Trivialities
There is one Congress of the Philippines and what do we see in the news? Lawmakers wasting their time on trivialities instead of taking action.
Declaring October as Anti-Corruption Month? Why just October? Why not, "♪ Enero, Febrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo, Hulyo, Agosto, Setyembre, Oktobre, Nobyembre, Disyembre, Lubi-Lubi ♪!"
Why not all 12 months?! You really make me laugh.
Has it become a typical pastime of lawmakers to declare months as this and that? Do you not have other important matters to attend to? Leave those blasted declarations to the Executive Branch and pass bills of crucial importance such as Agrarian Reform, Judicial Compensation Reform, Presidential Succession, Taxation Reform, and amendments to the Labor and Omnibus Election Code (to name a few)!
Why do you waste precious deliberation time on such petty matter?
Baloney
The premise that declaring October as an Anti-Corruption Month, and mandating "all heads of government agencies and instrumentalities to conduct activities that promote public awareness" will help the Filipino people become "informed and vigilant" citizens is absolute baloney.
Let me be clear on this: the bill will mandate government officials who refuse to acknowledge, apathetic to, and involved in corruption to act as fountains of virtue? More so, the same group of people will create programs to INSTRUCT the citizenry on how not to be corrupt?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Are you out of your mind?
IT IS BETTER TO ASK ROBBERS AND THIEVES TO TEACH THEIR VICTIMS NOT TO STEAL THAN PASS SUCH LAW, DIMWIT!
Why It does not Work that Way
The passage of such trivial laws testifies to the ineptness of some of the members of the government institution in which the Philippine Constitution granted considerable power and authority.
More so, it reveals the flaw of a political tradition that extols virtuous rule, a way of political thinking which have governed their lives since before they were born.
To a people under such condition, politicians with the best moral background are best to rule. Once politicians turn "corrupt," the people seek the next "good" politician to lead the nation.
Well, a republican democracy that does not work that way. The principle of checks and balances through the separation of powers only works if the fundamental premise revolves around the belief that all politicians are ambitious and self-seeking.
Ergo, a politican's incessant desire for fame and status ought to be contained by public censure; their hunger for wealth and fear of losing the ability to "have more" must be by discouraged by the putrid smells and crampness of Philippine jails; and their thirst to maintain and seek power regardless of the consequence must be quenched by the fear of losing it.
And only citizens that participate on our democratic processes, who demands that their voices be heard, who ensures that each and every politician is held accountable for his action can make these things happen.
Individuals whose mouthpiece and usual thought are, cooperation is key, criticism makes it worse and this politician can be good usually carry the disease of being more of a CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER BUT NOT A CITIZEN.
They (those consumers & customers) carry the disease of transferring all political responsibilities in the hands of politicians (a precursor to and tendency of aristocracy). Trusting in the supposed "goodness" of politicians they elected, they surrender their membership in the public realm, making them individuals incapable of assuming the burden and duty of citizenship.
Those individuals are no better than slaves whose lives are governed by the pleasure that the fruits of their labor produce and the things that their hands have made: a constant cycle of never-ending toil and happiness based upon their material creation.
Support the Decriminalization of Libel or Reduce fines of Lèse Majesté Laws
If one is really serious in attempting to reign in corruption, then one must allow the highest realization of accountability.
Dear lawmaker, if indeed you really wish the reduction of corruption, if not its elimination, then promote transparency by removing barriers imposed by lèse majesté, a concept devoid of democratic foundations, and hiding in the guise of and protected by libel laws.
Tyrants, ancient, medieval, and modern, abuse its use to justify their repressive acts to the detriment of liberty, freedom of expression and speech.
As James Madison, one of the architects of the concept of Checks and Balances through the Separation of Powers Principle, the political theory in which the federal government of the United States is based, surmised, the greatest threat to government abuse and indiscretion (i.e., corruption) is an effective system in which each government branch can mind each other's business.
But who shall mind the branches of government, beyond each other? And the entire government, who shall hold it accountable?
That prerogative remains, my dear lawmakers, as always, in the hands of and forever belongs to the Filipino people, your Sovereign.
Having no difference from stripping citizens of their inherent right to scrutinize government acts, libel laws discourage accountability in the form of speech acts by citizens (however politically correct they may be) such as internet & newspaper articles, blogs, etc.
Politicians should not be afraid of any kind of media if it is not based on facts, unless Philippine politicians think that the Filipino people are idiots and cannot distinguish lies from truth.
By actively doing nothing to amend Philippine lèse majesté laws, you protect government officials who commit graft and corruption, and become one of the corrupt. By turning a blind eye on the effects of this draconian law to freedom of speech, you become part of the problem, not of the solution.
Do not think we are not watching. Sovereign power belongs to the people. It would do you, politicians, well to remember that.
~
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Public Appropriations 101: Where to and not to Spend Public Money
In Philippines politics, one of the most bizarre phenomena (but also unabashedly common) amongst politicians is the appropriation of public money in things that has nothing to do with public expenditures.
But what is public expenditure? How does public expenditure differ from other "release of funds" from government coffers? Are there institutional mechanisms which must take place, processes to be followed, or approvals to be gained before public funds may be released?
Public expenditure is defined as money spent (or used) for the public good. Public good, on the other hand, refers to anything that benefits the public; it also pertains to acts performed on its behalf; examples are constructions of public infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and school buildings (to name a few); salaries of government employees because these employees provide crucial public service; it also includes local and national governments buying private property under just compensation provisions in the Philippine Constitution.
The bottomline of public expenditure is any government spending where the people is the exlusive beneficiary. The ones who appropriated the funds, the ones who hold the funds, and the ones who released public funds are NOT to benefit from it. No exemptions.
Government officials involved in the authorization of government spending may PRUDENTLY claim credit for being INSTRUMENTAL in releasing public funds to a certain extent; remember, appropriating public funds is your duty in the first place; it is not something to brag about because it is expected of you to do just that, nothing more. If one understands the meaning of the Tagalog word kawanggawa, I am sure one wuld not be foolish enough to consider it as "beyond the call of duty."
e.g., Events between Private & Public Schools
But what about spending on things that may be considered quasi-public good? Let us discuss, for example, graduation expenses in public schools. Parents are supposed to contribute money for the event; depending on how LAVISH the graduation ceremony would be, I must remind parents that their expectations must be equal to the amount of money they themselves will contribute.
It sounds fair, does it not?
The government ought not to collext taxes (and as far as I know, does not do so) to spend on expensive graduations and pageantries, taxes that could be better spent on books, class materials, and fixing dilapidated or building new school buildings.
Indeed, I have never heard that taxpayers money in the Philippines pay for graduation ceremonies and pageantries; PTAs are still in charge of gathering such sums from private donations. If those money came from government officials, then that is illegal especially if it came from government coffers.
I am sure I need not explain why graduation expenses in private schools have nothing to do with public spending. The circumstance is self-explanatory enough.
But what about in events where public and private schools are involved? In general, the amount of public spending for such occasion must be proportional to the level of participation by public schools. In an ideal setting, the extent of funding is primarily measured by the number of students with indigent status WHO CANNOT AFFORD to pay their contributions, that is, to the extent in which it is the case that no other source exists, but the government.
This means that parents with children in public schools who can afford contributions must do so.
Parents should not be uptight when it comes to contributing for the sake of their offsprings. After all, what would you not do for them? Do you not wish the best for your children? Then why do you, those who can afford to give, rely on government funds: funds that can be diverted away from those who are much in need than yourselves?
I find it strange that parents complain that there is not enough public funding during school events when they themselves can contribute. Of course, this does not apply to poor families, which public funding must obviously cover.
It is given that, even though public schools are open to anyone, it is more likely for families with low income earnings to send their children to public schools; hence, when events that involve private and public schools are held, public funding may be released TO A CERTAIN EXTENT; releasing public funds must be based on the number of indigent public school students participating.
Corruption
If one claims the government has enough funds and that corruption is the reason why there are not enough funds, then pray tell, when was the last time you scrutinized public funding by actually demanding from officials whom you elected how (in what manner) they spent public money?
Perhaps, you should ask elected officials when and where was it spent; or simply, where are the records for such spending?
Where could it be?
Since you claim that you knew there was corruption, WHY DID YOU NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? Even in petitioning the government to redress your grievances, are you so helpless that you cannot even make your voice heard?
Surely, having known corruption is the problem, one has tried to inquire and make them account? Or are you just plain cowards who keep your mouths shut in fear of those whom you elected?
Perhaps you deserve to be lied upon because you allow yourself to be lied upon.
THOU SHALL NOT of Public Spending
Public funds may not be used:
(1) for funerals unless (a) the person has contributed to the public good in a recurring or constant manner, (b) the name of the town / city / province / nation is acknowledged as the source of the tribute, not any elected or other government official. Elected and other government officials who wish to use their names may send their personal tributes in their own capacity, using their own money.
(2) for tarpaulins informing the public of publicly-funded programs and projects, which emphasize the face and name of elected officials than actual public information such as when a project will be completed, disruptions caused by such projects, or hours of a public program. Elected officials, local and national, ought to be ashamed that their faces are bigger than the information which the public must know. It becomes so obvious how corrupt a political culture of a certain country is, even with this simple but usually ignored signs.
More to come on the THOU SHALL NOT...
~
But what is public expenditure? How does public expenditure differ from other "release of funds" from government coffers? Are there institutional mechanisms which must take place, processes to be followed, or approvals to be gained before public funds may be released?
Public expenditure is defined as money spent (or used) for the public good. Public good, on the other hand, refers to anything that benefits the public; it also pertains to acts performed on its behalf; examples are constructions of public infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and school buildings (to name a few); salaries of government employees because these employees provide crucial public service; it also includes local and national governments buying private property under just compensation provisions in the Philippine Constitution.
The bottomline of public expenditure is any government spending where the people is the exlusive beneficiary. The ones who appropriated the funds, the ones who hold the funds, and the ones who released public funds are NOT to benefit from it. No exemptions.
Government officials involved in the authorization of government spending may PRUDENTLY claim credit for being INSTRUMENTAL in releasing public funds to a certain extent; remember, appropriating public funds is your duty in the first place; it is not something to brag about because it is expected of you to do just that, nothing more. If one understands the meaning of the Tagalog word kawanggawa, I am sure one wuld not be foolish enough to consider it as "beyond the call of duty."
e.g., Events between Private & Public Schools
But what about spending on things that may be considered quasi-public good? Let us discuss, for example, graduation expenses in public schools. Parents are supposed to contribute money for the event; depending on how LAVISH the graduation ceremony would be, I must remind parents that their expectations must be equal to the amount of money they themselves will contribute.
It sounds fair, does it not?
The government ought not to collext taxes (and as far as I know, does not do so) to spend on expensive graduations and pageantries, taxes that could be better spent on books, class materials, and fixing dilapidated or building new school buildings.
Indeed, I have never heard that taxpayers money in the Philippines pay for graduation ceremonies and pageantries; PTAs are still in charge of gathering such sums from private donations. If those money came from government officials, then that is illegal especially if it came from government coffers.
I am sure I need not explain why graduation expenses in private schools have nothing to do with public spending. The circumstance is self-explanatory enough.
But what about in events where public and private schools are involved? In general, the amount of public spending for such occasion must be proportional to the level of participation by public schools. In an ideal setting, the extent of funding is primarily measured by the number of students with indigent status WHO CANNOT AFFORD to pay their contributions, that is, to the extent in which it is the case that no other source exists, but the government.
This means that parents with children in public schools who can afford contributions must do so.
Parents should not be uptight when it comes to contributing for the sake of their offsprings. After all, what would you not do for them? Do you not wish the best for your children? Then why do you, those who can afford to give, rely on government funds: funds that can be diverted away from those who are much in need than yourselves?
I find it strange that parents complain that there is not enough public funding during school events when they themselves can contribute. Of course, this does not apply to poor families, which public funding must obviously cover.
It is given that, even though public schools are open to anyone, it is more likely for families with low income earnings to send their children to public schools; hence, when events that involve private and public schools are held, public funding may be released TO A CERTAIN EXTENT; releasing public funds must be based on the number of indigent public school students participating.
Corruption
If one claims the government has enough funds and that corruption is the reason why there are not enough funds, then pray tell, when was the last time you scrutinized public funding by actually demanding from officials whom you elected how (in what manner) they spent public money?
Perhaps, you should ask elected officials when and where was it spent; or simply, where are the records for such spending?
Where could it be?
Since you claim that you knew there was corruption, WHY DID YOU NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? Even in petitioning the government to redress your grievances, are you so helpless that you cannot even make your voice heard?
Surely, having known corruption is the problem, one has tried to inquire and make them account? Or are you just plain cowards who keep your mouths shut in fear of those whom you elected?
Perhaps you deserve to be lied upon because you allow yourself to be lied upon.
THOU SHALL NOT of Public Spending
Public funds may not be used:
(1) for funerals unless (a) the person has contributed to the public good in a recurring or constant manner, (b) the name of the town / city / province / nation is acknowledged as the source of the tribute, not any elected or other government official. Elected and other government officials who wish to use their names may send their personal tributes in their own capacity, using their own money.
(2) for tarpaulins informing the public of publicly-funded programs and projects, which emphasize the face and name of elected officials than actual public information such as when a project will be completed, disruptions caused by such projects, or hours of a public program. Elected officials, local and national, ought to be ashamed that their faces are bigger than the information which the public must know. It becomes so obvious how corrupt a political culture of a certain country is, even with this simple but usually ignored signs.
More to come on the THOU SHALL NOT...
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)