ma-preserve ’yung nandito. Seventy years old na nga rin naman lahat ng mga nakatayo sa kasalukuyan,” he said.
[GOOGLE TRANSLATION - It (Corregidor) 'one of those sites closest when we come tourists. We need to improve, enhance, and this has to preserve 'those here. Seventy years old was also all present standing. ] Some guests here for the just-concluded 45th annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank were brought to the island for sightseeing tours.
War veterans also visit the island often especially during memorial rites. Tourists get to and from the island usually by fast craft docked near the Cultural Center of the Philippines in Manila. — ELR, GMA News
|
|