The Philippines is South America in Asia, both culturally and sexually. The country was a Spanish colony for more than 300 years, governed from Mexico. During the 20th century, it was first a US colony, and after that a play ball of US imperialism. Many Filipinos have relatives in the US, and even more Filipinos would like to become US citizens.

The Philippines is the country in Southeast Asia were it is the easiest to engage in a meaningful sexual relationship with a local woman without having been there for some time. The reason for this fortunate constellation is the absence of a major language barrier. English is spoken widely, at least to a degree sufficient to engage in a love relationship.

Apart from Cambodia, the Philippines is the country with the highest prevalence of crime in Southeast Asia. Otherwise, the two countries really very little in common.

The Philippines is much more anarchic than the other two major Malay countries, Indonesia and Malaysia. This holds true for the Philippine brand of democracy as well as Philippine corruption.

Volume-wise, Indonesia clearly has a worse corruption problem. Corruption in Indonesia is totally institutionalized. Every Indonesian knows that you don't get anything from a government agency if you don't give money to the officers. It's totally accepted. People don't complain.

In the Philippines, by comparison, most people know that having to bribe government officials is essentially wrong. The media likes the topic. Corrupt officials have more of a sense of danger when taking bribes. Kind of an unclear conscience (they take the money anyway).

The same pattern applies to sexual relationships. The Philippines is predominantly Catholic. Sex is a sin. It's all the more enjoyable.

Compared to Thailand, sex in the Philippines is schizophrenic. Here you have a female president (Gloria), who speaks out for lowering the marriage age for girls to 14. At the same time, if you have a 17-year-old girlfriend and buy her a golden ring, you could be charged with statutory rape.

How is that? Sexual relationships with comparatively young girls are not illegal. But they become a very bad crime if the girl derives material benefit from this relationship. The relationship would then be construed as child prostitution.

Compared to Thailand, sex in the Philippines is schizophrenic. Compared to the Philippines, sex in Thailand is boring. Philippine girls and young women are likely to invest much more emotion and romantic projection into a relationship than do Thai (or Chinese, or Cambodian, or Vietnamese) girls. What they dream of is life-long bliss, with the "life-long" slightly more important than the "bliss".

Filipinas, and many other young and not-so-young Southeast Asian women, are far more focused on lifetime relationships than are Western women.

The reason is obvious. At an age of above 30, the market value of a woman in the Philippines (and most everywhere in the world) is much lower than it would have been 10 years earlier. This translates into a narrow time range during which a woman can establish can take several steps upwards on the social ladder (by becoming the wife of a much richer man, or a man who is socially much better established).

If the woman herself is poor and above 30, the opportunity for a wealthy match usually no longer exists. The partners that are available for non-wealthy women above 30 usually come with the prospect of plenty of household chores, foreseeable financial problems, non-secure income, and more of that kind.

By contrast, young beautiful women have a fair chance to get married by men who are much richer, thus providing a comfortable future, and possibly even financial help to impoverished parents. If the relationship lasts.

Obviously, there is no guaranty. But a large number of young women will take the chance to try it when approached by a considerably richer man, local or foreigner, who offers the prospect of a life-time relationship.

If you aim for a meaningful sexual relationship in Asia, you're a fool if you freely declare that you are NOT interested in a permanent relationship (under certain circumstances even without getting married).

You can make such a declaration towards a woman you have laid, and for whom you no longer care. If you haven't laid her yet, keep your mouth shut, or, even better, pretend that, actually, you are searching for a lifelong partner (wife).

Don't be afraid to pretend. There are many ways out. This is just a game.

If you don't pretend, and openly state that you are absolutely not interested in a lifelong relationship, some of your better looking potential prey will just consider you a waste of time.

In principle, in the Philippines, almost every woman is available for you, though not in the first night.

In Singapore, if you live on a shoestring, you won't count for much. In the Philippines, you may still beat a local who has a car.

The bottom line is: you will have to pretend to be interested in a lifelong relationship. Spread the word that you are in the Philippines, because an angel appeared regularly in your dreams and brought you the message from God that you shall find your dream wife in the Philippines.

Watch your market value sore! You can be ugly, fat, and old. But you can outscore a good-looking young Filipino. I have seen beautiful young Filipinas who have been engaged to local boys for many months run off with much older Western men whom they have known just for a day through a marriage agency.

Such matchmaking is now officially illegal in the Philippines. But the scam still works. Pretend that you are out to look for a Filipina wife, and it's all open doors.

The question is: how do you translate this advantage into a good lay?

To avoid getting legally married you must be aware that official, legal marriages are a time-consuming process. You would have to put up the banns at home, and then get a marriage license from your embassy. This would take months. The girl you are after will likely not have an initial intention to go to bed with you before having the marriage contract in her hands.

(Of course, you don't want to get married. But it's a liar's world.)

So, bargain her down. First, you create a sense of urgency. Tell her that you only have two weeks left, even if you have two decades of time.

Try this line: you are a healthy man; a healthy man needs a woman in his arms, at least every now and then; but because you love her so much, you want to avoid having anything to do with any other woman, if only she could grant you a little pleasure. You promise (preferably invoking Jesus Christ) that you will not take her virginity; it's just that you are longing so much to hold her in your arms (on the bed, that is, and without clothes, that is, but both these requests don't sound so romantic, so keep them to yourself).

If she agrees: bingo! If not, don't just give up yet.

If you had her in bed, with full intercourse, don't dump her the next day. She could run to the police and charge you with date rape.

Dump her the next week. Or after a longer period still. If she's been to bed with you a few times, date rape charges will no longer stick.

How to dump a Filipina? Don稚 tell her you changed your mind. Apply subtle tactics so that she will get sick of you and leave on her own. Make her walk. They hate walking. Not that it would just be tiresome as they may claim. But it exposes them to the sun, giving them a darker complexion while they want to be as fair looking as possible. Walking is also low-class.

Apart from making her walk, you should become stingy, very stingy, even publicly. If you go to restaurants, always request that she orders the cheapest food. If in a supermarket, cold bottled water is more expensive than non-cooled bottled water, buy the cheaper, even if she requests the refrigerated one.

In the end she will give up, and you are free to move on to your next victim.

If the line regarding you being a healthy man doesn't bring the desired result, you could also go into a fake marriage. In the Philippines, priest of the most obscure Christian denomination can solemnize marriages, and they often do, for a fee, even if the necessary documents are lacking.

Not much she can do if you run off. The "marriage" contract she holds will not be accepted in the courts. It's not a legal document.

By the way, even if her marriage contract with you were for real, and not a phony one, there wouldn't be much she could do legally if you run off (nor could you if she cuts off your balls the next time you sleep in her bed).

If a fake marriage contract (not even talking about a real one) isn't to your liking, you could also present or pretend legal impediments to a marriage. How about this one: you have been married before in France but after only two weeks, your wife ran off with another man. For a year, you have tried to find her so you could have a divorce, but even though you sold your house to pay for detectives, she could not be found. For this stupid reason, you cannot marry her legally. So it will have to be a "permanent" relationship without marriage contract.

The Philippines is one of just a very few countries in the world that do not allow divorces. So, everywhere in the Philippines, even in the villages, you find married men and married women to have live-in arrangements, often lifelong, with members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses. It's quite accepted.

If you eye a particular girl, don't tell her right from the beginning that only a live-in arrangement would be available with you (and on top of that, only a temporary one). Wait until she loves you.

Her rights in such a live-in arrangement are minimal (thanks to the lobbying of the Catholic Church).

The above hints are for people who have time, or, even better, have settled in the Philippines (this is possible on a tourist visa). But even if you just have a few days in the Philippines, you can have a meaningful sexual relationship (one that has a component of love).

I have mentioned on numerous occasions that this web site is no prostitution guide; nevertheless, in the Philippines, a meaningful sexual relationship is possible with a girl who has been working in the nightlife industry.

Just go into a bar and chose the most beautiful girl. You will have to buy her out for the first night. When in bed with her, open the prospect of a lifelong partnership. Tell her, that she is the most beautiful girl you ever met, and that you would like her to become your wife.

Philippine bar girls typically are not hardcore prostitutes. They often feel that what they do is wrong. They often dream of a "normal" life. Which makes them vulnerable to romantic lies.

So, after the first night, she'll stay with you for no pay, and she'll invest some love into the relationship with you.

Avoid major expenses, such as to go shopping for clothes. Just feed her excuses and promises, and after that, more excuses and more promises. Talk is cheap, and she'll love you nevertheless.

Or because of it.

Not spending on her will maybe even make her love you more, especially if she does have a nightclub background. A funny mechanism is at work here.

If we enter into a relationship, we all do our little bit of accounting. And we want to write black numbers. This means, we want to get more out of a relationship than we want to put into it.

If a woman derives clear financial or material benefit out of a relationship, she already is in the black, so her mind stops grinding. But if the relationship is short on financial or material gains, and if she still prolongs it, she will have to tell herself that she derives benefit other than material from this relationship. And what could this be? It's love, stupid.

The more a young woman in the Philippines is in a situation where she regularly derives financial or material benefit from liaisons with men, the more you have reason to avoid paying. Worldwide, the men loved by prostitutes are not the ones who give them money (meaning: are their clients).

Law and justice, Philippine style

If you look at a statue of the Justitia, the Goddess of Justice, most everywhere in the world, you will notice three particularities: 1. she is blind-folded, 2. she carries a sword, 3. she holds a balance.

She is blind-folded because Justitia is supposed to make her judgments solely on the base of the facts of a case, not making considerations according to whom she sees in front of her.

She carries a sword, symbolizing her power to met out punishment.

And she holds a balance because justice is supposed to be balanced and proportionate.

Justitia not being blind-folded leads to a corrupt courts.

Justitia giving up her balance and just swinging the sword is a legal system running amok.

That's what you have in the Philippines.

The Philippines has world-class lousy lawmakers (they call them solons); they prefer to elect them from among their movie stars.

The Philippine legal system is the most unbalanced legal system based on Western law that I know of. They have the largest catalog of crimes supposed to be punished by the death penalty.

Because a foolish, undereducated populace prefers to elect movie stars to parliament, it's no surprise that lawmaking has degraded to a form of show business.

It works like this:

Let's assume a law is debated that is supposed to regulate the violation of motor traffic rules. Congressman Aguilar (assumed name), who has been an action hero before his ascend to parliament, has ambitions to become a senator, or even dreams of becoming president. This will only work out if he is in the headlines often enough (all senators are elected countrywide).

On the new law debating the violation of traffic rules, he competes for attention with hundreds of other congressmen, as well as other topics in politics. So, how can he manage to make headlines in Philippine newspapers.

Easy, boy! He makes proposals in parliament that result in the following front page headline the next day: "Solon Aguilar: death for traffic violators."

Movie stars as lawmakers, a media that always favors the extreme (better headlines sell more papers), and a populace with the frame of mind of ancient Rome's Colosseum crowd.

The coverage of trials in which the death penalty hinges over the accused clearly has more entertainment value than a soap opera, or even Premier League soccer.

Especially if there is some sex involved.

Philippine readers and TV audiences like sex crimes better than murders, and murders better than serious politics.

To hell with serious politics. Bread and games. Too bad that they no longer can feed the convicted to lions and tigers.

That it's not proportionate is the most prominent feature of new Philippine legislation. Here some examples, pertaining to murders and sexual relationships.

The Revised Philippine Penal Code states in Article 248:

"Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 [parricide, ed.] shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period [20 years] to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse."

And in Article 249:

"Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal [12 to 20 years]."

The legal age of consent for a sexual relationship in the Philippines is 12 years (a sexual relationship with somebody below the age of 12 is considered statutory rape). However, a newer law puts it at 18 in circumstances where monetary gratifications are involved.

The law, Republic Act Nr. 7610, is known as legislation against child prostitution, but is much wider in scope than the respective Thai legislation. Officially, it is named "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes". It defines children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse as follows: "Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse."

This is an extremely wide definition. In principle, a successful Philippine young man who has a 17-year-old girlfriend, and kisses her, and invites her to dinner or buys her some simple jewelry, could be caught in the fangs of this law. She's below 18, is with him because she is attracted to his social status, derives material benefit, and is the object of a kiss.

The original intention of the law was to provide legislation against child prostitution. However, the definition of prostitution on which it is based, is inaccurate. According to Webster's Dictionary, a prostitute is a person "who engages in promiscuous sexual activity for pay". The element of promiscuity is crucial. If this isn't considered, many wives would fall into the legal Philippine definition of a prostitute as somebody "who for ... any other consideration ... indulge in sexual intercourse".

The punishment threatened is 16 to 30 years.

The law states in detail in article III:

"Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

"The penalty of reclusion temporal [12 to 20 years, Asialove.org editor] in its medium period to reclusion perpetua [may or may not be pardoned after 30 years, Asialove.org editor] shall be imposed upon the following:

a. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
3. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute;
4. Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
5. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with the intent to engage such child in prostitution.

b. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Provided, that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be. Provided, that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

c. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.

"Section 6. Attempt to Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

"There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal Code."

This is a classic case of lousy legislation because it lacks in being proportionate, and lacks in differentiation.

It's not proportionate because killing a person of 17 years of age is threatened with imprisonment of at least 12 years; kissing the same person, and buying her/him a ring, or giving her/him some money to buy food is threatened with imprisonment of at least 16 years.

It's also not proportionate because having full sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl is legal [maybe; with laws as the one quoted above, one can never be too sure], provided you get her into bed by sweet talk, and never, never let her have a single peso. If she's already 17, and you pay for a kiss, you are threatened with at least 16 years of imprisonment.

The law lacks in differentiation, because it treats penetrating intercourse basically the same as some tender stroking. It doesn't make a definite difference between sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct. According to Webster's Dictionary, lascivious means: "characterized by or expressing lust or lewdness".

Telling a girl that she has beautiful breasts, or that one dreamed of being in bed with her can already be construed as lascivious conduct. And as if the whole law wouldn't be vague enough yet, Republic Act Nr. 7610 defines as culprits in part b): "Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse." The punishment of 16 to 30 years therefore is not only threatened against those who fall under the extremely wide Philippine definition of prostitution, but additionally against those who have a sexual relationship with a child [anybody below the age of 18] "subjected to other sexual abuse".

Such a law makes a farce of any judicial system. It's not just proof of legislators being more concerned with grabbing headlines, but also allows judges any interpretation they fancy... and also to engage in headline making rather than dispensing genuine justice.

But what do you expect in a country where the social prestige of a movie extra ranks above that of a university professor? The Philippines is involuntary proof that too much democracy (direct election for too many positions) can lead to worse government than a more representative democracy (for example elected village elders electing a constituency's congressman). If a populace on the intellectual level of ancient Rome's Colosseum crowd are given the opportunity to elect national leaders, entertainment value will be the primary qualification. No wonder if the result will be a government of actors and clowns.

Who cares for the victims of rotten justice? The tabloids? The crowd? They cheer every execution. It has enormous entertainment value to see somebody die, or at least to read about it in the press.

In the Philippines over the past few years, hundreds of men have been convicted to death on rape charges, and thousands to very lengthy prison terms. Among those convicted to die by lethal injection has been one British man who has later been found innocent. It has been suggested that a good number of the charges has been made up.

The Philippines is now a country where women can extort enormous amounts from richer males on the basis of an accusation that those men have been involved in some weird kind of sexual abuse or lascivious acts with a girl below 18.

Reported the Asia Times in its edition of July 26, 2001:

"For as long as anyone can remember, the Philippines has had the dubious reputation of being one of the least safe countries in Southeast Asia, and nowadays even more so. With crime and lawlessness seemingly spiraling out of control - especially the kidnap for ransom of Filipino Chinese and foreign businessmen - at least 10 foreign embassies in the country have issued warnings to their citizens to take extra precautions when moving in and around the Philippines.

"There is, however, an alarming development directly affecting foreigners in the Philippines that has been taking place over the past few years and which not a single foreign embassy has bothered to address. It is the growing racket of quasi-legal extortion targeted specifically at foreigners. This has its roots in laws aimed at curbing child abuse, specifically with the intent of vigorously prosecuting foreign pedophiles who have for years operated openly in the Philippines.

"While the laws may have had a noble intent, they have unwittingly resulted in a witchhunt hysteria that has sparked a growing industry of extortion where mere accusations take on the mantle of guilt and human rights are completely trampled in the process. This appalling development is glaringly highlighted in a newly released book entitled Sentenced to Death, written by long-time Philippine residents Earl Wilkinson and Alan Atkins. It chronicles the incredible story of Englishman Albert Wilson, who, back in 1996, was falsely accused of raping his 12-year-old Filipino stepdaughter. In a legal process that can best be described as farcical, Wilson was arrested and subsequently convicted and sentenced to die by lethal injection. Three nightmarish years later, Wilson, through the help of Wilkinson and Atkins, was acquitted by the Philippine Supreme Court and set free.

"Ironically, while Wilkinson may have helped set Wilson free, he probably had a hand in getting him involved in the ordeal in the first place. The Aussie Wilkinson is well known throughout the Philippines for his tireless efforts in trying to enact legislation aimed at catching and prosecuting foreign pedophiles. Wilkinson's incessant letter writing and high profile campaign was partly responsible for the 1992 Republic Act 7610, which was designed specifically to catch and prosecute foreign pedophiles.

"In an attempt to cast as wide a net as possible, Philippines lawmakers decreed that 'any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, 12 years or under or is 10 years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of three years in prison and a fine of not less than 50,000 pesos [about US$1,000]'. In 1996, the Philippines brought back the death penalty and raised the crime of child rape to a heinous one punishable by death.

"By anyone's standards, Republic Act 7610 is blatantly vague and is clearly open for liberal interpretation. If a child sits down next to you while you're sunbathing on the beach you can be accused of child rape. What is even more unnerving, however, is the nature of the law in the Philippines. The government does not initiate a complaint, rather, a private party must file a complaint for there to be a case. If the complainant decides to withdraw that complaint, then there is no case. In other words, a case can be lodged against anyone on a mere complaint, then subsequently withdrawn. (Read: 'Pay me some money and I'll drop the case.') This state of affairs, as Wilkinson and Atkins point out, can only be defined as "legal blackmail".

"In the case of child rape, even if the offense was alleged to have taken place many months before, the accused can't get bail. With the notoriously snail-like pace of the Philippine justice system, the accused could easily spend more than a year in jail, all on a mere accusation. (Read: 'I'll pay up so I can get out of here.') And a person's chances of acquittal are slim at best.

"Wilkinson points out that as child abuse cases have generated a witchhunt mentality in recent years, judges compete with each other to see who can get the most scalps on their belts. Guilty verdicts and stiff sentences mean faster promotions. And judges almost always take the side of the young victim, holding the preposterous Victorian belief similar to that of a judge who said, 'This court cannot believe that a Filipina of minor age would admit to the loss of her chastity and possibly ruin her future marriage opportunities unless it were true.'

"Wilkinson also notes that while Republic Act 7610 was designed to catch foreign pedophiles, it has had the boomerang effect of sending to death row hundreds of Filipino men. And it's not like the police are performing investigative miracles. In a country with no divorce, Wilkinson says that the law has become a way for a wife to get rid of an abusive husband. In just over four years since the death penalty was enacted, the Philippine courts have handed down over 900 death sentences, with well over 60 percent of them coming from child rape cases.

"In the case of Albert Wilson, he was lucky that Earl Wilkinson was nursing a pint of beer at a local pub in 1998 when someone approached him about the case of the convicted and incarcerated Englishman and told him he thought Wilson was innocent. After some exhaustive research, Wilkinson concurred that a miscarriage of justice had taken place and that an innocent man was about to die. He realized as well that perhaps his work fighting pedophiles had gone too far, and that innocent people were being wrongly sentenced to death. He thus went from being a pedophile buster to helping save a man wrongly convicted of child rape.

"Wilkinson and writer Alan Atkins thus plunged into Wilson's case, trying to save a man they didn't even know. In the book they describe their task as 'Mission near impossible' as rarely are convictions in child rape cases in the Philippines overturned by the high court.

"The book itself is long on particulars as Wilkinson and Atkins retrace each and every step of the case. It contains detailed transcripts from the trial as well as letters from Wilson as he sits on death row awaiting his appeal. At times the narrative is mind-numbingly detailed, with points being made that only a lawyer would care about. But with a little persistence what is revealed are the exposure of the Philippine judicial system at the provincial level, the incompetence and maneuverings of many lawyers and the awful conditions of Philippine prisons.

"We learn how Albert Wilson was arrested on a mere complaint without any investigation, handcuffed and hauled off to jail with his wife, who wasn't even charged. We discover the role of the natural father, who was broke and had drinking buddies inside the local police department and encouraged his young daughter to bring the charge. Before he was convicted, Wilson was approached several times in jail by the alleged victim's lawyers asking that he fork out over $25,000 for the case to be dropped.

"Through the court transcripts we see clearly how the alleged victim, the daughter of Wilson's Filipina wife, is actively encouraged by her natural father and time and again changes her story while under oath and how the provincial judge blatantly ignores the obvious inconsistencies. The judge then completely ignores two doctors, one a witness for the prosecution and a medical examiner from the National Bureau of Investigation, who debunk the rape charge by stating emphatically that it never occurred. The judge also ignores the testimony of the girl's immediate family, who state that the rape never happened.

"When Wilson was convicted of child rape and sentenced to die by lethal injection, he had already been in jail for two years. Clearly, if it wasn't for Wilkinson and Atkins taking up the appeal, Wilson would be dead today. One of the most disturbing parts of the book is the conduct of the defense lawyers, whose shoddy preparation shows how little they care even when a man's life is at stake. The descriptions of life inside death row are equally disturbing as they reveal appalling sub-human conditions.

"Sentenced to Death deals only with the case of Albert Wilson, but Wilkinson recently pointed out that false accusations for rape and child abuse against foreigners are becoming increasingly frequent in the Philippines. Often, he claims, the accused just pay off the complainant so the charge can be dropped and they can reclaim their lives. Others refuse to pay and have received outrageously stiff sentences.

"With its emphasis on legal detail, the book appears at times more suited to those in the legal profession. But the message it imparts is frightening for any foreigner who lives, works and/or travels in and around the Philippines. Co-author Atkins put it best when, immediately after a horrifying visit to Wilson on death row he wrote, 'How could this happen? Why was it allowed to happen? Could it happen to others? More important, could it happen to me? The answer to the final question was a definite 'yes'. In the Philippines today, it can happen to just about anyone.'

"Sentenced to Death is published by Book of Dreams, Germany."

On another case involving a British man, The Electronic Telegraph reported on 12 October 1996:

"A British travel agent who ran a firm called Paradise Express promoting child sex tourism was jailed for 16 years in the Philippines yesterday. The conviction of Michael Clarke, 50, of Eastbourne, East Sussex, was welcomed by child protection groups. They said they hoped it would send a signal to Western paedophiles who have long regarded the Philippines as a haven for their activities.

"Clarke was the second Briton and the third foreigner to be convicted and sentenced for child abuse in the Philippines after a campaign launched 14 months ago by President Fidel Ramos. 'I hope this verdict makes more British men think twice about travelling to poorer countries to exploit children sexually,' said Martin Cottingham, of Church Aid, a London-based group, who testified that Clarke personally offered him sex with a child prostitute.

"Judge Fatima Asdala, sitting in the northern city of Olongapo, 50 miles from the capital, Manila, ordered Clarke's deportation after serving the sentence. 'This act of promising sex with the young . . . in the guise of promoting tourism is considered by this court to be debasing to Filipino women and children,' she said. 'He repeatedly mentioned a Filipina he knew at a particular bar in Olongapo who could introduce me to a 12-year-old girl'

"As the clerk of the court read the 39-page judgment, Clarke wiped away sweat with a red handkerchief and slumped to his seat. Clarke's Eastbourne tour company ran trips to Olongapo and nearby Angeles City, both beside former US military bases. The red-light districts in the cities, which once catered for US servicemen, have continued to attract foreign tourists.

"Among the evidence was a brochure distributed by Clarke in London promoting an 'adult tour' package that included a drive to 'Sin City' - Olongapo - and the 'OK Corral' where 'dozens of headstrong young fillies are tethered'.

"Clarke was charged after telling a British television crew and Mr Cottingham, posing as holidaymakers, that under-age girl prostitutes - 'chickens' - were available for sex. Under Philippines law, it is an offence to 'induce a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisement'.

"Mr Cottingham built up his evidence against Clarke while compiling a report on child prostitution and tourism to present to British MPs as they prepared to debate a Bill to allow the prosecution at home of British citizens who have committed offences against children overseas.

"Mr Cottingham obtained a copy of the brochure from Paradise Express, a company that advertised in Exchange and Mart. 'I subsequently had several telephone conversations with Mr Clarke about the holidays he was offering,' he said. 'He repeatedly mentioned a Filipina he knew at a particular bar in Olongapo who could introduce me to a 12-year-old girl.' He added: 'When I asked Mr Clarke whether the young girls might not be co-operative if they were being coerced into sex, he assured me that they were grateful to men who contributed to their sexual education. He said they just need to be looked after well and treated to a nice meal.'

"ITN investigated Clarke and secretly filmed him in Eastbourne and the Philippines offering child prostitutes to Mr Cottingham in April and May 1995. Clarke said he would appeal against the verdict. 'I am completely innocent of the charge - a fabrication. It's diabolical,' he said as he was led away from court."

It's not that I wouldn't believe that somebody who stupidly advertises visits to prostitutes shouldn't be charged. But a 16-year sentence is totally out of proportion. This is more than what he would have gotten if he had killed the alleged 12-year-old in a spill of rage.

But what did Mr. Clarke really do: He repeatedly mentioned a Filipina he knew at a particular bar in Olongapo who could introduce Mr. Cottingham to a 12-year-old girl. He didn't introduce the girl himself, just said he knew somebody who could. Mr. Cottingham was not introduced to the alleged girl, nor to the women who knew the girl. And it hasn't been established that the girl to be introduced was just 12 years old indeed.

The girl could have been 20, but Mr. Clarke could have thought that this Mr. Cottingham who constantly demanded a 12-year-old would not know the difference. If a Western man asks an Asian pimp for an 18-year-old virgin, and all the pimp has in stock is a 45-year-old mother of three, the pimp will still claim: "yes, Sir, 18, Sir, virgin, Sir, very good fuck." Anyway, it's dark, and anyway, the foreigner is stupid.

I can well imagine Mr. Cottingham pestering Mr. Clarke with demands for a 12-year-old, not a 13-year-old, not a 14-year-old... Only Mr. Cottingham was aware that Mr. Clarke would have to promise a 12-year-old, otherwise the 16 years prison would not stick.

Mr. Clarke was no angel, but he wasn't convicted for not being pious enough. He was also not convicted for running sex tours to Olongapo. He wasn't convicted because he would have sold a minor. He wasn't even convicted because he indeed would have introduced Mr. Cottingham to a woman who allegedly knew of a 12-year-old prostitute.

As far as the facts of the case have been presented, he was convicted solely because he said to Mr. Cottingham, repeatedly, that he could introduce Mr. Cottingham to a woman who could introduce him to a 12-year-old prostitute. And for that, he got 16 years prison.

It hasn't even been proven that the 12-year-old prostitute existed.

Maybe, on an other instance, Mr. Clarke did something more immoral. Maybe. Maybe not. But, so one would believe, a professional judge wouldn't convict somebody on the assumption that while there is no evidence for worse crimes, a man is sent to prison for 16 years because he had mentioned to another man (an agent provocateur, that is) that he could introduce him to a woman who then could introduce the agent provocateur to a girl who allegedly is only 12 and works as child prostitute.

But, as mentioned above, the conviction of foreigners for sexual offenses is extremely popular in the Philippines, whether genuinely guilty or not, and judges get promoted on such convictions, and tabloids sell on the story, and Christian crusaders can dream of sainthood because of such a success. It's pathological. An inferiority complex running amok. Filipinos and elder Filipinas collectively being jealous because young of younger Filipinas giving preference to Western men, and seeing the justice system as an instrument to get even.

And, of course, it's Catholic. A present-day inquisition for which the Church has fermented the ground. Even though the Philippine Catholic Church, in typical hypocritical manner, now favors the abolishment of the death penalty.