With Christmas just in the offing, the proposal of Sen. Ralph Recto to raise the tax-exemption threshold of the 13th Month Pay from P30,000 to P60,000 is surely good news. The bad news is, not everybody will benefit from it; only employees earning more than P30,000 a month, and there are not too many of them, anyway.
More than three decades after the passage of the Labor Code, one of whose principal objectives was to encourage collective bargaining, the bigger bulk of our working populace has yet been the unorganized sector -- for whom joining a labor union resembles joining the Katipunan in Bonifacio's times: one may not be jailed for insurrection but he puts his job security in great peril. Our unscrupulous employers should admit this grim reality, at least to themselves in good conscience, if not really to others. Unarguably still the most marginalized sector of Philippine society even after the spawning of that political animal called party-list system, this sector continues to depend solely and very precariously upon the minimum provisions of the Code, some of which have either grown obsolete or are deemed stupid from the very beginning.
For example, what whale of a difference does exist between a regular holiday and a special holiday for our laws to give higher premium pay to the former than to the latter? As it stands, a worker is paid twice his daily wage for working on a regular holiday, but gets only 30% on top of his basic wage if he works on a special holiday. Too, a daily rated employee who does not work on a regular holiday is guaranteed his normal wage for that day; he does not receive any pay if the holiday happens to be "special." Some says it is not the fault of an employee that a holiday is declared, so he need not suffer a sudden loss in pay -- that is, the money to buy his meal for the day -- simply because of a holiday. That is for me a stupid alibi! Truth is, regular holidays being in the calendar as early as January each year, as against the relatively unforeseen special holidays, it is more on the latter than on the former that a daily paid worker unduly suffers a loss of the money with which to buy his daily meal, strictly speaking. At any rate, isn't it the present practice of the government to proclaim and list down all holidays, regular or special, even before the close of any given year? Moreover, while relatively shorter workweeks, higher overtime/night-premium pay rates and longer vacation, sick and other leave entitlements than those provided by the Labor Code have long been quite common in many local industries, the unorganized labor sector just keeps looking desperately on the sidelines.
The more for sure will they look in envy at Recto's proposal. Without intending to sound ingrate, that it will benefit only employees belonging to the good senator's salary bracket cannot but leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Martes, Nobyembre 27, 2012
Martes, Nobyembre 20, 2012
AN ORDINANCE THAT BORDERS ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It bothers me endlessly, indeed, that a Quezon City ordinance requiring business establishment to install short-circuit television (CCTV) cameras under a "no CCTV, no business permit" policy has been passed without much ado, to take effect lst January 2013. Maybe, medyo "nakatulog ako sa pansitan" about this one; but I think there's noharm in my hereby putting out my two-centavo worth of comments thereon.
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
Linggo, Nobyembre 18, 2012
OUR UNSOLVABLE SMUGGLING PROBLEM
I sympathize with Bureau of Customs Commissioner Ruffy Biazon as he humbly, yet kind of desperately, responded (Inquirer, 11/15/2012) to Rigoberto Tiglao's column just the day before, highlighting the bureau's poor performance as a result of rampant smuggling under the present administration. But in the same token, I must also admire Biazon's truthfulness and courage as he objectively reacted to Tiglao's deeply pugnacious though amply convincing assertions. Methinksthat was a gallant feat of Biazon, one never before exhibited by any other Cabinet ministers, past and present, very much less by his predecessor in the bureau whose performance had been also way below par.
Those of us who have read the full text of Biazon's rather lengthy rejoinder to Tiglao will readily admit that, except for the former curtly disputing the latter's claim that smuggling in this country is at its worst under the present political leadership -- a denial that is of course only to be expected lest he himself admits his days in the bureau are really numbered -- the good Commissioner has never even attempted to refute the smuggling-related statistical data presented by Tiglao. Truly most damning amongst these statistics are the comparative values of smuggling in these parts during the incumbencies of Estrada, Arroyo and Aquno, to wit, in billions: $3.1, $3.8 and $19.6, respectively. In all fairness, I must admit that sometimes I also personally tend to doubt some of Tiglao's generally horrendous anti-PNoy/pro-Glora trades in his columns. I am afraid, though, that these figures, unless proven false -- which, truth to tell, Biazon, had ostensibly chosen not to challenge, anyway -- are amply reliable and should provide, at the very least, a source of concern to all right-thinking Filipinos. Instead, Biazon laments that close to 50% of his bureau's operations are still being done manually, and so their apparent work-in-progress solution to the rampant smuggling that besets them in practically all ports of entry is to computerize such services -- well, as if to say, it is this lack of automation that is the root cause of smuggling. Methinks this presumption simply defies logic. Why do I say that? Ah, for the very simple reason that if automation of the operating services in the Customs bureau is just about 50% at present, then it had to be very much less under Arroyo's and Estrada's times. But, then, why was smuggling remarkably low under Estrada's watch, just a little bit higher under Arroyo's, and extremely high under PNoy's administration?
As I earlier said, I truly commiserate with Commissioner Biazon's rather unfortunate situation as far as his department's performance is concerned, which most probably must be the reason why he just kept silent when he was suddenly excluded from Pinoy's final list of senatorial candidates for next year's election (he was among those earlier mentioned, wasn't he?). But I would have liked that he explained the matter relatively more convincingly, rather than in a manner obviously too insulting to people's plain common sense. In reacting to Tiglao, he also kept repeating such over-used expressions as: "it is not true that we are not doing anything about smuggling," or "we have been trying our best to improve the BOC management," and so on and so forth. Such words of hope and self-reassurances have all been voiced out by his predecessors in the bureau and to no avail, to the extent that they have now grown to be a mouthful of vain and futile motherhood statements. I am sure President Aquino expects very much more than that. Rampant smuggling has been with us nearly since immemorial; yet it seems to be getting worse. At least for once, given PNoy's widely acclaimed though, methinks, meaningless "straight road to governance, "the people are expecting to hear relatively more concrete action plans to curb smuggling in our midst and times. In fact, Biazon and his tribes in the Bureau are even luckier that President Aquno, whether rightly or wrongly, would rather want his unsatisfactorily performing Cabinet secretaries to realize their failures and voluntarily quit their posts than bluntly tell them to resign.
Incidentally, I am sure the Palace has its own views on this issue. And so, I am raring to hear how presidential spokesman and shock absorber, Edwin Lacierda, would react to it in due course. .
Those of us who have read the full text of Biazon's rather lengthy rejoinder to Tiglao will readily admit that, except for the former curtly disputing the latter's claim that smuggling in this country is at its worst under the present political leadership -- a denial that is of course only to be expected lest he himself admits his days in the bureau are really numbered -- the good Commissioner has never even attempted to refute the smuggling-related statistical data presented by Tiglao. Truly most damning amongst these statistics are the comparative values of smuggling in these parts during the incumbencies of Estrada, Arroyo and Aquno, to wit, in billions: $3.1, $3.8 and $19.6, respectively. In all fairness, I must admit that sometimes I also personally tend to doubt some of Tiglao's generally horrendous anti-PNoy/pro-Glora trades in his columns. I am afraid, though, that these figures, unless proven false -- which, truth to tell, Biazon, had ostensibly chosen not to challenge, anyway -- are amply reliable and should provide, at the very least, a source of concern to all right-thinking Filipinos. Instead, Biazon laments that close to 50% of his bureau's operations are still being done manually, and so their apparent work-in-progress solution to the rampant smuggling that besets them in practically all ports of entry is to computerize such services -- well, as if to say, it is this lack of automation that is the root cause of smuggling. Methinks this presumption simply defies logic. Why do I say that? Ah, for the very simple reason that if automation of the operating services in the Customs bureau is just about 50% at present, then it had to be very much less under Arroyo's and Estrada's times. But, then, why was smuggling remarkably low under Estrada's watch, just a little bit higher under Arroyo's, and extremely high under PNoy's administration?
As I earlier said, I truly commiserate with Commissioner Biazon's rather unfortunate situation as far as his department's performance is concerned, which most probably must be the reason why he just kept silent when he was suddenly excluded from Pinoy's final list of senatorial candidates for next year's election (he was among those earlier mentioned, wasn't he?). But I would have liked that he explained the matter relatively more convincingly, rather than in a manner obviously too insulting to people's plain common sense. In reacting to Tiglao, he also kept repeating such over-used expressions as: "it is not true that we are not doing anything about smuggling," or "we have been trying our best to improve the BOC management," and so on and so forth. Such words of hope and self-reassurances have all been voiced out by his predecessors in the bureau and to no avail, to the extent that they have now grown to be a mouthful of vain and futile motherhood statements. I am sure President Aquino expects very much more than that. Rampant smuggling has been with us nearly since immemorial; yet it seems to be getting worse. At least for once, given PNoy's widely acclaimed though, methinks, meaningless "straight road to governance, "the people are expecting to hear relatively more concrete action plans to curb smuggling in our midst and times. In fact, Biazon and his tribes in the Bureau are even luckier that President Aquno, whether rightly or wrongly, would rather want his unsatisfactorily performing Cabinet secretaries to realize their failures and voluntarily quit their posts than bluntly tell them to resign.
Incidentally, I am sure the Palace has its own views on this issue. And so, I am raring to hear how presidential spokesman and shock absorber, Edwin Lacierda, would react to it in due course. .
Biyernes, Nobyembre 16, 2012
MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF MOLEHILLS
With all due respect, I honestly believe those thirty or so complainants who have sued Sen. Tito Sotto III for alleged plagiarism are making a mountain out of a molehill.
They call themselves "free thinkers." No, they are not. For me, they are more of a group that delights to unknowingly display too narrow a mental landscape whenever their egos are hurt. I have always had the gut feeling that the case is just their own desperate way to get even with Sotto, whose recent privilege speeches have indeed enlightened the public as to why the RH Bill had been junked by already several past Congresses. In the looming happenstance that it is again rejected, it should be due to to the faults of no one else but these complainants'. For one, not one of them has intelligently challenged Sotto's arguments so far;
for another, the plagiarism case unnecessarily shortens the already fast diminishing session days of the lawmakers before they adjourn for the forthcoming elections. Indeed, lawyer Romulo Macalintal and the group called Responsible Internet Users for Social Empowerment (Cyber.RISE) were right in separately positing there are so many important matters the Senate may more prudently spend the people's money for, rather than hear an ethics case for an alleged plagiarism that is deemed "baseless" from the very outset.
Truly baseless because, as far as I humbly know, plagiarism validly exists only when one publicly quotes the ideas or writings of another and passes them as his own. For heaven's sake, let us be a bit objective. Suppose in a speech or a published article, one speaker ir writer says: "words are like leaves, where they most abound, much fruit of the sense beneath is rarely found," without acknowledging its original source (Was it Alexander Pope? I'm not really sure!), is there plagiarism? On the other hand, did not Sotto time and again clarify in his speeches that the arguments he had been articulating were not his own? I really find it amusing that it had to be a group of bloggers -- in turn followed by certain free-thinking kuno academicians and lawyers -- not really the true authors of the ideas Sotto had lifted from the blogs, who had filed the plagiarism suit. If I may use some metaphors, isn't that quite laughably unlike "a whip to the horse and the cow complains?" Moreover, I hate to say this but I must: the complaint, so lengthily presented, and the quotation from Pope I earlier cited truly fits each other to a "T".
Chances are, nevertheless, the ethics case against Sotto may still prosper. As my gut feel has earlier suggested, the case is just the complainants' last-ditch personal vendetta against Sotto for sending their pet bill into a moribund state. It now seems it would no longer matter to them if the bill finally dies in due course -- not one of them could so far refute Sotto's arguments, anyway -- for as long as Sotto is sanctioned. For sure, given that the bill's principal proponent in the Senate and the chair of the Senate ethics committee that will soon hear and judge Sotto's fate happen to be siblings, can one plus one amount to anything else but two? I mean, blood is thicker than water, the old saying goes -- God, knowing not who first said it, am I plagiarizing? Incidentally, the rather dim ending that I portend awaits Sotto in this case may just be one of the many unfortunate circumstances we should expect from the political dynasties in our midst and times, most particularly inside a collegial body like the Philippine Senate.
They call themselves "free thinkers." No, they are not. For me, they are more of a group that delights to unknowingly display too narrow a mental landscape whenever their egos are hurt. I have always had the gut feeling that the case is just their own desperate way to get even with Sotto, whose recent privilege speeches have indeed enlightened the public as to why the RH Bill had been junked by already several past Congresses. In the looming happenstance that it is again rejected, it should be due to to the faults of no one else but these complainants'. For one, not one of them has intelligently challenged Sotto's arguments so far;
for another, the plagiarism case unnecessarily shortens the already fast diminishing session days of the lawmakers before they adjourn for the forthcoming elections. Indeed, lawyer Romulo Macalintal and the group called Responsible Internet Users for Social Empowerment (Cyber.RISE) were right in separately positing there are so many important matters the Senate may more prudently spend the people's money for, rather than hear an ethics case for an alleged plagiarism that is deemed "baseless" from the very outset.
Truly baseless because, as far as I humbly know, plagiarism validly exists only when one publicly quotes the ideas or writings of another and passes them as his own. For heaven's sake, let us be a bit objective. Suppose in a speech or a published article, one speaker ir writer says: "words are like leaves, where they most abound, much fruit of the sense beneath is rarely found," without acknowledging its original source (Was it Alexander Pope? I'm not really sure!), is there plagiarism? On the other hand, did not Sotto time and again clarify in his speeches that the arguments he had been articulating were not his own? I really find it amusing that it had to be a group of bloggers -- in turn followed by certain free-thinking kuno academicians and lawyers -- not really the true authors of the ideas Sotto had lifted from the blogs, who had filed the plagiarism suit. If I may use some metaphors, isn't that quite laughably unlike "a whip to the horse and the cow complains?" Moreover, I hate to say this but I must: the complaint, so lengthily presented, and the quotation from Pope I earlier cited truly fits each other to a "T".
Chances are, nevertheless, the ethics case against Sotto may still prosper. As my gut feel has earlier suggested, the case is just the complainants' last-ditch personal vendetta against Sotto for sending their pet bill into a moribund state. It now seems it would no longer matter to them if the bill finally dies in due course -- not one of them could so far refute Sotto's arguments, anyway -- for as long as Sotto is sanctioned. For sure, given that the bill's principal proponent in the Senate and the chair of the Senate ethics committee that will soon hear and judge Sotto's fate happen to be siblings, can one plus one amount to anything else but two? I mean, blood is thicker than water, the old saying goes -- God, knowing not who first said it, am I plagiarizing? Incidentally, the rather dim ending that I portend awaits Sotto in this case may just be one of the many unfortunate circumstances we should expect from the political dynasties in our midst and times, most particularly inside a collegial body like the Philippine Senate.
Huwebes, Nobyembre 15, 2012
CONFUSING NUMBERS ON THE SIN TAX BILL
It is odd that the ongoing photo finish toward the passage of a Sin Tax Bill that the Palace wants has become a race not as much fueled by prudence as by sheer statistics. Odd in the sense that the figures presented by the bill's vocal advocates do vary quite wildly, one wonders where they are getting them from. Worse, some figures nearly make some readers die laughing; I mean, readers who think a bit more than merely read the newspapers.
For example, Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago -- known for vowing once upon a time to speak the truth always lest she jumped from an airplane, only to curtly say "I lied" when found exaggerating -- reports that some 87,600 Filipinos die every year from ailments attributable to smoking (PDI,10/24/2012). That is a whale of a difference from Health Secretary Enrique Ona's 50,000 annual deaths for the same reason (PDI, 9/24/2012). Ona adds that of tobacco users in the Philippines, 17.5% are girls and 28.3% are boys, aged 13-15, meaning high school freshmen, sophomores and seniors. I do not have the numbers to contest Ona on the latter, merely my plain common sense that seldom lies to me, anyway. If one swallows Ona's numbers hook, like and sinker -- in turn indicating ten such students for every class of 20 boys and 20 girls are hooked to smoking -- then our teachers in the secondary schools must be sitting on their asses in molding the youth's morale in this respect. Then, we have more of an education than a health crisis in these parts!
Unfortunately lost in the hustle and bustle of this confusing numbers game is the plain truth that our local cigarette and wine industries, combined, are only averaging a gross revenue of P250 billion per year. This validates Sen. Edgardo Angara's estimation, during a recent television interview, that they are more or less netting just about P12 billion per year. And so, with the P40-45 billion in incremental sin taxes that Sen Franklin Drilon is proposing -- down from the P60 billion the administration had originally wanted -- it no longer matters that the government is practically killing these twin industries, providing it is able to raise enough revenues to prevent next year's anticipated budget deficits. The monumental irony is -- ask Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo -- none of our living past presidents will ever assert that in their respective times they had succeeded to balance their respective budgets through newer tax legislation.
But that which had nearly left me die laughing was the revelation of a doctor in his recent article in the Inquirer titled, "Rejoinder on the 'sin tax' bill." He presented allegedly World Health Organization-sourced data indicating that every Filipino smoker consumes 1,073 sticks of cigarettes per year. Alack, I did not know that a consumption of less than three sticks of cigarettes daily is already the highest smoking record in the region. Well, "numbers do not lie," the familiar slogan goes; and so, what more can I say? But wait a minute. Can't liars also use numbers? .
For example, Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago -- known for vowing once upon a time to speak the truth always lest she jumped from an airplane, only to curtly say "I lied" when found exaggerating -- reports that some 87,600 Filipinos die every year from ailments attributable to smoking (PDI,10/24/2012). That is a whale of a difference from Health Secretary Enrique Ona's 50,000 annual deaths for the same reason (PDI, 9/24/2012). Ona adds that of tobacco users in the Philippines, 17.5% are girls and 28.3% are boys, aged 13-15, meaning high school freshmen, sophomores and seniors. I do not have the numbers to contest Ona on the latter, merely my plain common sense that seldom lies to me, anyway. If one swallows Ona's numbers hook, like and sinker -- in turn indicating ten such students for every class of 20 boys and 20 girls are hooked to smoking -- then our teachers in the secondary schools must be sitting on their asses in molding the youth's morale in this respect. Then, we have more of an education than a health crisis in these parts!
Unfortunately lost in the hustle and bustle of this confusing numbers game is the plain truth that our local cigarette and wine industries, combined, are only averaging a gross revenue of P250 billion per year. This validates Sen. Edgardo Angara's estimation, during a recent television interview, that they are more or less netting just about P12 billion per year. And so, with the P40-45 billion in incremental sin taxes that Sen Franklin Drilon is proposing -- down from the P60 billion the administration had originally wanted -- it no longer matters that the government is practically killing these twin industries, providing it is able to raise enough revenues to prevent next year's anticipated budget deficits. The monumental irony is -- ask Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo -- none of our living past presidents will ever assert that in their respective times they had succeeded to balance their respective budgets through newer tax legislation.
But that which had nearly left me die laughing was the revelation of a doctor in his recent article in the Inquirer titled, "Rejoinder on the 'sin tax' bill." He presented allegedly World Health Organization-sourced data indicating that every Filipino smoker consumes 1,073 sticks of cigarettes per year. Alack, I did not know that a consumption of less than three sticks of cigarettes daily is already the highest smoking record in the region. Well, "numbers do not lie," the familiar slogan goes; and so, what more can I say? But wait a minute. Can't liars also use numbers? .
Sabado, Nobyembre 10, 2012
A FUTILE AND STUPID PROPOSITION
Have you heard of the standing petition with the Commission on Election of the Ang Kapatiran Party to provide it with the needed forms and/or procedures to eliminate political dynasty by amending the Constitution through the People's Initiative. I don't exactly know, but based on what I see on television news, it seems to me Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes is favoring that. By the way, I know I already wrote something on this issue last Nov. 1st; Let this be Part 2 of that blog.
First off, let me lay down the related terms of reference. 1. Article II, Section 26, of the Constitution provides: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law. This simply means that for this charter provision to be feasible, Congress must pass an enabling law that principally defines "political dynasty." Of course, after close to a quarter of a century, it has not, as indeed, our lawmakers will never do that; lest, they kill the goose that, for them, virtually lays the golden eggs. 2. On the other hand, under Article XVII, Sec. 2, Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. . . .The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 3. Like in the political dynasty provision, an enabling law is also required to be passed by Congress in this connection. That enabling law is supposed to be RA No. 6735, principally authored by former Sen. Raul Roco in August 1989 and appropriately titled "The People's Initiative and Referendum Act.".
As I understand, the Ang Kapatiran Party believes that by virtue of this enabling law they may now proceed to amend the Constitution, particularly the provision on political dynasty even though the latter has yet no enabling law of its own. With all due respect, I think this undertaking is bound to be an exercise in futility.
Why? For the following reasons: First, RA No. 6735 has already been thrice rejected by the Supreme Court and declared as an insufficient enabling law for the purpose of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Second, even granting the remote happenstance that the Supreme Court may now allow 6735 to operate for the purpose of the people's initiative system of amending the charter -- and that is after the horrendous process of securing people's signatures (this was exactly where the PIRMA failed) -- I refuse to believe there is a need to amend the Constitution, specifically Sect 2, Art. II, in order to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. For one thing, isn't it simply a matter of plain common sense that the only way to amend that provision is to allow, rather than prohibit political dynasties? For another matter, the charter says political dynasty needs a law to define it, and only the Congress or our lawmakers, definitely not the people, who may do it.
But having said the above, I certainly also strongly believe that the dominance of political dynasties in our midst and times has not only kept more deserving but poor individuals from running and winning in elections; it has also enabled powerful and affluent individuals to corner appointive positions for their followers and relatives. And so, we must really eliminate this political "curse!" Despite the fact that our lawmakers will never do it, I still sincerely believe that the voice of the people is still democracy's most powerful tool. I mean, I cannot agree more with the suggestion of Neal Cruz in a recent column: Let there be a People's Movement Against Political Dynasty. And let us join our act together by not voting every political "dynast" starting with next year's elections. The process may indeed take some time, but I am sure if we will sustain and thus make what we mean loud and clear in every election, there surely is eventually going to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We have vainly waited for twenty-five years for our (dis)honorable makers to do what they must, another twenty-five years will no longer be too long.
First off, let me lay down the related terms of reference. 1. Article II, Section 26, of the Constitution provides: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law. This simply means that for this charter provision to be feasible, Congress must pass an enabling law that principally defines "political dynasty." Of course, after close to a quarter of a century, it has not, as indeed, our lawmakers will never do that; lest, they kill the goose that, for them, virtually lays the golden eggs. 2. On the other hand, under Article XVII, Sec. 2, Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. . . .The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 3. Like in the political dynasty provision, an enabling law is also required to be passed by Congress in this connection. That enabling law is supposed to be RA No. 6735, principally authored by former Sen. Raul Roco in August 1989 and appropriately titled "The People's Initiative and Referendum Act.".
As I understand, the Ang Kapatiran Party believes that by virtue of this enabling law they may now proceed to amend the Constitution, particularly the provision on political dynasty even though the latter has yet no enabling law of its own. With all due respect, I think this undertaking is bound to be an exercise in futility.
Why? For the following reasons: First, RA No. 6735 has already been thrice rejected by the Supreme Court and declared as an insufficient enabling law for the purpose of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Second, even granting the remote happenstance that the Supreme Court may now allow 6735 to operate for the purpose of the people's initiative system of amending the charter -- and that is after the horrendous process of securing people's signatures (this was exactly where the PIRMA failed) -- I refuse to believe there is a need to amend the Constitution, specifically Sect 2, Art. II, in order to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. For one thing, isn't it simply a matter of plain common sense that the only way to amend that provision is to allow, rather than prohibit political dynasties? For another matter, the charter says political dynasty needs a law to define it, and only the Congress or our lawmakers, definitely not the people, who may do it.
But having said the above, I certainly also strongly believe that the dominance of political dynasties in our midst and times has not only kept more deserving but poor individuals from running and winning in elections; it has also enabled powerful and affluent individuals to corner appointive positions for their followers and relatives. And so, we must really eliminate this political "curse!" Despite the fact that our lawmakers will never do it, I still sincerely believe that the voice of the people is still democracy's most powerful tool. I mean, I cannot agree more with the suggestion of Neal Cruz in a recent column: Let there be a People's Movement Against Political Dynasty. And let us join our act together by not voting every political "dynast" starting with next year's elections. The process may indeed take some time, but I am sure if we will sustain and thus make what we mean loud and clear in every election, there surely is eventually going to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We have vainly waited for twenty-five years for our (dis)honorable makers to do what they must, another twenty-five years will no longer be too long.
Lunes, Nobyembre 5, 2012
LET PH & CHINA SOLVE THEIR RIFT, NOT OTHERS
President Aquino, who is now in Europe, has been quoted in the news as saying he hopes the European countries would issue official statements regarding the Phil-China rift in the South China (or West Philippine) Sea. I nearly die laughing hearing that. He had the self-same expectations when he previously met with the ASEAN, all to no avail. In fairness, I do not wish to preempt what Europe has in mind about this.matter. Suffice it for me to say that whatever statement it issues is going to end up equally vain and meaningless as an instrument to settle the Phil-China dispute because the European countries, whether individually or acting together, has no authority to settle international territorial disputes. The United Nations do have that exclusive mandate. But as I wrote in a letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, published nearly ten years ago, indications are such that even the UN may have outlived its usefulness as a world peace maker.
For some historical flashbacks, the UN was originally called League of Nations, in turn formed just after the end of World War I. Yes, in its early years, the League had settled a number of disputes and prevented several wars. But those were essentially between small countries; it failed to control the Axis and Allied Powers. After Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933, the league condemned the aggression but did not impose sanctions. Japan withdrew from the league in the same year, along with Germany, which immediately began to re-arm, while Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia in 1935. The league imposed economic sanctions but allowed Italy to get the supplies it needed most, until Italy withdrew in 1937. The league expelled Russia for its 1939 aggression against Finland, but the World War II had already began. After the war, the UN had of course, some notable achievements. The first was the peaceful blockade of the Berlin Blockade in 194z5z, then it prevented the Balkan War in a947, stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and settled Indonesian-Dutch War in 1949, and ended the 1950-53 Korean War. UN efforts had also stopped or prevented a number of hostilities in the Middle East, such as between Israel and the Arab states in 1948, the total seizure of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956, and an imminent and otherwise bigger Middle East Conflict in 1967. The UN, however, failed to prevent the Vietnam War and the advance of Russian tanks during the Hungary revolt in 1956. One recalls that it was not the UN but a steadfast John F. Kennedy that had forced an arrogant Nikita Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Crisis of 1962. Now, in relatively more modern times, we have the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan hostilities, the Libya and Syria crises. Given this, the conclusion is not altogether baseless that the UN and the League of Nations had been good only at preventing petty wars, not when the world superpowers are involved.
Now, why am I re-narrating all of these? Ah, simply to bring to the fore my own personal opinion that the ongoing territorial dispute between China and the Philippines inside the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, if you wish) cannot be solved even with the involvement of the UN, very much less of the ASEAN and the European countries, which President Aquino now appears to relying on. Even the participation of the initially much ballyhooed UNCLOS will be useless since that international court of justice may only hear disputes where both contending parties jointly submit themselves to voluntary arbitration -- and China has time and again very resolutely junked that alternative. Neither may the Philippines rely upon the United States by virtue of the so-called Mutual Defense Country between the two countries. For one thing, if one looks more deeply into that treaty, he will be surprised that it covered only mutual defense inside the Pacific Region, and the West Philippine Sea is outside of that.
Methinks only a continuing bilateral -- repeat, bilateral, now multilateral -- diplomacy could help the Philippine cause. One recalls, for example, that prior to April 12 this year, both countries had more or less been jointly exploiting the Scarborough Shoal in relative peace. Prudence should probably dictate for the Philippines to find out the reason for China's suddenly hostile attitude, and to objectively discuss that with China, and with China alone. But let it be done only by our Foreign Affairs Department only, without such back-channeling as has been recently, and initially secretly, undertaken by Sen. Trillanes at Aquino's behest.
I must admit, I have had no experience in foreign affairs to say all of these with authority. I earnestly believe though that I am talking from the standpoint of plain common sense. And that, in my view, is the very first foundation of reason.
For some historical flashbacks, the UN was originally called League of Nations, in turn formed just after the end of World War I. Yes, in its early years, the League had settled a number of disputes and prevented several wars. But those were essentially between small countries; it failed to control the Axis and Allied Powers. After Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933, the league condemned the aggression but did not impose sanctions. Japan withdrew from the league in the same year, along with Germany, which immediately began to re-arm, while Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia in 1935. The league imposed economic sanctions but allowed Italy to get the supplies it needed most, until Italy withdrew in 1937. The league expelled Russia for its 1939 aggression against Finland, but the World War II had already began. After the war, the UN had of course, some notable achievements. The first was the peaceful blockade of the Berlin Blockade in 194z5z, then it prevented the Balkan War in a947, stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and settled Indonesian-Dutch War in 1949, and ended the 1950-53 Korean War. UN efforts had also stopped or prevented a number of hostilities in the Middle East, such as between Israel and the Arab states in 1948, the total seizure of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956, and an imminent and otherwise bigger Middle East Conflict in 1967. The UN, however, failed to prevent the Vietnam War and the advance of Russian tanks during the Hungary revolt in 1956. One recalls that it was not the UN but a steadfast John F. Kennedy that had forced an arrogant Nikita Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Crisis of 1962. Now, in relatively more modern times, we have the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan hostilities, the Libya and Syria crises. Given this, the conclusion is not altogether baseless that the UN and the League of Nations had been good only at preventing petty wars, not when the world superpowers are involved.
Now, why am I re-narrating all of these? Ah, simply to bring to the fore my own personal opinion that the ongoing territorial dispute between China and the Philippines inside the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, if you wish) cannot be solved even with the involvement of the UN, very much less of the ASEAN and the European countries, which President Aquino now appears to relying on. Even the participation of the initially much ballyhooed UNCLOS will be useless since that international court of justice may only hear disputes where both contending parties jointly submit themselves to voluntary arbitration -- and China has time and again very resolutely junked that alternative. Neither may the Philippines rely upon the United States by virtue of the so-called Mutual Defense Country between the two countries. For one thing, if one looks more deeply into that treaty, he will be surprised that it covered only mutual defense inside the Pacific Region, and the West Philippine Sea is outside of that.
Methinks only a continuing bilateral -- repeat, bilateral, now multilateral -- diplomacy could help the Philippine cause. One recalls, for example, that prior to April 12 this year, both countries had more or less been jointly exploiting the Scarborough Shoal in relative peace. Prudence should probably dictate for the Philippines to find out the reason for China's suddenly hostile attitude, and to objectively discuss that with China, and with China alone. But let it be done only by our Foreign Affairs Department only, without such back-channeling as has been recently, and initially secretly, undertaken by Sen. Trillanes at Aquino's behest.
I must admit, I have had no experience in foreign affairs to say all of these with authority. I earnestly believe though that I am talking from the standpoint of plain common sense. And that, in my view, is the very first foundation of reason.
Biyernes, Nobyembre 2, 2012
A LEADER WITHOUT SELF-DISCIPLINE
My repugnance went deep down into my bones on reading the case of a UST graduate who was abducted and murdered apparently due to no reason at all except drugs. Indeed, I cannot find a stronger word to express my disgust : imagine stabbing a helpless young lady close to fifty times. And so, I have now opted, at least for once, to use mostly Pilipino in this particular blog. Mas magaling kasi ako sa Pilipino kesa sa English, siyempre naman!
Maitanong ko nga, to begin with? Ano na nga ba ang ating ginagawa sa kasalukuyang panahon to solve the continung menace of drugs in our midst? Di ko maiwasang di maalaala si Marcos, noong panahong di pa kasing-lala ang ating problema sa drugs na kagaya ngayon. Di ba't iyong isang Intsik na napatunayang drug dealer ay ipinabaril ni Marcos sa Luneta? Di ba't for a long-long while after that ay nawala ang drugs sa ating kapaligiran. Ngayon, ano naman ang ginawa natin ngayong mas marami - repeat, marami, hindi iisa lang -- na drug pushers ang nahuli at nahatulan na ng bitay sa Tsina? Aba'y hndi baga't inutusan ng gobierno si VP Binay na magtungo sa Tsina at maglumuhod doon para huwag bitayin ang mga Pilipinong drug pushers -- na, of course, ay hindi naman pinagbigyan? Aba'y talaga bang hindi tayo magkaroon ng kaunting disiplina na tulad ng sa Tsina para putulin ang ugat ng bawa't mali sa ating paligid. Alas, it's unfortunate that we are instead continuing to denouce Marcos' times! This somehow calls to mind what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu told to Ramos in their respective times: "You have too much democracy in this country!" To which Ramos simply kept silent.
Ngayon, ang higit na pinag-aabalahan ng gobierno ay ang alak at sigarilyo. Bakit nga ba? Aba'y dahil sa "sin taxes" kuno na kaakibat ng dalawang produktong ito. Wala kasi tayong iniintindi kundi puro newer and additional taxes, even as we continue to incur snowballing budget deficits year after year. Ang alam ko sa newer tax legislaton, ito ay paraan upang mapababa ang budget deficit ng isang bansa. Pero alin na bang new tax laws ang naka-solve ng ating problemang iyan. Di ba, we vowed to solve that when we first imposed the 10% Vat in Cory's time. We did not solve it! Then we included in the VAT electricity and petroleum products that the people daily consume -- which should not have been because there is no "value added" in their transactions. Wala rin, bokya pa rin tayo sa ating budget performance. Then we increased VAT to 12% -- indeed the highest in the region -- Bokya pa rin. Ngayon ay alak naman at sigarilyo ang ating pinagtutuunan. It is well settled that cigarettes and wines are bad for the health, hence there is the so-called "sin taxes." But as Cory said in her times, "tama na, pag sobra na." And truth to tell, to tax these products by an additional 907%, according to news reports, ay talang sobra na. If taxing the local cigarette and wine industry which only nets about P12-billion in profits per year -- that's according to Sen. Angara -- by an additional, repeat: additional, P60-billion annually is not the height of legislative stupidity, I do not know what is! And far more stupid it becomes given that Congress recommends only P33-billion, but the Aquino government wants P60-billion. What an insatiable greed for tax. Not only that, the P60-billion has already been included in the government's budget of more two trillon yata for 2013, even as continuing debates on it still continue in the Senate.Sana, kung ano ang sigasig nating itakwil ang alak at sigarilyo sa ating lipunan, gayon din ang maging sigasig nating ibasura ang drugs, which we all know, have been the root cause of manifold crimes in our midst and times.
Incidentally, sabi ni Pangulong Aquino, humigit kumulang: "I am for taxing cgarettes and wines to extinction but I cannot stop my smoking habit!" Ano ba namang klaseng pananalita ito ng isang naturingang Presidente ng bansa? Hindi iilan sa atin -- let's admit -- ang nakuhang makapag-alis ng pagsisigarilyo through sheer self-discipline? So, wala palang self-discipline si Aquino to remove his smoking habit, nay, smoking vice pala! We all know that self-discipline is among the essential attributes of effective leadership. Aba'y if the President cannot discipline himself into eliminating a vice that is as simple as smoking, how can the nation expect him to discipline those under him into following his much ballyhooed anti-corruption and "tuwid na daan" advocacies?
Naku, some of my readers may once again accuse me of being extremely anti-PNoy because of what I say. No, I'm not. I voted for him in 2010. It's just that medyo sising-alipin ako sa botong iyon, kahit na alam kong even if I had NOT voted for him he would have easily won just the same. At any rate, my hopes still run high he would learn to perform better before his term expires. 'Yan lang naman talaga ang tangining magagawa natin, hindi ba?
Maitanong ko nga, to begin with? Ano na nga ba ang ating ginagawa sa kasalukuyang panahon to solve the continung menace of drugs in our midst? Di ko maiwasang di maalaala si Marcos, noong panahong di pa kasing-lala ang ating problema sa drugs na kagaya ngayon. Di ba't iyong isang Intsik na napatunayang drug dealer ay ipinabaril ni Marcos sa Luneta? Di ba't for a long-long while after that ay nawala ang drugs sa ating kapaligiran. Ngayon, ano naman ang ginawa natin ngayong mas marami - repeat, marami, hindi iisa lang -- na drug pushers ang nahuli at nahatulan na ng bitay sa Tsina? Aba'y hndi baga't inutusan ng gobierno si VP Binay na magtungo sa Tsina at maglumuhod doon para huwag bitayin ang mga Pilipinong drug pushers -- na, of course, ay hindi naman pinagbigyan? Aba'y talaga bang hindi tayo magkaroon ng kaunting disiplina na tulad ng sa Tsina para putulin ang ugat ng bawa't mali sa ating paligid. Alas, it's unfortunate that we are instead continuing to denouce Marcos' times! This somehow calls to mind what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu told to Ramos in their respective times: "You have too much democracy in this country!" To which Ramos simply kept silent.
Ngayon, ang higit na pinag-aabalahan ng gobierno ay ang alak at sigarilyo. Bakit nga ba? Aba'y dahil sa "sin taxes" kuno na kaakibat ng dalawang produktong ito. Wala kasi tayong iniintindi kundi puro newer and additional taxes, even as we continue to incur snowballing budget deficits year after year. Ang alam ko sa newer tax legislaton, ito ay paraan upang mapababa ang budget deficit ng isang bansa. Pero alin na bang new tax laws ang naka-solve ng ating problemang iyan. Di ba, we vowed to solve that when we first imposed the 10% Vat in Cory's time. We did not solve it! Then we included in the VAT electricity and petroleum products that the people daily consume -- which should not have been because there is no "value added" in their transactions. Wala rin, bokya pa rin tayo sa ating budget performance. Then we increased VAT to 12% -- indeed the highest in the region -- Bokya pa rin. Ngayon ay alak naman at sigarilyo ang ating pinagtutuunan. It is well settled that cigarettes and wines are bad for the health, hence there is the so-called "sin taxes." But as Cory said in her times, "tama na, pag sobra na." And truth to tell, to tax these products by an additional 907%, according to news reports, ay talang sobra na. If taxing the local cigarette and wine industry which only nets about P12-billion in profits per year -- that's according to Sen. Angara -- by an additional, repeat: additional, P60-billion annually is not the height of legislative stupidity, I do not know what is! And far more stupid it becomes given that Congress recommends only P33-billion, but the Aquino government wants P60-billion. What an insatiable greed for tax. Not only that, the P60-billion has already been included in the government's budget of more two trillon yata for 2013, even as continuing debates on it still continue in the Senate.Sana, kung ano ang sigasig nating itakwil ang alak at sigarilyo sa ating lipunan, gayon din ang maging sigasig nating ibasura ang drugs, which we all know, have been the root cause of manifold crimes in our midst and times.
Incidentally, sabi ni Pangulong Aquino, humigit kumulang: "I am for taxing cgarettes and wines to extinction but I cannot stop my smoking habit!" Ano ba namang klaseng pananalita ito ng isang naturingang Presidente ng bansa? Hindi iilan sa atin -- let's admit -- ang nakuhang makapag-alis ng pagsisigarilyo through sheer self-discipline? So, wala palang self-discipline si Aquino to remove his smoking habit, nay, smoking vice pala! We all know that self-discipline is among the essential attributes of effective leadership. Aba'y if the President cannot discipline himself into eliminating a vice that is as simple as smoking, how can the nation expect him to discipline those under him into following his much ballyhooed anti-corruption and "tuwid na daan" advocacies?
Naku, some of my readers may once again accuse me of being extremely anti-PNoy because of what I say. No, I'm not. I voted for him in 2010. It's just that medyo sising-alipin ako sa botong iyon, kahit na alam kong even if I had NOT voted for him he would have easily won just the same. At any rate, my hopes still run high he would learn to perform better before his term expires. 'Yan lang naman talaga ang tangining magagawa natin, hindi ba?
Huwebes, Nobyembre 1, 2012
ONLY PEOPLE'S VOTE MAY KILL POLITICAL DYNASTY
Neal Cruz was certainly right: "PNoy, Una's Trinity Killing Constitution." Indeed, it's not only Neal Cruz but several other columnists and opinion makers are saying the senatorial candidates of both the Liberal Party and Binay-Erap's UNa, best indicates the grim truth that political dynasty, which the Constitution prohibits reigns supreme in our midst and times.
The big problem is these opinion makers are only good at shouting their protest to the four winds. In other words, they are only good in saying, never in doing what they are supposed to do. As a matter of fact, there is reason to believe some of them may be voting for political-dynasty candidates in the coming elections.
For me, people like them are good for nothing hypocrites!
I still believe that the people's voice in an election is still the most powerful tool of democracy. Why, then, can't we, who keep shouting we abhor political dynasty, join our votes and voices together and vote against candidates with the same names or belonging to the same clan or family? I know we may not necessarily win soon enough, it will really take a much longer process, to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. But that is certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I realize that when I go to the polls to vote for new senators, my own vote is going to be a voice in the wilderness. But I will definitely NOT vote for Allan Peter Cayetano, JV Estrada-Ejercito, Jack Enrile, Villar, Bam Aquino, the Magsaysays, and Tingting Cojuangco. Neither may I vote for Grace Poe Llamanzares (even if FPJ was my idol), Loren Legards and Chiz Escudero, UNLESS they decide which party they belong to: PNoy's LP-NP coalition or Binay-Estrada's UNA. To vote for these three are not unlike betting "BAKLAY" in beto-beto or jueteng, from which, in turn, the word "BAKLA" came from.
As I said, I know some of these names are still likely to win in 2013. I don't care! 'Yan namang eleksyon -- para sa akin, ewan ko sa inyo --ay hindi isang sugal. Ala eh, sino na ga sa atin ang nakinabang diyan? For me, again ewan ko sa inyo, eleksyon is the voters' only remaining tool to at least hope for a change in existing governance. Aba'y kung hindi ko pa naman magamit ang tool na ito nang TAMA, aba'y di we the people become as equally good for nothing as the people and the policies in government that we condemn. To put it more bluntly, I dont want to be a hypocrite by continuing to denounce political dynasty but voting into office
people who are members of a political dynasty. Indeed, in a situation where our so called (dis)honorable lawmakers will never pass the need enabling law to effectively curb political dynasty, then only the people's votes may hope to kill it -- maybe not now, but sooner or later -- in the same way that there is always a light at the end of the darkest tunnel. As I recall Henry Wadsworth Longfellow saying in his "A Psalm of Life," what matters most is we "learn to labor and to wait."
The big problem is these opinion makers are only good at shouting their protest to the four winds. In other words, they are only good in saying, never in doing what they are supposed to do. As a matter of fact, there is reason to believe some of them may be voting for political-dynasty candidates in the coming elections.
For me, people like them are good for nothing hypocrites!
I still believe that the people's voice in an election is still the most powerful tool of democracy. Why, then, can't we, who keep shouting we abhor political dynasty, join our votes and voices together and vote against candidates with the same names or belonging to the same clan or family? I know we may not necessarily win soon enough, it will really take a much longer process, to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. But that is certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I realize that when I go to the polls to vote for new senators, my own vote is going to be a voice in the wilderness. But I will definitely NOT vote for Allan Peter Cayetano, JV Estrada-Ejercito, Jack Enrile, Villar, Bam Aquino, the Magsaysays, and Tingting Cojuangco. Neither may I vote for Grace Poe Llamanzares (even if FPJ was my idol), Loren Legards and Chiz Escudero, UNLESS they decide which party they belong to: PNoy's LP-NP coalition or Binay-Estrada's UNA. To vote for these three are not unlike betting "BAKLAY" in beto-beto or jueteng, from which, in turn, the word "BAKLA" came from.
As I said, I know some of these names are still likely to win in 2013. I don't care! 'Yan namang eleksyon -- para sa akin, ewan ko sa inyo --ay hindi isang sugal. Ala eh, sino na ga sa atin ang nakinabang diyan? For me, again ewan ko sa inyo, eleksyon is the voters' only remaining tool to at least hope for a change in existing governance. Aba'y kung hindi ko pa naman magamit ang tool na ito nang TAMA, aba'y di we the people become as equally good for nothing as the people and the policies in government that we condemn. To put it more bluntly, I dont want to be a hypocrite by continuing to denounce political dynasty but voting into office
people who are members of a political dynasty. Indeed, in a situation where our so called (dis)honorable lawmakers will never pass the need enabling law to effectively curb political dynasty, then only the people's votes may hope to kill it -- maybe not now, but sooner or later -- in the same way that there is always a light at the end of the darkest tunnel. As I recall Henry Wadsworth Longfellow saying in his "A Psalm of Life," what matters most is we "learn to labor and to wait."
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)