It is said that money can buy anything.
But given the current situation at hand, it would be more accurate to say that that holds true, if one would exclude money's buying power when it comes to purchasing renewed confidence in a weakened financial system.
To make it worse, it seems investing more money alone cannot induce more trust in the credit system.
Just as it is foolish to argue that the mind can be harnessed to solve a psychological illness given that the source of the problem is coming from the brain itself, I find it quite similar when it comes to literally pumping money being the main factor in solving a global financial meltdown.
It has been projected that the public debt of the United States will reach to new unchartered heights - pass beyond 10 trillion dollars - which is at least 72 % of the U.S. GDP (PPP 2007).
If the United States was a developing country, the IMF would already be breeding around our necks demanding structural adjustments which meant: reducing fiscal spending, striving for a balanced budget, increased privatization of government-owned and controlled equities, and liberalization of trade policies.
But it is not. The credit of the United states is the first guarantor of global financial transactions, using its supposed financial and political stability as its main assets; indeed, managers within the international banking system sleep well knowing that Uncle Sam would come to the rescue when the time comes, just as Don Quixote would rescue his Dulcinea; and last but not the least, sovereign states with growing economic potential invest in U.S. securities like salt water in the ocean.
So, how can the U.S. think that it is not invincible? Outside advice, past experience, dependence to external volatility, and common sense might have dissuade a typical country from pursuing the path of relatively extreme laissez-faire capitalism in terms of allowing the growth of fairly unchartered markets such as high-earning speculative hedge fund investments and the derivatives market, unsullied by federal regulation.
Now, one of the few promises we here from U.S. presidential candidates, democrat or republican, in terms of "fixing" the U.S. economy are regulation, regulation, and regulation. To them, the invisible hand is too slow to react and to reach equilibrium meant a turtle like return towards previous economic levels.
The American public is on a rampage because the U.S. Congress has bailed out public and private financial institutions, of which some corporate leaders may have contributed to the financial meltdown but none the less received hefty bonuses while the common folk still have to brace the impact of the financial calamity to trickle down upon themselves. The thought of a complete breakdown in the U.S. credit system, which tremendously affect how business is done in the U.S., have forced lawmakers to find a political solution to the economic problem, even in the midst of protests, for indeed the worst may come had such solution not been approved.
The question is, if such is the case, is there really an invisible hand and if there is, should one believed that it is self-repairing? Like the human immune system, are there limits to its capacity and if there is, what are they?
Well, whatever they are, many economists believe that time and more regulations are needed to solve this crisis in the financial system, in addition to the considerable amount of money already being infused. But the fact remains that the more regulation in the financial system, the more the existence of this invisible hand is less convincing.
In any case, the status quo in the global financial system is about to change. Full faith in the credit of the United States, although wavering but never the less steady, would remain the biggest insurer and holder of wealth for the forseeable future.
However, the ability of the United States to convince other countries to pursue unhindered liberal market reforms, through the IMF and other international financial institutions, would be seriously questioned especially by those from the East Asian Region.
The call for a creation of an Asian Monetary Fund as well as IMF's current advisory tendency during these troubled times, as opposed to a global institution with formidable lending capacity, in addition to the combined and coordinated monetary efforts by sovereign central banks to ease current interest rates, are signs of a paradigm shift in the balance of economic power which is moving towards a multi-polar world economic order.
Indeed, the time for state capitalism is nigh.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
How to Quickly Destroy the Credibility of ASEAN and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC): The Preah Vihear Temple Border Dispute
Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia states that the signatories of the pact,
shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :
a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;
b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;
c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;
e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;
f. Effective cooperation among themselves. *
In a matter of 10 months, Cambodia and Thailand have embarked towards a journey that could discredit a vital instrument of peace within the Southeast Asian region and the path taken by both sides can possibly cause ASEAN to lose face in the eyes of the international community.
The border dispute surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area is indeed a matter of national pride and security for both countries and must be approached from the perspective of cool-headed diplomacy; indeed, the issue must be taken away from the rhetoric of national and military leaders that could undermine not only Thai-Cambodian relations, but the stability and credibility of ASEAN as a successful and functioning institutional mechanism for dispute resolution.
Need the two countries be reminded that as signatories to the Southeast Asian regional peace treaty, ASEAN could become a laughingstock among interregional governmental organizations for its failure to neutralize or even reduce the tensions that could lead to a territorial conflict between Cambodia and Thailand?
Indeed, the policy-makers of the two countries ought to remember that the prevailing reason for ASEAN integration is that countries within the region acknowledge that peaceful cooperation is necessary for the notion of a regional identity and stability to prosper and progress.
The question now presented is can ASEAN move forward to the vision of a cultural, economic, and (possibly) political community if member states are unable to shed their extreme nationalistic attitudes towards territorial issues at the expense of pursuing regionalism?
Reducing barriers to free trade, setting up a regional socio-economic community with a binding legal charter, and announcing to the world the birth of the ASEAN way and identity are meaningless and miniscule achievements if the regional integrity of ASEAN is undermined by this long-standing border dispute, an issue which could lead to an unthinkable disintegration.
Simply put, if you want to cut ties with family, make sure to claim each other's real estate property and instead of exhausting the advise and council of fellow family members to settle the property dispute amicably, keep making threats that could further escalate the situation.
Thus, Preah Vihear, in a political sense, reflects the serious flaws of regional confederational governments when the issue of national territory becomes involved and where sovereign entities may take the path of reverberating back towards the isolationist cave of nationalism.
To encourage internal strife within the region in order to defend the integrity of the national territory, however significant such territorial issues may be to a particular nation, is a failure of national leadership, and its inability to coordinate policies within the context of regional consultation and consensus.
It must be noted that the issue of Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines, not to mention the issue of Spratly Islands between China and a significant number of ASEAN countries, should have been a good example for Cambodia and Thailand to suspend territorial issues for the sake of regional stability and harmony.
Also, the facts attest to the issue of the border dispute as already decided through international judicial arbitration; indeed, for a country to have sought an international governmental organization for national recognition of such territory, regardless of whether it pertains to a specific cultural significance, is tantamount to declaring belligerent attitudes vis-a-vis the other state party involved in the dispute.
It is now in the hands of Cambodia and Thailand to decide whether both truly desire to achieve regional peace and prosperity for the entire southeast Asian region.
* - Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm
shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :
a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;
b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;
c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;
e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;
f. Effective cooperation among themselves. *
In a matter of 10 months, Cambodia and Thailand have embarked towards a journey that could discredit a vital instrument of peace within the Southeast Asian region and the path taken by both sides can possibly cause ASEAN to lose face in the eyes of the international community.
The border dispute surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area is indeed a matter of national pride and security for both countries and must be approached from the perspective of cool-headed diplomacy; indeed, the issue must be taken away from the rhetoric of national and military leaders that could undermine not only Thai-Cambodian relations, but the stability and credibility of ASEAN as a successful and functioning institutional mechanism for dispute resolution.
Need the two countries be reminded that as signatories to the Southeast Asian regional peace treaty, ASEAN could become a laughingstock among interregional governmental organizations for its failure to neutralize or even reduce the tensions that could lead to a territorial conflict between Cambodia and Thailand?
Indeed, the policy-makers of the two countries ought to remember that the prevailing reason for ASEAN integration is that countries within the region acknowledge that peaceful cooperation is necessary for the notion of a regional identity and stability to prosper and progress.
The question now presented is can ASEAN move forward to the vision of a cultural, economic, and (possibly) political community if member states are unable to shed their extreme nationalistic attitudes towards territorial issues at the expense of pursuing regionalism?
Reducing barriers to free trade, setting up a regional socio-economic community with a binding legal charter, and announcing to the world the birth of the ASEAN way and identity are meaningless and miniscule achievements if the regional integrity of ASEAN is undermined by this long-standing border dispute, an issue which could lead to an unthinkable disintegration.
Simply put, if you want to cut ties with family, make sure to claim each other's real estate property and instead of exhausting the advise and council of fellow family members to settle the property dispute amicably, keep making threats that could further escalate the situation.
Thus, Preah Vihear, in a political sense, reflects the serious flaws of regional confederational governments when the issue of national territory becomes involved and where sovereign entities may take the path of reverberating back towards the isolationist cave of nationalism.
To encourage internal strife within the region in order to defend the integrity of the national territory, however significant such territorial issues may be to a particular nation, is a failure of national leadership, and its inability to coordinate policies within the context of regional consultation and consensus.
It must be noted that the issue of Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines, not to mention the issue of Spratly Islands between China and a significant number of ASEAN countries, should have been a good example for Cambodia and Thailand to suspend territorial issues for the sake of regional stability and harmony.
Also, the facts attest to the issue of the border dispute as already decided through international judicial arbitration; indeed, for a country to have sought an international governmental organization for national recognition of such territory, regardless of whether it pertains to a specific cultural significance, is tantamount to declaring belligerent attitudes vis-a-vis the other state party involved in the dispute.
I suggest for the political leaders of the two countries to take the path of reconciliation and spare ASEAN further embarrassment in the international community. A win-and-win situation exists if national territory issues are not given priority over the issue of regional cooperation.
It is now in the hands of Cambodia and Thailand to decide whether both truly desire to achieve regional peace and prosperity for the entire southeast Asian region.
* - Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm
Friday, October 10, 2008
Proliferation of Online Angono Forums
Ah, yes.
Thanks to the world-wide-web, the far corners of the earth are but a stone throw away when it comes to disseminating news and tackling issues regarding our beloved town of Angono.
Provided that there is courage enough to deliver unwanted and sour truths, that each individual reporting is reasonably objective to the point of providing a somewhat unbiased opinion regarding local events, that there exist the capacity to pursue common sense beyond traditional sources of what is right or wrong, and that there exist a certain degree of accepting facts as it is, the people of Angono had shown to the world the importance of keeping in touch with family and had proven that identity is deeply connected to a shared sense of belonging.
From my perspective, the whole thing started with the creation of a government-sponsored website* in which the usual headlines involved the typical "kumustahan," who's who, and testimonials of longing for and the reminiscing of days long past in Angono.
Come election time, I find it quite fascinating that a single topic called "Ms. Au Villamayor" in that government-sponsored website garnered around 50,000 views, which was, by far, the largest number of hits on any single subject topic amongst all the Angono forum websites I have ever known; it even surpasses the number of views on all subject topics in all Angono forums combined as far as it is limited to the websites mentioned below.
Indeed, the triumph of the internet, when it comes to individuals rights, emanates from empowering the uninformed - the ignorant masses (us) - enabling the many to become informed citizens with the ability to hold governments accountable for its actions.
But what does the propragation of Angono forums imply? What does this mean? Are there consequences?
There is no simple answer to the question. But I believe one can expect new things and new beginnings where the people of Angono have greater access to diverse opinions and uncensored ideas which is, in essense, vital to our democratic principles; it also amplifies the voice of those whose voice does not reach the halls of decision-making, especially of those who are in diaspora.
And note, one must not forget that uncensored information means information not coming from the government but from independent private sources, however loaded or subjective they are. Indeed, even private forums with substantial government support implies substantial government intervention.
Why did I mention this? I must insist, again and again and again, that government-uncensored forums represent the proliferation that advancing technological democratic societies ought to have, not the opposite.
Although such forums may become the tools of status quo and propaganda in pursuit of selfish ends, this conduit can be used for the common good, if only those with good intentions and those who abide by the rule of law will not allow such actions to take place; for indeed, it only takes the indifference of those who have it in their capacity to help but do nothing for the bad to prosper.
I wish all such forums success, that is, more membership.
As of current, here are online forums devoted to the discussion of Angono and everything in it:
Active:
- Angono Rizal
http://angonorizal.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi
- Angono Rizal Community Board
http://angonorizal.com/
- Northern California Angono Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/angono/
- People of Angono (Proboard)
http://angono.proboards82.com/index.cgi
Inactive:
- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)*
http://www.angono.com/
- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)
http://www.angono.gov.ph/
- People of Angono Forum
http://www.angono.com.ph/
Thanks to the world-wide-web, the far corners of the earth are but a stone throw away when it comes to disseminating news and tackling issues regarding our beloved town of Angono.
Provided that there is courage enough to deliver unwanted and sour truths, that each individual reporting is reasonably objective to the point of providing a somewhat unbiased opinion regarding local events, that there exist the capacity to pursue common sense beyond traditional sources of what is right or wrong, and that there exist a certain degree of accepting facts as it is, the people of Angono had shown to the world the importance of keeping in touch with family and had proven that identity is deeply connected to a shared sense of belonging.
From my perspective, the whole thing started with the creation of a government-sponsored website* in which the usual headlines involved the typical "kumustahan," who's who, and testimonials of longing for and the reminiscing of days long past in Angono.
Come election time, I find it quite fascinating that a single topic called "Ms. Au Villamayor" in that government-sponsored website garnered around 50,000 views, which was, by far, the largest number of hits on any single subject topic amongst all the Angono forum websites I have ever known; it even surpasses the number of views on all subject topics in all Angono forums combined as far as it is limited to the websites mentioned below.
Indeed, the triumph of the internet, when it comes to individuals rights, emanates from empowering the uninformed - the ignorant masses (us) - enabling the many to become informed citizens with the ability to hold governments accountable for its actions.
But what does the propragation of Angono forums imply? What does this mean? Are there consequences?
There is no simple answer to the question. But I believe one can expect new things and new beginnings where the people of Angono have greater access to diverse opinions and uncensored ideas which is, in essense, vital to our democratic principles; it also amplifies the voice of those whose voice does not reach the halls of decision-making, especially of those who are in diaspora.
And note, one must not forget that uncensored information means information not coming from the government but from independent private sources, however loaded or subjective they are. Indeed, even private forums with substantial government support implies substantial government intervention.
Why did I mention this? I must insist, again and again and again, that government-uncensored forums represent the proliferation that advancing technological democratic societies ought to have, not the opposite.
Although such forums may become the tools of status quo and propaganda in pursuit of selfish ends, this conduit can be used for the common good, if only those with good intentions and those who abide by the rule of law will not allow such actions to take place; for indeed, it only takes the indifference of those who have it in their capacity to help but do nothing for the bad to prosper.
I wish all such forums success, that is, more membership.
As of current, here are online forums devoted to the discussion of Angono and everything in it:
Active:
- Angono Rizal
http://angonorizal.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi
- Angono Rizal Community Board
http://angonorizal.com/
- Northern California Angono Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/angono/
- People of Angono (Proboard)
http://angono.proboards82.com/index.cgi
Inactive:
- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)*
http://www.angono.com/
- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)
http://www.angono.gov.ph/
- People of Angono Forum
http://www.angono.com.ph/
Friday, October 3, 2008
Cui Bono? Legislating an Adversarial System on Media Exposure: Right-to-reply Law and the Consequence of Meddling with Press Freedom
A conversation between the government and the press
"You comment first and then I respond," said the government.
"No way," said the press.
"Why?" asked the government.
"Because you did not ask me to do it; instead, you told me to do it," said the press.
The press continued,
"Need I remind you? The Philippine Constitution gave birth to me, after years of fearful silence and tyranny, intending to let me be as free as I can; hence, I am aptly called Free Press.
"On the other hand, the same Constitution limits your ability to govern as a public institution, through proper checks and balances established by the separation of powers, because of your inherent tendency to abuse and misuse derived powers from the people whom you beg consent from."
"I protect the masses from your excesses. I may be sensational at times and overreaction is a usual flaw of mine. But without me, who shall expose what recorded history has proven correct?"
"Who shall remind the people that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?' "
"And now you are telling me I am required to air your side of the story?"
"Tell me, have you really consulted the constituents of your district / region when you made this specific decision or, in general, make decisions on their behalf?"
"Did you ever visited the voters in your district and solicited their opinions and grievances, even if it is not during an election period?"
"Did you ever consulted the people of the land before making a final deal that would affect their lives, the lives of their family, and future generations coming out their line?
"Did you always make yourself available and accessible to the poor, the sick, and those who are weak in order for their small voices to be heard or do you go to your clubhouses and meet your golf buddies to decide the affairs of the state?"
"Have you gone to great lengths by traveling throughout the far corners of the nation to provide the chance for all walks of people, from the remote mountain provinces to the squalor the squatter area in urban settings represent, and even deep in the jungles full of conflict and misery so that their inhabitants may be able to air their grievances and make their petitions, or do you only do so when you are carrying guns or collecting taxes?"
"Well, I have done such things and I have gone to such places," the press answered.
"Perhaps you should first remove the speck in your eyes before you notice mine," the press suggested.
"Once you have done so, you may then ask me to give you a chance to reply," the press finally said.
In Defense of the Press
Although I do not agree with the notion of an impregnable press, I have serious reservation when it comes to restricting the capacity of the press to inform the public in the manner it so chooses, regardless of whether their reports are one-sided or not.
After all, it is assumed that the public, as a collective of individuals, can think for itself, has the capacity to decide for its own, and is able to detect whether they are being lied upon, regardless of such lies coming from the press or the government.
Unless the press, as a collective entity, stifles dissent by making sure that only one opinion (perhaps its own) is publicized, I see no reason as to why it ought to be compelled to present the other side, given that other avenues of response are nonetheless available.
Surely, the congressman who authored this bill should know that if the press can present one side of the issue, he can make the other side known to the public by asking the same to present his perspective (ergo, press conference), and even perhaps take advantage of the rivalry between news networks i.e., if ABS-CBN reported the story, then go to GMA for the response.
Common sense, is it not? But if for some reason the other side cannot be expressed through the press, would not creative thinking leads us to harness the internet, text messaging, public meetings, or perhaps regularly meet the citizenry to explain your side of the story, instead of potentially suppressing a constitutionally protected institution in society?
In the United States, accusations that the media acts in a biased capacity certainly restricts the power of the press to influence public opinion, for the people, as individuals, are treated as rational beings and assumed as having enough intellectual capacity to make fair judgments of their own.
In the Philippines, politicians seem skeptical as to whether the citizenry is capable of making such decisions and I certainly would agree if it is said that, to a certain extent, that is not the case. For indeed, some still vote based upon blood ties, popularity, and given favors, not capability, integrity, and other qualifying aspects.
This maturity difference does not change the fact that the United States suffer the same problem the Philippines suffers. Corruption and political favors in Chicago alone seems to be in the same magnitude as what we may have in the Philippines.
Nevertheless, the fact that Americans are to be trusted in their capacity to decide what is good for them remains unquestionable: the notion includes the ability to discern for their own which are facts, lies, half-truths, and hurtful truths, wrong they may be in the end.
In essence then, those who accept the consequence of their actions, whatever it is, are thus considered responsible enough to make decisions of their own, regardless of whether it is beneficial.
I therefore ask our legislators to treat their fellow Filipino citizens as equals with the capacity to discern lies from facts, and not only act as protectors of an ill-informed and immature public. For once you treated them as equals, you will see that the public is not so susceptible to whatever the press tells them. There is no need to treat them as children; for if they are always treated as such, they might never grow up.
On the other hand, the press is bound to be subjective. To mandate objectivity in the eyes of the law sets a dangerous precedent in terms of press freedom. It is the right of each individual to make partial decisions, as long as they would own up to such responsibility.
If the press has become too subjective that it bends facts and employs lies to benefit its own, I surely believe that the people would not stand by and get itself lied upon, dear legislators. So please show a little bit of trust in the people, would you?
If push comes to shove, the constitutionality of this law must be questioned before the High Court, and thus finally decide whether the infringement this proposal would cause is substantial enough to constitute a violation of press freedom.
The Filipino press, for all its sensationalism and its zealous conviction to keep the public realm informed of news and issues that could determine the fate of the nation, will always be susceptible to make mistakes and thus make partial judgments. It is not unusual for firebrands to abound in journalism where doing your duty usually mean injury, ridicule, and death.
For how can you not expect Filipino journalists to be prosecutorial in their pursuit of doing their public duty, when time after time, their colleagues are gunned down just because they want to let the public know of what is going on?
Polticians expects the press to calm down when it comes to criticism them. But good gracious, how can you expect them to calm down when tomorrow, the only thing that needs to be done is to prepare for the burial of a deceased reporter? Have those granted with power to protect and serve did their job of protecting our journalists?
Urgency and sense of purpose seem to choke the air of tranquility and the traditional path of hushing up events in the wake of brutal assaults on the agents of the press.
Perhaps, the press is also frustrated because in whatever manner the report is given, a significant portion of the public just do not comprehend the danger of indifference, inaction, and maintains its blissful obedience to men in power, as opposed to adherance in the rule of law.
In this case, the public, no, more accurately a certain portion of it, deserves to be lied upon.
Where did Congress get the tenacity to demand from the press to be fair, when their actions as representatives of the people are far from being fair?
Countless times have the Philippines been named by various international non-governmental organizations (mind you, not only once, but recurring) as failing its duty to pursue the path of good governance; the most recent reports states that governance is "worst in East Asia."*
Corruption, indeed, is so rampant and thick, a mice - the common Filipinos - can hardly breed.
If corruption is indeed rampant, then there are so many fish to pry! It is only expected that the press be seen as abusive and partial by those in power because those in power have not experienced the full measure of what being a democracy is; that is, they have not experienced a formidable institution, as a private conduit of information to the general public, in society holding them accountable for their actions; ergo, the consequence of a free press.
The traditional political culture of the Philippines a quarter of a century ago provided Filipino politicians with unimpeachable standing in the eyes of the public, with some Filipino journalists going as far as calling the lack of criticism of politicans a duty to nationalist ideals.
What a bunch of kiss-asses.
What benefit does this new legislation has which is applicable to the general public, anyway?
The press does not generally act as an inquisitional group to the common person, but always focus on those who influence society in general. So, I ask again, cui bono?
Now that politicians are being subjected to close scrutiny by a press that does not kowtow to the old corrupt ways, a press which does not collude with those who are in power, it is only expected for the press to be restrained, in any manner possible.
* - "WB: Corruption in RP worst in East Asia," June 2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080625-144628/WB-Corruption-in-RP-worst-in-East-Asia
"You comment first and then I respond," said the government.
"No way," said the press.
"Why?" asked the government.
"Because you did not ask me to do it; instead, you told me to do it," said the press.
The press continued,
"Need I remind you? The Philippine Constitution gave birth to me, after years of fearful silence and tyranny, intending to let me be as free as I can; hence, I am aptly called Free Press.
"On the other hand, the same Constitution limits your ability to govern as a public institution, through proper checks and balances established by the separation of powers, because of your inherent tendency to abuse and misuse derived powers from the people whom you beg consent from."
"I protect the masses from your excesses. I may be sensational at times and overreaction is a usual flaw of mine. But without me, who shall expose what recorded history has proven correct?"
"Who shall remind the people that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?' "
"And now you are telling me I am required to air your side of the story?"
"Tell me, have you really consulted the constituents of your district / region when you made this specific decision or, in general, make decisions on their behalf?"
"Did you ever visited the voters in your district and solicited their opinions and grievances, even if it is not during an election period?"
"Did you ever consulted the people of the land before making a final deal that would affect their lives, the lives of their family, and future generations coming out their line?
"Did you always make yourself available and accessible to the poor, the sick, and those who are weak in order for their small voices to be heard or do you go to your clubhouses and meet your golf buddies to decide the affairs of the state?"
"Have you gone to great lengths by traveling throughout the far corners of the nation to provide the chance for all walks of people, from the remote mountain provinces to the squalor the squatter area in urban settings represent, and even deep in the jungles full of conflict and misery so that their inhabitants may be able to air their grievances and make their petitions, or do you only do so when you are carrying guns or collecting taxes?"
"Well, I have done such things and I have gone to such places," the press answered.
"Perhaps you should first remove the speck in your eyes before you notice mine," the press suggested.
"Once you have done so, you may then ask me to give you a chance to reply," the press finally said.
In Defense of the Press
Although I do not agree with the notion of an impregnable press, I have serious reservation when it comes to restricting the capacity of the press to inform the public in the manner it so chooses, regardless of whether their reports are one-sided or not.
After all, it is assumed that the public, as a collective of individuals, can think for itself, has the capacity to decide for its own, and is able to detect whether they are being lied upon, regardless of such lies coming from the press or the government.
Unless the press, as a collective entity, stifles dissent by making sure that only one opinion (perhaps its own) is publicized, I see no reason as to why it ought to be compelled to present the other side, given that other avenues of response are nonetheless available.
Surely, the congressman who authored this bill should know that if the press can present one side of the issue, he can make the other side known to the public by asking the same to present his perspective (ergo, press conference), and even perhaps take advantage of the rivalry between news networks i.e., if ABS-CBN reported the story, then go to GMA for the response.
Common sense, is it not? But if for some reason the other side cannot be expressed through the press, would not creative thinking leads us to harness the internet, text messaging, public meetings, or perhaps regularly meet the citizenry to explain your side of the story, instead of potentially suppressing a constitutionally protected institution in society?
In the United States, accusations that the media acts in a biased capacity certainly restricts the power of the press to influence public opinion, for the people, as individuals, are treated as rational beings and assumed as having enough intellectual capacity to make fair judgments of their own.
In the Philippines, politicians seem skeptical as to whether the citizenry is capable of making such decisions and I certainly would agree if it is said that, to a certain extent, that is not the case. For indeed, some still vote based upon blood ties, popularity, and given favors, not capability, integrity, and other qualifying aspects.
This maturity difference does not change the fact that the United States suffer the same problem the Philippines suffers. Corruption and political favors in Chicago alone seems to be in the same magnitude as what we may have in the Philippines.
Nevertheless, the fact that Americans are to be trusted in their capacity to decide what is good for them remains unquestionable: the notion includes the ability to discern for their own which are facts, lies, half-truths, and hurtful truths, wrong they may be in the end.
In essence then, those who accept the consequence of their actions, whatever it is, are thus considered responsible enough to make decisions of their own, regardless of whether it is beneficial.
I therefore ask our legislators to treat their fellow Filipino citizens as equals with the capacity to discern lies from facts, and not only act as protectors of an ill-informed and immature public. For once you treated them as equals, you will see that the public is not so susceptible to whatever the press tells them. There is no need to treat them as children; for if they are always treated as such, they might never grow up.
On the other hand, the press is bound to be subjective. To mandate objectivity in the eyes of the law sets a dangerous precedent in terms of press freedom. It is the right of each individual to make partial decisions, as long as they would own up to such responsibility.
If the press has become too subjective that it bends facts and employs lies to benefit its own, I surely believe that the people would not stand by and get itself lied upon, dear legislators. So please show a little bit of trust in the people, would you?
If push comes to shove, the constitutionality of this law must be questioned before the High Court, and thus finally decide whether the infringement this proposal would cause is substantial enough to constitute a violation of press freedom.
The Filipino press, for all its sensationalism and its zealous conviction to keep the public realm informed of news and issues that could determine the fate of the nation, will always be susceptible to make mistakes and thus make partial judgments. It is not unusual for firebrands to abound in journalism where doing your duty usually mean injury, ridicule, and death.
For how can you not expect Filipino journalists to be prosecutorial in their pursuit of doing their public duty, when time after time, their colleagues are gunned down just because they want to let the public know of what is going on?
Polticians expects the press to calm down when it comes to criticism them. But good gracious, how can you expect them to calm down when tomorrow, the only thing that needs to be done is to prepare for the burial of a deceased reporter? Have those granted with power to protect and serve did their job of protecting our journalists?
Urgency and sense of purpose seem to choke the air of tranquility and the traditional path of hushing up events in the wake of brutal assaults on the agents of the press.
Perhaps, the press is also frustrated because in whatever manner the report is given, a significant portion of the public just do not comprehend the danger of indifference, inaction, and maintains its blissful obedience to men in power, as opposed to adherance in the rule of law.
In this case, the public, no, more accurately a certain portion of it, deserves to be lied upon.
Where did Congress get the tenacity to demand from the press to be fair, when their actions as representatives of the people are far from being fair?
Countless times have the Philippines been named by various international non-governmental organizations (mind you, not only once, but recurring) as failing its duty to pursue the path of good governance; the most recent reports states that governance is "worst in East Asia."*
Corruption, indeed, is so rampant and thick, a mice - the common Filipinos - can hardly breed.
If corruption is indeed rampant, then there are so many fish to pry! It is only expected that the press be seen as abusive and partial by those in power because those in power have not experienced the full measure of what being a democracy is; that is, they have not experienced a formidable institution, as a private conduit of information to the general public, in society holding them accountable for their actions; ergo, the consequence of a free press.
The traditional political culture of the Philippines a quarter of a century ago provided Filipino politicians with unimpeachable standing in the eyes of the public, with some Filipino journalists going as far as calling the lack of criticism of politicans a duty to nationalist ideals.
What a bunch of kiss-asses.
What benefit does this new legislation has which is applicable to the general public, anyway?
The press does not generally act as an inquisitional group to the common person, but always focus on those who influence society in general. So, I ask again, cui bono?
Now that politicians are being subjected to close scrutiny by a press that does not kowtow to the old corrupt ways, a press which does not collude with those who are in power, it is only expected for the press to be restrained, in any manner possible.
* - "WB: Corruption in RP worst in East Asia," June 2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080625-144628/WB-Corruption-in-RP-worst-in-East-Asia
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Problem of Secrecy in Public Appropriations - Inimical to Good Accountability and Transparency
Using the search engine google to check the latest news regarding the issue of "double-entry" inserted in the Senate bill version of the General Appropriations Act of 2008, I came up with this article in the Manila-Shimbun.
It has been stated by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that as far as he and the Finance Committee are concerned, there has been no "wrongdoing" done on the part of Senate President Manuel Villar with regard to the "double-entry" of pork barrel spending allocated to a C-5 construction project.
Senator Enrile clearly stated that it was the Senate President who made the insertion but challenged Senator Villar's accuser to present their case against his embattled colleague during an interview and when a Senate Ethics Committee probe which Senator Enrile suggested be initiated to tackle the specific issue.
A motion to publish "insertions" made by Senators in appropriations bill was presented by Senator Manuel Roxas III, which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
The Two Sides of the Coin
From the perspective of those who side with the besieged Senate President, Senator Panfilo Lacson's use of his privelege speech was a moved the Senator Lacson has made to discredit, and thus dampen, Senator Villar's presidential aspiration in the 2010 election.
Senator Enrile argued that the act of inserting appropriations amendments (i.e., earmarks, "insertions,"or pork barrel spendings) had been a widespread and well-known practice* in the Upper House and that the "intent to profit" has not been established given the current evidence at hand.
He also stated that "human error"* emanating from the House version of the appropriations bill was to blame for the misreading and noted that it was in the Senate version did this problem surfaced.
The C-5 extension project "was not reflected as one road project in the final budget document," Senator Enrile said, and thus the issue of "double entry" is inaccurate, given that these are two separate projects.
One the other hand, Senator Lacson reiterated his call for the explanation of the double insertion made by Senator Villar and demanded an investigation whether Senator Villar's Brittany Corp. benefitted from the sale of its property, which the road project would have to publicly acquire in order to procede.
The issue of such earmarks attached to the general appropriations act for this year has raised the rancor on undetected and hurried public spending to the point that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago warned of raising the issue to the Supreme Court.
Analysis
There is no doubt that Senator Villar's insertion of additional public funding to a project during the final stages of approving public spending, regardless of whether it is double entry, reflects the serious need for the complete reevaluation and perhaps overhaul of how our national legislature do business, especially with regard to how our legislators allocate taxpayer's money.
Senator Enrile himself said that such practice has been prevalent in the Senate and to accuse Senator Villar of wrongdoing meant to accuse the majority of Philippine Senators, past and present, guilty too.
Point well taken.
Nonetheless, tradition does not determine what is constitutional, legal and moral; to have the capacity to distinguish each separately, that is, to draw the line that separates those three distinctions enable each one of us to see with eyes unclouded the crucial point of the issue: having little or, worse, the lack of transparency and accountability in terms of spending taxpayer's money, whether be it in the Upper or Lower House.
The fact that the public is neither empowered with very accessible tools to scrutinize public spending (the Senate website is more accessible in terms of providing an electronic copy - pdf - of the proposed SB while the House have a website but the system is so outdated and rigid, it would take so much time just to peruse where those HB's are), even with the technological advances of the current age, nor is it interested in the dangers of pursuing the path of indifference towards how politicians spent public funds shows the immaturity which can threaten the stability of our republic and impede upon the quest for a careful balance among the branches of government.
Time and time again, history is a witness to a single solitary ruler being called upon by the people to fix a corrupt system only to be betrayed by such ruler by assuming and perpetuating his hold on absolute power. One of the classic examples that motivate such undertaking is the people's exhaustion in dealing with dysfunctional and corrupt ways in which a particular institution in the government handles its primary function; thus, in the end, as a last gesture of saving the republic, would turn to a virtuous man, who almost always turn into a tyrant.
The Senate, as a public institution that has control over the way public money is spent, must ensure that the way in which it does its public duty is pursued with full disclosure less be accused of being an oligarchial council bent on secrecy to benefit those who are privileged enough to be in it. The consequence of this possibility is too dire to be admitted: for it involves the shifting of the balance of power to another branch of government which the people percieve as reliable and trustworthy.
In the past, this meant a strong presidency, at the cost of having an irrelevant judiciary and a puppet legislature.
I pray we do not return to pay for the mistakes of the past; the price that must be paid for the lack of transparency and accountability may bring us back again to a period in which our civil liberties are in jeopardy, for secrecy begets nothing but more secrecy until the public is removed of its capacity to hold the government accountable for its actions.
* - "Villar named in P200m insertion," 2008.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep16/news1.htm
It has been stated by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that as far as he and the Finance Committee are concerned, there has been no "wrongdoing" done on the part of Senate President Manuel Villar with regard to the "double-entry" of pork barrel spending allocated to a C-5 construction project.
Senator Enrile clearly stated that it was the Senate President who made the insertion but challenged Senator Villar's accuser to present their case against his embattled colleague during an interview and when a Senate Ethics Committee probe which Senator Enrile suggested be initiated to tackle the specific issue.
A motion to publish "insertions" made by Senators in appropriations bill was presented by Senator Manuel Roxas III, which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
The Two Sides of the Coin
From the perspective of those who side with the besieged Senate President, Senator Panfilo Lacson's use of his privelege speech was a moved the Senator Lacson has made to discredit, and thus dampen, Senator Villar's presidential aspiration in the 2010 election.
Senator Enrile argued that the act of inserting appropriations amendments (i.e., earmarks, "insertions,"or pork barrel spendings) had been a widespread and well-known practice* in the Upper House and that the "intent to profit" has not been established given the current evidence at hand.
He also stated that "human error"* emanating from the House version of the appropriations bill was to blame for the misreading and noted that it was in the Senate version did this problem surfaced.
The C-5 extension project "was not reflected as one road project in the final budget document," Senator Enrile said, and thus the issue of "double entry" is inaccurate, given that these are two separate projects.
One the other hand, Senator Lacson reiterated his call for the explanation of the double insertion made by Senator Villar and demanded an investigation whether Senator Villar's Brittany Corp. benefitted from the sale of its property, which the road project would have to publicly acquire in order to procede.
The issue of such earmarks attached to the general appropriations act for this year has raised the rancor on undetected and hurried public spending to the point that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago warned of raising the issue to the Supreme Court.
Analysis
There is no doubt that Senator Villar's insertion of additional public funding to a project during the final stages of approving public spending, regardless of whether it is double entry, reflects the serious need for the complete reevaluation and perhaps overhaul of how our national legislature do business, especially with regard to how our legislators allocate taxpayer's money.
Senator Enrile himself said that such practice has been prevalent in the Senate and to accuse Senator Villar of wrongdoing meant to accuse the majority of Philippine Senators, past and present, guilty too.
Point well taken.
Nonetheless, tradition does not determine what is constitutional, legal and moral; to have the capacity to distinguish each separately, that is, to draw the line that separates those three distinctions enable each one of us to see with eyes unclouded the crucial point of the issue: having little or, worse, the lack of transparency and accountability in terms of spending taxpayer's money, whether be it in the Upper or Lower House.
The fact that the public is neither empowered with very accessible tools to scrutinize public spending (the Senate website is more accessible in terms of providing an electronic copy - pdf - of the proposed SB while the House have a website but the system is so outdated and rigid, it would take so much time just to peruse where those HB's are), even with the technological advances of the current age, nor is it interested in the dangers of pursuing the path of indifference towards how politicians spent public funds shows the immaturity which can threaten the stability of our republic and impede upon the quest for a careful balance among the branches of government.
Time and time again, history is a witness to a single solitary ruler being called upon by the people to fix a corrupt system only to be betrayed by such ruler by assuming and perpetuating his hold on absolute power. One of the classic examples that motivate such undertaking is the people's exhaustion in dealing with dysfunctional and corrupt ways in which a particular institution in the government handles its primary function; thus, in the end, as a last gesture of saving the republic, would turn to a virtuous man, who almost always turn into a tyrant.
The Senate, as a public institution that has control over the way public money is spent, must ensure that the way in which it does its public duty is pursued with full disclosure less be accused of being an oligarchial council bent on secrecy to benefit those who are privileged enough to be in it. The consequence of this possibility is too dire to be admitted: for it involves the shifting of the balance of power to another branch of government which the people percieve as reliable and trustworthy.
In the past, this meant a strong presidency, at the cost of having an irrelevant judiciary and a puppet legislature.
I pray we do not return to pay for the mistakes of the past; the price that must be paid for the lack of transparency and accountability may bring us back again to a period in which our civil liberties are in jeopardy, for secrecy begets nothing but more secrecy until the public is removed of its capacity to hold the government accountable for its actions.
* - "Villar named in P200m insertion," 2008.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep16/news1.htm
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Self-restricting Press is a Big Leap towards Tyranny
The first time I have heard of a self-restricting press was in a classic Japanese movie in which the police asked the press during a news conference to not only withhold the story of a kidnap-for-ransom case the police was trying to solve, but also print in the newspaper a convenient lie in order to catch the kidnappers once and for all.
No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?
And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.
It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.
Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.
The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.
The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.
In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.
Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."
Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.
The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.
Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.
No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?
And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.
It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.
Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.
The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.
The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.
In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.
Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."
Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.
The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.
Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Public Finance of Elections May Enable Greater Public Accountability on Campaign Finance
I agree with Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño in the sense that the taxpayer's money being used as campaign funds is a burden to the Filipino people. I also agree that it may be possible that politicians may turn into thugs and use such money for their own good.
But in this case, common sense leads us to "see the other side of the coin," and assess the costs and benefits of enacting such legislation.
Hence, I ask Representative Casiño to lend his ear and to view the current legislative proposal from a different perspective.
First, campaign funds of Philippine politicians are primarily raised by the candidates themselves. What does this mean? It means that, by hook or crook, funds used in the election are obtained by the candidates themselves either through the public coffers (corruption), extortions (induced bribery, kidnappings, blackmailing, kick-backs from guaranteeing public contracts), contributions (special interests and thus, debts of gratitude to corporations), donation (by ordinary citizens), or their own money.
The question that I know put forth is, what if the people shoulder the financial burden of election campaigns from politicians? We already know the cost of this potential public burden. But are there benefits?
If it wouldn't eliminate corruption by directly handing the people's money to corrupt politicians, wouldn't it be true that those politicians would now feel they owe the public (yes, for the first time politicians would be beholden to the public for paying for their candidacy). Instead of these politicians cleverly and undetectedly stealing from the National Treasuary, the people and the media would in turn gain powerful tools to control their corrupt ways by being able to account for and thus limit, to a certain extent, how much they spend i.e., how much is being spent on elections. After all, some politicians, regardless of whether public funds are provided, would steal from the public coffers anyway.
So, why not make it legal and thus, instead of billions of pesos being lost to undetected graft and corruption, allow politicians to grab a piece of the pie and tie them to public scrutiny? If policymakers are shrewd enough, they would incorporate certain provisions i.e., conditions, that would turn this public burden into public accountability and transparency, that is, if only they know what conditions to include in the proposed electoral campaign legislation.
After all, I would rather choose that public money being loss to unexplained disappearances be spent with public knowledge and scrutiny which a properly scrutinized electoral campaign law can shed and expose.
In the United States, such thing is called Campaign Finance Reform.
Through legislative mandate, it can be mandated that as a consequence of using public money for the elections, politicians should be prohibited from accepting other forms of election contribution, primarily from the traditionally influential BIG CORPORATIONS. In this case, politicians would not feel they owe private corporations utang na loob anymore; rather, they would now feel they owe the Filipino public utang na loob. This is a debt of gratitude which I whole heartedly agree upon and encourage for this is how it is supposed to be: accountability and responsibility to the people.
I also disagree with Representative Casiño's assessment in the sense that such campaign finance reform "will be riddled by graft and corruption."
It can be riddled with graft and corruption; but if proper legislation is enacted, consistency with the law will certainly provide such reform with a certain amount of legitimacy. Also, thieves are smart enough to know their fellow thieves; no good thief would allow his fellow thief to steal that which they have legally acquired and thus, is rightfully their own.
As to the manner of spending public money during the campaign, perhaps provisions such as sticking to issues and not allowing ad hominem arguments can be mandated as prohibited uses of public money. As for the rest, I see no reason as to why politicians should not be given full discretion to spend public election funds, except for the conditions above or others that might be agreed upon in pursuit of a fair, free, orderly, and peaceful election.
I appeal to Representative Casiño, his allies, and other concerned legislators to use their wits in tweaking this potential legislation for the common good than use their tongues in opposition to what is obviously a financial burden, and turn this legislation into an opportunity to make his fellow politicians more accountable in terms of election campaign financing.
There is nothing free in this world. Even public accountability and transparency cost money. It would do you well to remember this.
But in this case, common sense leads us to "see the other side of the coin," and assess the costs and benefits of enacting such legislation.
Hence, I ask Representative Casiño to lend his ear and to view the current legislative proposal from a different perspective.
First, campaign funds of Philippine politicians are primarily raised by the candidates themselves. What does this mean? It means that, by hook or crook, funds used in the election are obtained by the candidates themselves either through the public coffers (corruption), extortions (induced bribery, kidnappings, blackmailing, kick-backs from guaranteeing public contracts), contributions (special interests and thus, debts of gratitude to corporations), donation (by ordinary citizens), or their own money.
The question that I know put forth is, what if the people shoulder the financial burden of election campaigns from politicians? We already know the cost of this potential public burden. But are there benefits?
If it wouldn't eliminate corruption by directly handing the people's money to corrupt politicians, wouldn't it be true that those politicians would now feel they owe the public (yes, for the first time politicians would be beholden to the public for paying for their candidacy). Instead of these politicians cleverly and undetectedly stealing from the National Treasuary, the people and the media would in turn gain powerful tools to control their corrupt ways by being able to account for and thus limit, to a certain extent, how much they spend i.e., how much is being spent on elections. After all, some politicians, regardless of whether public funds are provided, would steal from the public coffers anyway.
So, why not make it legal and thus, instead of billions of pesos being lost to undetected graft and corruption, allow politicians to grab a piece of the pie and tie them to public scrutiny? If policymakers are shrewd enough, they would incorporate certain provisions i.e., conditions, that would turn this public burden into public accountability and transparency, that is, if only they know what conditions to include in the proposed electoral campaign legislation.
After all, I would rather choose that public money being loss to unexplained disappearances be spent with public knowledge and scrutiny which a properly scrutinized electoral campaign law can shed and expose.
In the United States, such thing is called Campaign Finance Reform.
Through legislative mandate, it can be mandated that as a consequence of using public money for the elections, politicians should be prohibited from accepting other forms of election contribution, primarily from the traditionally influential BIG CORPORATIONS. In this case, politicians would not feel they owe private corporations utang na loob anymore; rather, they would now feel they owe the Filipino public utang na loob. This is a debt of gratitude which I whole heartedly agree upon and encourage for this is how it is supposed to be: accountability and responsibility to the people.
I also disagree with Representative Casiño's assessment in the sense that such campaign finance reform "will be riddled by graft and corruption."
It can be riddled with graft and corruption; but if proper legislation is enacted, consistency with the law will certainly provide such reform with a certain amount of legitimacy. Also, thieves are smart enough to know their fellow thieves; no good thief would allow his fellow thief to steal that which they have legally acquired and thus, is rightfully their own.
As to the manner of spending public money during the campaign, perhaps provisions such as sticking to issues and not allowing ad hominem arguments can be mandated as prohibited uses of public money. As for the rest, I see no reason as to why politicians should not be given full discretion to spend public election funds, except for the conditions above or others that might be agreed upon in pursuit of a fair, free, orderly, and peaceful election.
I appeal to Representative Casiño, his allies, and other concerned legislators to use their wits in tweaking this potential legislation for the common good than use their tongues in opposition to what is obviously a financial burden, and turn this legislation into an opportunity to make his fellow politicians more accountable in terms of election campaign financing.
There is nothing free in this world. Even public accountability and transparency cost money. It would do you well to remember this.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Christian Good Work, Debt of Gratitude, and Public Duty
Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, stated that the only debt that Christians should have for each other is the debt of love (i.e., to love one another).*
But if Filipino customs, such as the debt of gratitude (i.e., utang na loob), contradict this apostolic dictum, which one shall overrule the other? Christ himself stated that in pursuit of spreading the Good News, he or she should not expect anything in return,** but simply take joy in that he or she did good, as all Christians ought to do. Nonetheless, Christ also stated that if one is demanded to repay a debt, then one must repay it in full, not sparing a single penny until it is fully paid.***
When such things happen, a good deed becomes a debt and our Father in heaven will not consider it good work anymore. If the Lord allows me to remember the fundamentals of the Inspired Word during Bible study, I would say that good works are deeds that are done (1) in secret, (2) not as something in return, (3) out of the abundance of our hearts, and (4) with the purpose of pleasing Him alone, not for our own gain.
Hence, if someone has done a good deed for a Christian, the Christian ought to be thankful; if the one who had done a good deed asks something in return, then it must be repaid, no questions asked, at the cost of such good deed unfortunately becoming a debt, and in Filipino terms, may turn into a debt of gratitude.
But what about all kinds of money-lenders that ask not for monetary payment but demand political favors or ask in repayment to commit illegal acts? No doubt, it is not only in our capacity as law-abiding citizens but it is also our Christian duty to resist such acts of craftiness and immorality. I suggest going public and shame those that practice such despicableness.
If I may suggest in the name of shrewdness+ which Christ clearly encouraged, hide a listening device, perhaps a cell phone voice recorder, in order to obtain credible evidence of such act being committed (which is especially useful if such person decides to employ a lying tongue). It must be pointed out that we ought not to be scared of people not approaching us because of such listening devices; only persons who desire and actually employ despicable acts should be afraid and stay away from you, which is all the better.
After all, there is no need to prove that persons of integrity will deny that which they have said. In fact, they will blanlantly expose themselves to the dreaded consequences, if only to remain humanly truthful. I deny anyone that claims they have integrity if they do not have the courage to admit that they make mistakes, and more so, to actually make a specific confession of being wrong in the aftermath of taking a particular action.
And so I ask again. Which one do you hold most precious? Corrupted Filipino traditions or the Living Word? Should I remind Christians who practice "debt of gratitude" of Christ's exhortation about the "clean and unclean?" i.e., that traditions should not infringe upon the commandments of God? ++ By what right do you stand upright as a Christian after committing such despicable acts?
Nonetheless, debt of gratitude is not a custom that needs to be totally abolished. For I admit in some instances, tumanaw ng utang na loob has an element of reciprocity i.e., justice.
What needs to be abolished is the abuse of its use and its spilling over in areas of life which it ought not to be in or to exist, and in particular, where public duty is concerned.
* - Romans 13:8-14 (NIV)
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."
** - Matthew 10:8 (CEV)
"You received without paying, now give without being paid."
*** - Matthew 5:26 (NIV)
"I promise you that you will not get out until you have paid the last cent you owe."
+ - Matthew 10:16 (NIV)
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
++ - Matthew 15 (NIV)
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
But if Filipino customs, such as the debt of gratitude (i.e., utang na loob), contradict this apostolic dictum, which one shall overrule the other? Christ himself stated that in pursuit of spreading the Good News, he or she should not expect anything in return,** but simply take joy in that he or she did good, as all Christians ought to do. Nonetheless, Christ also stated that if one is demanded to repay a debt, then one must repay it in full, not sparing a single penny until it is fully paid.***
When such things happen, a good deed becomes a debt and our Father in heaven will not consider it good work anymore. If the Lord allows me to remember the fundamentals of the Inspired Word during Bible study, I would say that good works are deeds that are done (1) in secret, (2) not as something in return, (3) out of the abundance of our hearts, and (4) with the purpose of pleasing Him alone, not for our own gain.
Hence, if someone has done a good deed for a Christian, the Christian ought to be thankful; if the one who had done a good deed asks something in return, then it must be repaid, no questions asked, at the cost of such good deed unfortunately becoming a debt, and in Filipino terms, may turn into a debt of gratitude.
But what about all kinds of money-lenders that ask not for monetary payment but demand political favors or ask in repayment to commit illegal acts? No doubt, it is not only in our capacity as law-abiding citizens but it is also our Christian duty to resist such acts of craftiness and immorality. I suggest going public and shame those that practice such despicableness.
If I may suggest in the name of shrewdness+ which Christ clearly encouraged, hide a listening device, perhaps a cell phone voice recorder, in order to obtain credible evidence of such act being committed (which is especially useful if such person decides to employ a lying tongue). It must be pointed out that we ought not to be scared of people not approaching us because of such listening devices; only persons who desire and actually employ despicable acts should be afraid and stay away from you, which is all the better.
After all, there is no need to prove that persons of integrity will deny that which they have said. In fact, they will blanlantly expose themselves to the dreaded consequences, if only to remain humanly truthful. I deny anyone that claims they have integrity if they do not have the courage to admit that they make mistakes, and more so, to actually make a specific confession of being wrong in the aftermath of taking a particular action.
And so I ask again. Which one do you hold most precious? Corrupted Filipino traditions or the Living Word? Should I remind Christians who practice "debt of gratitude" of Christ's exhortation about the "clean and unclean?" i.e., that traditions should not infringe upon the commandments of God? ++ By what right do you stand upright as a Christian after committing such despicable acts?
Nonetheless, debt of gratitude is not a custom that needs to be totally abolished. For I admit in some instances, tumanaw ng utang na loob has an element of reciprocity i.e., justice.
What needs to be abolished is the abuse of its use and its spilling over in areas of life which it ought not to be in or to exist, and in particular, where public duty is concerned.
* - Romans 13:8-14 (NIV)
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."
** - Matthew 10:8 (CEV)
"You received without paying, now give without being paid."
*** - Matthew 5:26 (NIV)
"I promise you that you will not get out until you have paid the last cent you owe."
+ - Matthew 10:16 (NIV)
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
++ - Matthew 15 (NIV)
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Friday, August 29, 2008
Greenpeace Strikes Again!
In its pursuit to keep our precious environment safe, I thank GreenPeace Southeast Asia for holding a local government, perhaps with notable particularity of the one in Angono, to its promise of closing its open dumpsites once and for all.
If anyone would clearly scrutinize their efforts, among the 713 open dumpsites in the Philippines,* Angono was fortunate enough to be singled out as the primary focus of the infamous environmental group in terms of targeting failed local government waste management, a fact that many in Angono ought to appreciate. Mind you, if one checks its website,** its Angono article is in the front page while no other news pertaining to the rest of garbage problems of local governments in Southeast Asia is featured!
Talk about being exclusive! I dare anyone accusing the renowned environmentalist group of being arbitrary to speak out, or else become the next target of the green wrath.
On the other hand, if it is true that a promise was made to close such open dumpsite within six months, I have to say that such promise must be kept. For if one cannot abide by a promise, it is better not to make one! It is stated above that one Lea Guerrero of Greenpeace Southeast Asia obtained a promise from the local government executive of Angono and was only trying to hold such official accountable to its promise.
As an organization, Greenpeace can neither be faulted for not understanding the appropriation/ funding issues surrounding such promise to solve a looming environmental crisis nor can it be expected to understand the slowness of government action for it only understands a promise to commit action; after all, it is unthinkable that they are politically motivated or influenced by those with political motivation. For if they are, then I am more than happy to write something about this particular organization who is supposedly protecting our precious environment.
Nonetheless, the fault lies on the one who made the promise, if it was made, that is.
Idealists do not daudle with politics nor should they interfere in it unless for the common good. By holding elected officials to keep their promise of preserving the environment, Greenpeace ensures that the people of Angono are being given an environment that promotes its well-being.
As one who is from Angono, I am heartened that Greenpeace South East Asia is giving Angono its full attention and thus, showing its concern for its residents. But I pray that it will not stop in Angono; after all, it has the whole South East Asia to worry about.
-------------------------------
* - "Govt eyes use of floating garbage landfills in RP," 2008.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/105537/Govt-eyes-use-of-floating-garbage-landfills-in-RP
** - Greenpeace Southeast Asia
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/
If anyone would clearly scrutinize their efforts, among the 713 open dumpsites in the Philippines,* Angono was fortunate enough to be singled out as the primary focus of the infamous environmental group in terms of targeting failed local government waste management, a fact that many in Angono ought to appreciate. Mind you, if one checks its website,** its Angono article is in the front page while no other news pertaining to the rest of garbage problems of local governments in Southeast Asia is featured!
Talk about being exclusive! I dare anyone accusing the renowned environmentalist group of being arbitrary to speak out, or else become the next target of the green wrath.
On the other hand, if it is true that a promise was made to close such open dumpsite within six months, I have to say that such promise must be kept. For if one cannot abide by a promise, it is better not to make one! It is stated above that one Lea Guerrero of Greenpeace Southeast Asia obtained a promise from the local government executive of Angono and was only trying to hold such official accountable to its promise.
As an organization, Greenpeace can neither be faulted for not understanding the appropriation/ funding issues surrounding such promise to solve a looming environmental crisis nor can it be expected to understand the slowness of government action for it only understands a promise to commit action; after all, it is unthinkable that they are politically motivated or influenced by those with political motivation. For if they are, then I am more than happy to write something about this particular organization who is supposedly protecting our precious environment.
Nonetheless, the fault lies on the one who made the promise, if it was made, that is.
Idealists do not daudle with politics nor should they interfere in it unless for the common good. By holding elected officials to keep their promise of preserving the environment, Greenpeace ensures that the people of Angono are being given an environment that promotes its well-being.
As one who is from Angono, I am heartened that Greenpeace South East Asia is giving Angono its full attention and thus, showing its concern for its residents. But I pray that it will not stop in Angono; after all, it has the whole South East Asia to worry about.
-------------------------------
* - "Govt eyes use of floating garbage landfills in RP," 2008.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/105537/Govt-eyes-use-of-floating-garbage-landfills-in-RP
** - Greenpeace Southeast Asia
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Candidates, Commercials, and Indecision
Professional politicians are so predictable.
They will try everything, as in do anything, and stoop so low to achieve their ultimate goal - power, fame, and if they can manage it, wealth.
Sure, they may seek political power to do what is the best for the people i.e., the common good; but in pursuit of acquiring power for the good of the many, is it justified for them to break laws that preserve order in society, to curtail our civil liberties and set aside the principles of human rights, or even pay, not of their own, but with the precious lives of our fellow men?
In deed, in this case, "the end justifies the means."
Moving on, by saying "professional," I mean those who have been so used to the machinations of traditional politics, who not only know what gray portions of the law that needs to be circumvented and tweaked to increase their chances of being elected, but also present their image as law-abiding citizens serving the republic, while making a living through private advertisements, perhaps in order to boost their campaign war funds; or worst, they do so in order to provide themselves a chance of an early election campaign in a country where fame, looks, and appearance may be enough to get a candidate elected.
If I am not mistaken, as of current, the law is vague as to whether appearing in media advertisements for the purpose of private gain may be deemed as violating the Philippine Omnibus Election Code which prohibits "early campaign activities."
Article 9, Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code states:
Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
Hence, the legal issue at hand is whether media advertisements intended for commercial gain may be considered "election campaign... activity outside the campaign period" if public officials with aspirations to seek elected political offices became involved (thus, appeared in an advertisement to the public to support or encourage a particular product).
But even if it such were not the case, shoudn't those government officials, free as they may be to engaged in any activity that may increase their living, be afraid that may they trample laws that keeps our elections fair, free, and untainted by illegal or even unscontitutional acts?
Through this, one can see the inevitable opportunistic aspect of any politician, of which the measure of aspiration is proportional to the level of public office a politician aspires to hold.
The Inaction of the COMELEC
In this article, I would also like to criticize the inaction of the COMELEC to make a decision regarding the question put forward by Senator Miriam Santiago. It is plain enough that as an electoral constitutional commission, the COMELEC is empowered and is duty bound by the Philippine Constitution to decide matters regarding the enforcement of election laws and due to its quasi-judicial function, interpret to a certain extent the scope and application of election laws.
Even if a decision of the COMELEC was found by the Philippine Supreme Court, acting as an appellate court that may choose to intervene when a constitutional issue arises, as ultra vires, to have erred would have been better; the ramification of failing to act lies not only in the non-establishment of legal precedents emanating from the COMELEC as an independent constitutional body regarding such particular issues in question; but more so, in its potential exposure to the notion of being a weak and irrelevant public office due to its inaction and thus, the danger of losing its significance in the eyes of the public.
It is better to have tried than do nothing; for in trying, the virtue of courage and intent is becomes apparent. But to not have tried and thus to have erred not at all implies the notion of inaction, an act unworthy of decisive political action, however prudent it may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)