- 7 minutes ago
What happens next after Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan’s remarks spark calls from Philippine lawmakers for his expulsion?
The controversy erupted after Jing said China could “easily win” if it resorted to force against the Philippines, while maintaining that China would choose peace. The Department of Foreign Affairs summoned the ambassador on October 19 to express its strong objection to his remarks.
The dispute escalated after the Chinese Embassy challenged lawmakers pushing to declare Jing persona non grata. On October 21, 10 members of the House of Representatives urged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to declare the envoy persona non grata or ask China to recall him.
How could the diplomatic row affect Philippine-China relations, particularly amid continuing tensions in the West Philippine Sea?
Join us on Beyond the Headlines as we examine the controversy, its diplomatic implications, and what could happen next.
Look Deeper. Think Better.
The controversy erupted after Jing said China could “easily win” if it resorted to force against the Philippines, while maintaining that China would choose peace. The Department of Foreign Affairs summoned the ambassador on October 19 to express its strong objection to his remarks.
The dispute escalated after the Chinese Embassy challenged lawmakers pushing to declare Jing persona non grata. On October 21, 10 members of the House of Representatives urged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to declare the envoy persona non grata or ask China to recall him.
How could the diplomatic row affect Philippine-China relations, particularly amid continuing tensions in the West Philippine Sea?
Join us on Beyond the Headlines as we examine the controversy, its diplomatic implications, and what could happen next.
Look Deeper. Think Better.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:25It starts with a fresh shot of espresso.
00:30Bold, rich, pulled just right.
00:35Then comes the milk.
00:37Steamed smooth, creamy, and balanced.
00:40The perfect latte is not brushed.
00:43It is crafted.
00:44One cup at a time.
00:47Your perfect latte is ready.
00:49Coffee first.
00:51Then, everything else.
00:53When does defending a country become a political show?
00:57Good afternoon. Welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
01:00I'm DJ Moises, and today's conversation is brought to us by Coffee First.
01:05During a media interaction in Quezon City on October 15,
01:10Ambassador Jing Chuan responded to Defense Secretary Gilbert Yudoro's description of China as a regional troublemaker.
01:20Jing said that if China chose to use force, it could easily win,
01:25while adding that China would not choose force and wanted peace.
01:31Let's watch this.
01:33There is no good time.
01:35There is no good time.
01:36If we continue to meet with each other, then maybe we can meet this.
01:40We don't need to meet with each other.
01:43We take all these punk-maners against each other, all these retaliates against the downside.
01:49It's kind of a table task.
01:51It's kind of a fan of control.
01:54So, that's what I'm hearing.
01:56So, make decisions based on the different situations, different nations of each area.
02:05So, no emotion.
02:06The purpose is to try to create more positive forms, good news,
02:12to offset those norms and bring the people more communication to each other.
02:16Make the relations more stable rather than getting worse.
02:20That's fine.
02:21Not emotional.
02:21Not emotional.
02:23Calm down and tone.
02:26And more tone, more communication.
02:28Now, we try to take some very harsh, tough matters against each other.
02:34Try to burden each other.
02:35That's not what we expect.
02:37Ambassador, yesterday, Secretary Yudoro said that China is the troublemaker in the region and not the Philippines.
02:45He pointed out that China is also in conflict with several countries.
02:50Does this underscore the need of COC in the region?
02:55COC, definitely.
02:56China actively is participating in the COC negotiation dialogue.
03:02And we play very costly role.
03:04And we hope that we can finish the COC negotiation by the end of this year.
03:10We share the same goal with the Philippines side, with the PFA.
03:13And we all hope that we can finish the COC, which is the negotiation for more than 13 years.
03:20I think that was the point of the Defense Secretary saying that China is the real troublemaker.
03:25That's why most of the countries in ASEAN want a COC with them, with China, rather than among each other.
03:31I think that's the logic behind his troublemaker.
03:35Would you agree with that?
03:36That's nonsense.
03:37That's nonsense.
03:38Troublemaker.
03:39Who is the troublemaker?
03:40Look at who go after Chinese students, Chinese teachers, very innocent people.
03:46Who, you know, led the army to arrest the Chinese innocent workers.
03:51Who every day smear and attack China.
03:54Those are grounded in accusations against China.
03:57Try to, you know, have a false narrative.
04:01Try to incite that kind of hatred between the two countries.
04:06Who every day try to always create some new problems, incidents, and lead the two sides to kind of a
04:15confrontation.
04:16Who is the troublemaker?
04:17And now we should feel fortunate enough that you have a neighbor like China, in this region.
04:25You know, we, if we want to use force, we may easily win.
04:29But no, we will not choose force, and we love peace.
04:35And in this region, we enjoy the peace.
04:39Look at other countries, other regions.
04:42Japan, Gaza, even Venezuela.
04:46Look at other countries.
04:47What happened there?
04:48We should feel fortunate enough, at least if we enjoy peace.
04:55We hope that countries, other countries in this region, East Asia, South Asian, Asia, we should work together to cherish
05:03peace and seek for common development.
05:07And China wants to share our experience with technology and with neighboring countries.
05:13So, we hope that countries take China's development as an opportunity, not a place for a nation.
05:21Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
05:24On October 16, Marcus said, Jing Chuan's statement, that China could easily win if it used force sounded like a
05:32threat, and was not a diplomatic statement.
05:36Then, October 19, the Department of Foreign Affairs summoned Jing.
05:40Foreign Affairs Secretary Maria Teresa Lazzaro described the remarks as provocative and unacceptable, and objected to statements that could be
05:51interpreted as intimidation of Philippine officials and lawmakers.
05:56The DFA also said it wanted to keep diplomatic channels open.
06:01Senators Erwin Tulfo and Risa Ontiveros filed separate resolutions seeking action against Jing, including declaring him persona non grata or
06:12requesting his recall by Beijing.
06:14The Chinese embassy responded publicly to Philippine lawmakers and critics.
06:19In one post, it wrote,
06:21Put on record, you are now on the list.
06:24Without clarifying what the list meant,
06:27Ten House lawmakers subsequently filed House Resolution No. 1562, urging President Marcus Jr. to declare Jing persona non grata or
06:39request for his recall.
06:42The ambassador had been summoned and lawmakers had called for further action.
06:48A resolution calling for his removal does not itself remove him.
06:52The executive branch has authority over Philippines' diplomatic response.
06:59Marcus indicated that he would summon Jing to Malacanang to clarify what he meant.
07:04He said he prefers diplomatic engagement over expulsion.
07:08Now, let's look deeper and think better.
07:13So, first, the reason why we really took more time for you to watch the full video,
07:22although it's not really full, but I think that's already 90%,
07:25but the more important thing is we get to see the start of the conversation between the Chinese ambassador and
07:33the reporters,
07:34or the reporter who actually asked that question until the point that he was able to say those controversial lines.
07:41Because, in my view, the ambassador actually has a point about context.
07:52Because when we remove a sentence from the entire statement,
07:58I think all of us know that it can mean differently.
08:03I did not say it meant differently.
08:06I did not say it should mean differently.
08:09What I just said, it can mean differently.
08:13Magbitaw na sa itong mga everyday lives,
08:17kung natay ka ng mga friends na maghatod-hatod o gstorya,
08:21usually it escalates into a fight, kung na'y maghatod-hatod.
08:25Because normally, ang ihatod-mangud na story is just a portion of maybe an hour of conversation.
08:31We know that.
08:32So, if we look at the video, there were so many proclamations or statements or even questions that happened before
08:40that statement.
08:41So, in my view, I also believe that the statement was taken out of context.
08:48There's a point also about context.
08:50But, on the other side, the Philippines also has a point about diplomatic language.
08:56I get that also.
08:57Especially that it comes from an ambassador,
09:00and there's actually words that sounded like a threat,
09:07then it's also taken seriously.
09:10Maupun na, on a leadership standpoint,
09:11that's why I think all of us leaders know nga,
09:14na ay mga certain lines also that if a person without authority would say them,
09:20it can just slide.
09:21But if we happen to be the leader in the organization,
09:24then that statement adds more weight.
09:27So, ang common example na ko nini-usually,
09:29kanang, when I was still in corporate work,
09:31if a factory worker will say,
09:34the food in the cafeteria sucks,
09:36or sorry,
09:37the food in the cafeteria doesn't taste good,
09:42then feedback siya,
09:43but it's not really like a cause of a meeting.
09:46But if a CEO goes to the cafeteria,
09:49and the CEO says the same line,
09:51the food in the cafeteria doesn't taste good,
09:54normally it triggers a meeting.
09:56So, you see the point?
09:57That's why the higher we go in the organization,
10:00the more important our position is.
10:02Every word we say is also taken with seriousness.
10:06That's why there's also a need for care.
10:08So, while I also think that the Chinese embassy's side of saying that,
10:15look at the full context, it's valid.
10:17And I also think that when the Philippines would say that,
10:21avoid diplomatic language,
10:23that would also be,
10:25that would sound provocative or threatening,
10:28especially if it's said by a person of importance,
10:31then that's also a valid point.
10:34Now, the other thing,
10:35and that's the reason why I'm also glad
10:37that we really showed the video from the beginning,
10:39because in my view,
10:42it appeared to me like the ambassador was also triggered.
10:47Because if we look at the preceding conversation,
10:50and we also notice his body language,
10:53he wasn't really angry.
10:54I would even see the body language.
10:56I would read the body language as he was even cordial,
10:59having conversations with the press.
11:02The first time he was asked about the trigger,
11:06which is katong troublemaker,
11:09his first response actually did not elicit any controversial remark.
11:13He was talking still about dialogue,
11:17he was still talking about conversation,
11:19he was acknowledging that this is a long-standing disagreement
11:23that should be resolved, etc.
11:25So he was not really on fire.
11:29But if we notice,
11:31the reporter asked again the question.
11:34So in my view,
11:35it sounded like the reporter was not able to get something that he wanted.
11:39That's why he also asked again the triggering question,
11:43which is troublemaker.
11:44And that is when the ambassador was able to say the lines
11:48that he's been quoted several times.
11:51In my view,
11:53it also started with a criticism,
11:56which is troublemaker in the region.
12:01So China also, in my view,
12:03has the right to respond to the criticism
12:06because he was only responding to what was then said
12:10as Defense Secretary Gilbert Eudora's characterization of China
12:15as a regional troublemaker.
12:18And if we know,
12:19especially if we're dealing with global politics,
12:23disagreement is part of diplomacy.
12:25Even among friends,
12:27mag-asawa, mag-igsoon, pamilya,
12:29we always disagree.
12:30So it's not surprising
12:32if a diplomatic disagreement such as this would transpire.
12:38So I think the very core of this
12:41is how we're going to manage the disagreement moving forward.
12:46Now, the Philippines has the right to challenge China's position.
12:52And like I said,
12:53the choice of words
12:54and the Philippines' response to that is valid.
12:58But it's also valid for the ambassador's remark
13:03to be taken out of context.
13:06So both stated intention
13:09and both also said words
13:13that will create consequences or impact
13:18and both deserve consideration.
13:20So regardless of our faith,
13:26there is a line about
13:28grant me the serenity
13:30to accept the things I can change.
13:34The courage to change the things I can
13:38and the wisdom to know the difference.
13:41Because this is everyday reminder for us
13:44that there is also element of wisdom
13:47that should be employed.
13:49Even in our everyday lives,
13:51namang kita yung mga disagreement within the family,
13:54disagreement among friends,
13:56we don't employ
13:57ka ng courage all the time.
14:00Di man na ka ng sugod, diretsyo,
14:01and then magig-away ta.
14:02We also take a step back
14:04and we analyze the situation.
14:07And then we use wisdom.
14:08We leverage wisdom
14:09for us to act accordingly.
14:12So in this particular,
14:13especially if it's a matter of importance,
14:16for example,
14:17it concerns our business,
14:19our relationship with a client,
14:21our relationship went to merging companies.
14:24Di man ta ka ng puro lang courage.
14:26We also do discernment.
14:28If these are matters that I should change,
14:32then yes,
14:33I need to have a courage.
14:34Or is this a matter that I cannot change immediately?
14:38Then maybe I will use serenity.
14:41I will leverage on serenity.
14:43And either way,
14:45what governs both is actually wisdom.
14:49Whether this is time for courage
14:50or whether this is the time for peace or serenity.
14:54So now,
14:55because
14:56na-elevate naman ang conversation
14:59outside diplomatic channels,
15:02nadala naman ang social media into this,
15:06then it's not surprising also,
15:08just like any disagreement,
15:09once we put them on social media,
15:11then the whole thing is already escalating.
15:14So the Chinese embassy in Manila
15:16posted a statement
15:17from nine Philippine representatives
15:20who had called for Chinese Ambassador Jing Chuan
15:23to be expelled or recalled.
15:25The embassy added,
15:26put on record,
15:28you are now on the list.
15:31And then,
15:32the embassy also responded
15:34to Senator Riza Ontivero's call
15:36for action against Jing.
15:37With,
15:38since you don't welcome us,
15:40we don't welcome you either.
15:41Fair enough.
15:42But the embassy also
15:44did not publicly explain
15:46what the list was.
15:48was,
15:49no?
15:49Although,
15:50if we look at
15:53historical information,
15:56Chinese,
15:57the China has
15:58previously imposed restrictions
16:00on Philippine officials
16:02critical to its policies,
16:04including travel restrictions
16:05and other measures
16:07against Defense Secretary
16:08Gilbert Yudoro Jr.
16:11and others.
16:12I am just stating this
16:13as a historical information,
16:17but I will also not
16:18put words
16:20into China's mouth
16:22by saying that
16:23this is the list
16:25that they were referring to
16:26because there was no specific
16:28to begin with.
16:29They just mentioned a list
16:30but nobody knows
16:32what this list is
16:33and what's the consequence
16:34of those in that particular list.
16:37Of course,
16:38ang ato ang mga lawmakers
16:39joined in,
16:41napod,
16:42into the fray.
16:42So we have
16:43Representative
16:44Zia Alonto Adiong,
16:45for example,
16:46when he said
16:46he was proud
16:47to be included
16:48in that list.
16:49And again,
16:50we do not even know
16:51what that list is
16:52but he wants
16:53to be in that list.
16:54And so are
16:55personalities
16:56like Representative
16:58Laila Delima.
17:00So my take also
17:02on the participation
17:04of the elected officials,
17:06I do understand
17:09that as our leaders
17:11and as our elected officials,
17:14they should join the debate,
17:16especially if it concerns
17:17foreign policy
17:18and national security.
17:21And I also agree
17:23that regardless
17:24of what country it is,
17:26whether China,
17:27whether the US,
17:28or any country
17:29for that matter,
17:30our leaders
17:31should not be pressured
17:32into silence.
17:33And if they issue
17:35a criticism,
17:36there should be no way
17:38that they should be intimidated.
17:39Again,
17:40regardless of country,
17:41whether China
17:42or whether the US.
17:45But I really also think
17:47that with social media,
17:49the more we should be careful,
17:52especially our leaders,
17:53because social media
17:54is not a substitute
17:56for diplomacy.
17:58So let's watch this video,
18:00an example of a statement
18:02that's also released
18:03by a senator
18:05of the Republic of the Philippines.
18:07And I'm referring to
18:08Senator J.B. Errecito.
18:09Let's watch this.
18:27What happened to the audio?
18:29I'm out of the audio?
18:30Ah, okay.
18:31Sige.
18:31So, yeah,
18:32it was also a long video,
18:34but that's the highlight
18:36of it, no?
18:38So, now,
18:39looking at that
18:40particular statement,
18:41coming from a senator,
18:43personally,
18:44I think,
18:47it's aggravating
18:48the situation
18:48rather than solving it,
18:50no?
18:50So,
18:50if we go back
18:52to our everyday dealings
18:53when we come
18:54with our friends
18:54and family,
18:56di ba,
18:56when we,
18:57especially,
18:58when we issue statement,
19:01it should be done
19:02with care,
19:05but our comment
19:07is supposed to
19:08lead to a resolution
19:10or a moving forward.
19:12And in my view,
19:13it's a statement
19:14that it's done
19:15and I'm just sad
19:16because it's also
19:18stated,
19:19made,
19:20a statement made
19:20by a senator
19:21of the Republic
19:22of the Philippines,
19:23no?
19:24So,
19:25now,
19:26because of all
19:27this series
19:27of unfortunate events,
19:29the diplomacy
19:30has already moved
19:31to social media.
19:33And now that it's
19:34already on social media,
19:36the more we should
19:37be careful
19:38about words.
19:40Remember,
19:40words be
19:41ang nagsugod,
19:41and then,
19:43kung mag-issue
19:44tag-statement publicly
19:45in social media,
19:46then the more
19:47we should also
19:48exercise caution.
19:49I would still
19:51think that
19:51the embassy
19:52did not mean
19:53threat at all,
19:55no?
19:55With the statement
19:56of the Chinese
19:57ambassador.
19:58But,
19:59if it's
20:00questioned
20:00in the Philippines,
20:01then it's also
20:02good for the embassy
20:03to clarify,
20:05no?
20:05And if it's
20:06intended for
20:07to send
20:08a warning,
20:09then the
20:10Philippine
20:10government
20:11should also
20:12address it.
20:13In appropriate,
20:15in unappropriate
20:17diplomatic
20:17channel.
20:19No?
20:20Because,
20:20kabalu na gintaan,
20:22na,
20:22ang algorithm
20:23sa social media,
20:25they actually
20:25reward
20:26kanang
20:27triggers.
20:29No?
20:29Kanang,
20:30the more
20:31triggering
20:31remark
20:32we issue,
20:33the more
20:34it generates
20:35reaction,
20:36whether positive
20:37but largely
20:37negative reaction,
20:39the more
20:39po na siya
20:40magsigig
20:40balik-balik.
20:42So,
20:43and if we
20:44look at the
20:44context also
20:45of diplomacy,
20:46I'm not
20:47trained and I'm
20:48not an expert
20:49of that,
20:50but much
20:50of diplomacy
20:51actually has
20:52something to do
20:52also with
20:53the opposite
20:54and that is
20:55restraint.
20:57So,
20:58kung
20:58social media
20:59rewards
20:59triggering
21:00remarks,
21:01diplomacy
21:02works best
21:03with
21:04restraint
21:05or let's
21:05say
21:06wisdom.
21:07So,
21:07putting that
21:08on social media
21:09already makes
21:10things even
21:10more
21:11complicated.
21:12Ang nakitabu
21:13ka ron,
21:14in my view,
21:14both sides
21:15are now
21:16compelled
21:16to defend
21:17their public
21:18position.
21:19Kung sa
21:19ato pa
21:19ning
21:19away-away
21:20mo yung
21:20tanga,
21:21nakabuhi
21:21na magugug
21:22storya,
21:22wala na.
21:23So,
21:24it becomes
21:24complicated
21:25na.
21:25If
21:27i-retrack
21:28ang statement,
21:29there's
21:30also that
21:31fear na
21:31you're
21:32the weaker
21:32one.
21:33So,
21:35again,
21:36that's why
21:36the more
21:37we should be
21:37careful moving
21:38forward about
21:39leveraging
21:39social media
21:40and the
21:41choice of
21:41words that
21:42we use.
21:43Because once
21:43we put it
21:44in the
21:44public,
21:44then the
21:46more we
21:46are compelled
21:47already to
21:48defend what
21:49we said
21:49instead of
21:51focusing on
21:51how it's
21:52going to
21:52be resolved.
21:54So,
21:55once the
21:56dispute is
21:56brought into
21:57social media,
21:58as we know,
21:59the situation
21:59already changes.
22:00And more
22:01often than
22:01not,
22:02musamut siya.
22:03And then
22:04social media,
22:05because it's
22:06already in
22:06public,
22:07it also turns
22:07a disagreement
22:08into a
22:09spectacle.
22:09Naghanang
22:10magsugnod-sugnod.
22:11And when
22:12naghanang
22:13nagsugnod-sugnod,
22:14pride is also
22:15introduced,
22:16so it's also
22:17already hard
22:17to backtrack
22:19because
22:21nakabuhi
22:21naman ang
22:22story.
22:23And then,
22:23kitapod sa
22:24audience,
22:24we also
22:25unintentionally
22:26add fuel
22:27to the
22:28fire.
22:29And I
22:30think,
22:30ang lesson
22:30na maler na
22:31ito,
22:31even in our
22:32everyday lives,
22:33is not
22:33every public
22:34argument is
22:35a victory.
22:36And if
22:37we
22:38soften
22:39our
22:39stand,
22:40even in
22:40public,
22:41it does not
22:42also translate
22:43to defeat.
22:44So,
22:45I hope
22:45ang atuang
22:46mga leaders
22:47and both
22:49sides
22:49would also
22:51exercise
22:51wisdom and
22:53restraint
22:53moving forward.
22:54Because again,
22:56disagreement
22:56is part of
22:58any
22:58diplomacy
23:00because
23:00whichever
23:01country it is,
23:02that includes
23:03the Philippines,
23:03we also have
23:04our own
23:05interests,
23:05we have
23:06our
23:06perspective,
23:07we also
23:07have our
23:08positions,
23:08especially on
23:09sensitive
23:10issues.
23:12So,
23:12ang
23:13diplomacy
23:13is not
23:14about
23:14eliminating
23:15disagreement.
23:16Ang
23:17diplomacy
23:17actually
23:18is trying
23:18to find
23:19ways
23:19to move
23:20forward
23:20together.
23:22So,
23:22my
23:22other
23:23suggestion
23:23with this
23:24is,
23:24for our
23:25leaders,
23:25let's move
23:26the
23:26conversation
23:26off
23:27social
23:28media.
23:30And then,
23:31give both
23:32sides
23:32face
23:33saving
23:34forward.
23:34So,
23:35instead of
23:37asking for
23:37a person
23:38non-grata
23:39or issue
23:40a public
23:41apology,
23:42might as
23:44well just
23:45go back
23:46into the
23:46diplomatic
23:47channel
23:47and then
23:48discuss
23:48on the
23:49ways
23:49forward.
23:50Nobody
23:50has to
23:51eat his
23:51or her
23:52word.
23:52Nobody
23:53actually
23:53needs
23:54to save
23:55face,
23:55but
23:56move
23:56forward
23:56na siya.
23:57Rather
23:57than
23:57escalate
23:58further
23:58by issuing
23:59more
24:00statements
24:01that
24:01would
24:01add
24:02fuel
24:02to
24:02the
24:03fire.
24:03The
24:04other
24:04thing
24:04also
24:04is,
24:05this
24:05is a
24:06very
24:06deep
24:06issue
24:07because
24:07it
24:08also
24:08concerns
24:08the
24:099-
24:09line,
24:10the
24:1010-
24:10line,
24:11and
24:12our
24:12maritime
24:12disagreement,
24:14specifically
24:14in the
24:15West
24:15Philippine
24:16Sea.
24:17So,
24:17my
24:17other
24:18suggestion
24:18also
24:18is,
24:19if we
24:20discuss
24:20about
24:21how to
24:21settle
24:22this
24:22particular
24:22controversy,
24:23let's
24:24not
24:24attempt
24:25to
24:26resolve
24:27the
24:28Philippine
24:28Sea
24:28dispute.
24:30That's
24:30a lot
24:31more
24:31complicated.
24:31That's
24:32the
24:32long-term
24:33fix.
24:33The
24:33short-term
24:33fix is
24:34just
24:34addressing
24:35this
24:36exchange
24:36of
24:37words
24:37between
24:37China
24:38and
24:38the
24:39Philippines.
24:40Because
24:41again,
24:42diplomacy
24:43is not
24:43pretending
24:44that there
24:45is no
24:45disagreement
24:46because there
24:47will always
24:47be
24:48disagreement.
24:49But the
24:49focus
24:49always,
24:50when we
24:51issue
24:51statements,
24:53preferably
24:54in
24:54diplomatic
24:54channel,
24:55the
24:56intent,
24:57especially
24:57with
24:58the
24:59positions
25:00that
25:00we
25:00hold,
25:00the
25:01intent
25:01is
25:01to
25:02resolve.
25:02No,
25:02not
25:03add fuel
25:03to
25:04the
25:05fire.
25:05It's
25:05complicated.
25:06It's
25:06a conversation
25:07if it's
25:08going to be
25:09So,
25:10for those
25:11of our
25:11viewers,
25:12if we
25:12also have
25:12other
25:13comments
25:13or
25:14questions,
25:15you can
25:15engage
25:16through our
25:17comment section.
25:18And even if
25:18the episode
25:19is already
25:19done,
25:20we would
25:21still
25:22comment on
25:22those.
25:23Kato na po
25:23mga talid.
25:24Kaya
25:24usahay,
25:25ang comments
25:25na ba?
25:25Usahay,
25:26medyo
25:26dili na siya
25:27connected
25:27into the
25:28conversation.
25:30But for
25:30those we
25:31find reasonable,
25:31we will
25:32still engage
25:32in them
25:33even after
25:34this episode.
25:35So,
25:36defending
25:36our
25:37country
25:37requires
25:37both
25:38courage
25:38and
25:39wisdom.
25:40The
25:40Philippines
25:40has
25:41every
25:41right
25:41to
25:41stand
25:42firm
25:42on
25:42its
25:42sovereignty.
25:43China
25:44also
25:44has
25:44the
25:45right
25:45to
25:45express
25:45its
25:46position.
25:47But
25:47neither
25:47side
25:48benefits
25:48when
25:49diplomatic
25:49disagreements
25:50turn
25:51into
25:51public
25:52exchange
25:52of
25:53taunts,
25:54threats,
25:55and
25:55challenges.
25:56May
25:56our
25:57leaders
25:57remember
25:57that
25:58the
25:58first
25:58responsibility
25:59is
25:59not
26:00to
26:00win
26:00the
26:00argument,
26:01but
26:02to
26:02serve
26:02the
26:03national
26:03interest.
26:05I'm
26:05DJ
26:06Moise,
26:06shout out
26:06to
26:06Coffee
26:07First
26:07for
26:07supporting
26:07conversations
26:08that
26:09matter.
26:09This is
26:10Beyond the
26:10Headlines.
26:10Let's
26:11continue to
26:11look deeper
26:12and think
26:12better.
26:13Have a
26:13good
26:13afternoon.
26:19It
26:20starts
26:20with
26:20a
26:21fresh
26:21shot
26:21of
26:21espresso.
26:23Bold,
26:24rich,
26:26pulled
26:26just
26:27right.
26:29Then
26:29comes
26:30the
26:30milk,
26:31steamed
26:31smooth,
26:32creamy,
26:33and
26:33balanced.
26:34The
26:35perfect
26:35latte
26:35is
26:36not
26:36brushed.
26:37It
26:37is
26:37crafted.
26:38One
26:39cup
26:39at a
26:40time.
26:40Your
26:41perfect
26:42latte
26:42is
26:42ready.
26:43Coffee
26:44first,
26:45then
26:45everything
26:46else.
26:47is