In fairness, magaling ang nag-photoshop nito ha!
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Bogus Party Lists - BEWARE!
Got this from a forwarded email. Know more about the party lists before you vote.
1. Ang Galing Pinoy – supposed to represent security guards, tricycle drivers and vendors but its first nominee is Mikey Arroyo
2. 1-Utak – Angelo Reyes is supposed to represent the transport sector but he has been the drivers’ nemesis when he headed the Department of Energy. He often gave the impression that he was the “spokesperson” of the oil cartel in justifying oil price hikes
3. 1st Kabagis – an Ilocano party-list group that claims to advocate for “widening the segments of economic development.” Jose Singson, Jr., brother of National Security Adviser Chavit Singson, is its second nominee
4. Aangat Tayo (AT) – identified by Akbayan Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales as one of the front organizations for the Arroyo Administration. President is Teddie Elson Rivera who is a PITC VP. PITC is a government-owned international trading company and was designated as the key agency in the implementation of GMA’s 10-point legacy, which includes the lowering of prices of essential medicines by 50% by 2010. Hmm, parang walang nangyari
5. Abono Partylist – claims to represent the agricultural sector. Its first two nominees are Robert Raymund Estrella and Franciso Ortega III, both hailing from prominent political clans allied with the administration. Its third nominee is Jacky Rowena Lomibao, wife of former PNP chief Arturo Lomibao
6. Abot Tanaw - first nominee is Gerwyn See, son-in-law of PAGCOR chair Efraim Genuino (see BIDA). Second nominee is Mario Cornista, chair of the board of directors of BIDA
7. Ahon Pinoy – backed by Dante Ang, Sr. (appointed by GMA as Chairman of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas and CEO of Manila Times) and nominee is his son, Dante Ang, Jr.
8. Akbay Pinoy – member of Sigaw ng Bayan. Was legally charged by Makati residents together with Sigaw ng Bayan for manufacturing signatures for the GMA administration’s People’s Initiative
9. Alliance of People’s Organizations (APO) – first nominee is Arroyo ally and former Ilocos representative Salacnib Baterina
10. Anak Mindanao – was suspected to be a part of the dagdag bawas scheme. It was discovered that some precincts had more votes for party list groups than the actual number of votes cast and Anak Mindanao was one of those that received the highest number of votes
11. Ang Kasangga – claims to represent micro-entrepreneurs . Current representative is FG’s sister, Marilou Arroyo who withdrew her nomination but that only means some other Arroyo crony will replace her. Other nominees are Teodoro Haresco (PNOC board member) and Eugenio Lacson (ranked as one of the top 100 stockholders in Fidelity Stock Transfers, Inc), both of whom are multimillionaires with links to the Arroyo Administration
12. APOI – first nominee is Major General Melchor Rosales, the administrator of the Office of Civil Defense and also a DILG undersecretary
14. Association of Labor and Employees (ALE) – supposed to represent workers but first nominee is Arroyo ally and Pampanga provincial board member Catalina Bagasin who owns a cargo forwarding company and second nominee is Erlinda de Leon, GMA’s first cousin who served as special assistant to the President
15. Babae Ka! – too many ties to GMA. Was also a member of MELCHORA (Malayang Babae para sa Cha Cha at Reporma)
16. BANTAY True Marcos Loyalists – claims to represent security guards and barangay tanods but is led by Marcos supporter, Cherry Cobarrubias. Current representative is Ret. Gen. Jovito Palparan, accused of orchestrating numerous cases of extra-judicial killings during GMA’s reign and known as the “Butcher General” who, by the way, is running for Senator while nominee is his wife, Evangeline Palparan
17. Batang Iwas Droga (BIDA) – “brainchild” of Efraim Genuino, chair of PAGCOR. Nominees include his daughter, Sheryl Genuino-See and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, a nominee for the position of SC Chief Justice
18. BIYAHENG PINOY – An association of tricycle operators but is run by Arsenio Abalos, brother of former COMELEC chairman Benjamin Abalos
19. Buhay – nominees are father and son Mike and Rene Velarde. Supported GMA in the last elections
20. Butil – One of the winners in the last elections. Representative Benjamin Cruz co-authored House Bill 3339 which, if passed, “will destroy the domestic rice industry by allowing unfair competition with countries with higher agricultural modernization and lower production costs – and displace some 2.4 million farmers”. This was recommended by a lobby group funded by USAID.
21. KABAYAN – claims to represent transport sector workers, farmers and fisherfolk, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, anticrime crusaders, and overseas Filipino workers, among others. Its nominees include Ron Salo, former subordinate of ex-Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita
22. KAKUSA – Chairman Emeritus is Romeo Jalosjos
23. PACYAW - claims to represent urban poor youth, has tourism assistant secretary Janet Rita Lazatin (member of LAKAS-CMD and hails from Pampanga) and former Los Angeles consul Reynaldo Pineda (based in Pampanga) as nominees
To find out more, Google “bogus party lists”, “dubious party lists”, “Arroyo party lists”.
VOTE WISELY FILIPINOS!
1. Ang Galing Pinoy – supposed to represent security guards, tricycle drivers and vendors but its first nominee is Mikey Arroyo
2. 1-Utak – Angelo Reyes is supposed to represent the transport sector but he has been the drivers’ nemesis when he headed the Department of Energy. He often gave the impression that he was the “spokesperson” of the oil cartel in justifying oil price hikes
3. 1st Kabagis – an Ilocano party-list group that claims to advocate for “widening the segments of economic development.” Jose Singson, Jr., brother of National Security Adviser Chavit Singson, is its second nominee
4. Aangat Tayo (AT) – identified by Akbayan Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales as one of the front organizations for the Arroyo Administration. President is Teddie Elson Rivera who is a PITC VP. PITC is a government-owned international trading company and was designated as the key agency in the implementation of GMA’s 10-point legacy, which includes the lowering of prices of essential medicines by 50% by 2010. Hmm, parang walang nangyari
5. Abono Partylist – claims to represent the agricultural sector. Its first two nominees are Robert Raymund Estrella and Franciso Ortega III, both hailing from prominent political clans allied with the administration. Its third nominee is Jacky Rowena Lomibao, wife of former PNP chief Arturo Lomibao
6. Abot Tanaw - first nominee is Gerwyn See, son-in-law of PAGCOR chair Efraim Genuino (see BIDA). Second nominee is Mario Cornista, chair of the board of directors of BIDA
7. Ahon Pinoy – backed by Dante Ang, Sr. (appointed by GMA as Chairman of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas and CEO of Manila Times) and nominee is his son, Dante Ang, Jr.
8. Akbay Pinoy – member of Sigaw ng Bayan. Was legally charged by Makati residents together with Sigaw ng Bayan for manufacturing signatures for the GMA administration’s People’s Initiative
9. Alliance of People’s Organizations (APO) – first nominee is Arroyo ally and former Ilocos representative Salacnib Baterina
10. Anak Mindanao – was suspected to be a part of the dagdag bawas scheme. It was discovered that some precincts had more votes for party list groups than the actual number of votes cast and Anak Mindanao was one of those that received the highest number of votes
11. Ang Kasangga – claims to represent micro-entrepreneurs . Current representative is FG’s sister, Marilou Arroyo who withdrew her nomination but that only means some other Arroyo crony will replace her. Other nominees are Teodoro Haresco (PNOC board member) and Eugenio Lacson (ranked as one of the top 100 stockholders in Fidelity Stock Transfers, Inc), both of whom are multimillionaires with links to the Arroyo Administration
12. APOI – first nominee is Major General Melchor Rosales, the administrator of the Office of Civil Defense and also a DILG undersecretary
14. Association of Labor and Employees (ALE) – supposed to represent workers but first nominee is Arroyo ally and Pampanga provincial board member Catalina Bagasin who owns a cargo forwarding company and second nominee is Erlinda de Leon, GMA’s first cousin who served as special assistant to the President
15. Babae Ka! – too many ties to GMA. Was also a member of MELCHORA (Malayang Babae para sa Cha Cha at Reporma)
16. BANTAY True Marcos Loyalists – claims to represent security guards and barangay tanods but is led by Marcos supporter, Cherry Cobarrubias. Current representative is Ret. Gen. Jovito Palparan, accused of orchestrating numerous cases of extra-judicial killings during GMA’s reign and known as the “Butcher General” who, by the way, is running for Senator while nominee is his wife, Evangeline Palparan
17. Batang Iwas Droga (BIDA) – “brainchild” of Efraim Genuino, chair of PAGCOR. Nominees include his daughter, Sheryl Genuino-See and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, a nominee for the position of SC Chief Justice
18. BIYAHENG PINOY – An association of tricycle operators but is run by Arsenio Abalos, brother of former COMELEC chairman Benjamin Abalos
19. Buhay – nominees are father and son Mike and Rene Velarde. Supported GMA in the last elections
20. Butil – One of the winners in the last elections. Representative Benjamin Cruz co-authored House Bill 3339 which, if passed, “will destroy the domestic rice industry by allowing unfair competition with countries with higher agricultural modernization and lower production costs – and displace some 2.4 million farmers”. This was recommended by a lobby group funded by USAID.
21. KABAYAN – claims to represent transport sector workers, farmers and fisherfolk, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, anticrime crusaders, and overseas Filipino workers, among others. Its nominees include Ron Salo, former subordinate of ex-Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita
22. KAKUSA – Chairman Emeritus is Romeo Jalosjos
23. PACYAW - claims to represent urban poor youth, has tourism assistant secretary Janet Rita Lazatin (member of LAKAS-CMD and hails from Pampanga) and former Los Angeles consul Reynaldo Pineda (based in Pampanga) as nominees
To find out more, Google “bogus party lists”, “dubious party lists”, “Arroyo party lists”.
VOTE WISELY FILIPINOS!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Halik ni Hudas?
GMA: "Basbasan mo ako Madame. Gusto ko paglaki ko, maging kagaya mo."
IM: "Malala ka pa sa akin Ineng. Pero palagay ko, wala ka ng pag-asang lumaki pa."
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Gibo Teodoro: So Much to Answer For
Now that Gibo has relinquished his post as Chairman of Lakas-Kampi, some people say that it may gain him more votes. I hope not. Please read this enlightening essay that Peachy Paderna wrote in her Facebook notes:
My frustration with Gibo supporters lies in the fact that most of them are smart university students, academics, and professionals. We're talking about individuals who should have the ability to form insightful opinions, especially on matters of great national and political relevance.
What I notice, though, is that people who are inclined to vote for Gibo are people who are hypereducated. I'm coining this word to strike a contrast between them and Manny Villar's (mostly) uneducated followers. Do a quick survey of Gibo fans, and you'll find that an overwhelming number of them aren't merely intelligent. They're aware that they're intelligent, and their intellectual capacity is actually a great source of pride for them.
They support Gibo because at the very core of it, they see him as a peer. As intelligent people, it's only right that they vote for the intelligent candidate, correct? His professional achievements are enviable: bar topnotcher, Harvard Law graduate, political golden boy. The man even has a pretty wife. And no one will dispute that Gibo has been the most eloquent speaker so far, and in various debates, his wit and rhetoric trump everybody else's.
Gibo supporters place an inordinately high premium on academic achievement and -- I am getting tired of this word -- intelligence. There's nothing wrong with that: I would never vote for an inept candidate, someone whose intelligence I would seriously question.
However, people who believe in Gibo are forgetting one thing: eloquence, wit, and polished rhetoric does not a good President make. There is a huge crevasse of logic that stands between a man's intelligence and his ability to effect change in a country that needs it badly; in other words, the former doesn't necessarily give rise to the latter, despite all appearances.
I know it's been done countless times before, but I'm going to invoke history again: our most intelligent leaders -- Marcos and Arroyo -- were also the most reviled, because they did everything they could during their terms to plunder from us and keep themselves above the law. And why did they manage to get away with their thievery for so long? Remember that both Marcos and Arroyo served multiple terms. They were in power longer than they should have been. The reason? They were cunning and brilliant, and they knew exactly how to stay safely ensconced in Malacanang Palace.
Look, I'm not saying that we should conveniently vote for an idiot so we can easily boot him out when the situation calls for it. I'm also not saying that every intelligent candidate is a potential autocrat or a big-time crook. Instead, what I'm saying is that intelligence alone is a poor barometer for determining which presidential aspirant is most deserving of your vote.
So what about Gibo Teodoro? I think he's a tragic example, actually, because I do admire his purported intellect. In fact, let's throw in efficiency as well, since people have claimed that this man works well and has a great track record backing his candidacy. But you know what? None of these makes a difference to me. What completely ruins Gibo in my view is his utter inability to show us that he is a principled man.
Let's face it. Public office demands principled individuals, because it's a service-oriented job. You don't want McDonald's staff to drop their burger patties on the floor, only to pick them up later, dust them off, and bundle them up in buns and paper to serve to you. And when you pay a hundred pesos for that burger, it's only right that you receive your change before the receipt rolls out. We trust people in service jobs to go beyond the bare fulfillment of their tasks; we also want them to be transparent and honest about what they're giving us, and we want to know what goes on in every transaction that we enter with them.
Now let's say that Gibo is a service crew member in your nearest McDonald's, where he mops the floor and is in charge of tidying up the place. Nonetheless, this McDonald's is a crappy one, where dropping food and serving them anyway is par for the course, and you find yourself always shortchanged by a few pesos here and there. Despite all these, however, our dear Gibo doesn't decry the filthy practices of his colleagues. He doesn't stand up and say, "Wait a minute, guys. We picked those burgers off the floor, they’re dirty, and you shouldn’t be eating them. Oh, and please count your change, because you don’t usually get all of it if you do business here." He just mops away at the floor and does good work of it. That's all he does.
Let's imagine that this crappy McDonald's is the administration, and that the manager is GMA. In other words, Gibo is turning a blind eye to everything that the administration is guilty of. And what's his response when asked about what he'll do with Arroyo once her term is over? "I won't intervene."
He won't intervene? That's it?? It's a move that reeks of cowardice. It's inaction that betrays a lack of principle. He knows that Arroyo did something that she has to account for, but he won't even spearhead an investigation. The best he can do is "not intervene." Nice try, Gibo.
People have asked me why it's important for GMA to pay for her transgressions. Why waste time on such an endeavor? Why not focus on other matters? I'll tell you why: it's because we cannot keep on communicating to public officials that it's okay to steal. If we let Arroyo get away with offenses of astounding magnitude, what will our lesser public officials think? They'll think stealing from us again and again is fine, becausehey, we won't do anything about it, anyway, and we allowed bigger crimes to pass through the net before. By letting Arroyo off the hook, we further encourage an already flourishing culture of corruption that should have long been nipped in the bud.
I'd like to go back to that analogy I drew about a crappy McDonald's. Funny how, if you found out that the nearest branch habitually served dirty burgers, you would never go back to it again. If they always cheated you out of your change, you would protest and want your money, and you would never go back to that place again. But when it comes to our government, we're masochists and we're suckers: oh, you've been stealing from me? That's okay, I'll vote for you again. Oh, you've been trampling upon my human rights? That's okay, I'm used to it.
If you vote for Gibo, you're essentially the McDonald's customer who's happy to chew on burgers that have been dropped all over the place before they were finally served to you. You're okay with getting less change than you should, because the guy who's mopping the floor is doing a good job of it, and you think that a clean floor equals clean service. If this crew member were really doing a good job, he'd tell you to get out of there. He would hand in his resignation and find a better place where his principles don't have to be compromised.
In other words, it's not enough that a man be intelligent. It's not enough that his rhetoric can sweep you off your feet. It's not enough that he works efficiently. He must have principles, unyielding and certain. Principle is the scaffolding in true leadership, without which the whole structure of governance cannot sustain itself.
So think about that, Gibo supporters. I'm sure you can. You're intelligent, after all.
My frustration with Gibo supporters lies in the fact that most of them are smart university students, academics, and professionals. We're talking about individuals who should have the ability to form insightful opinions, especially on matters of great national and political relevance.
What I notice, though, is that people who are inclined to vote for Gibo are people who are hypereducated. I'm coining this word to strike a contrast between them and Manny Villar's (mostly) uneducated followers. Do a quick survey of Gibo fans, and you'll find that an overwhelming number of them aren't merely intelligent. They're aware that they're intelligent, and their intellectual capacity is actually a great source of pride for them.
They support Gibo because at the very core of it, they see him as a peer. As intelligent people, it's only right that they vote for the intelligent candidate, correct? His professional achievements are enviable: bar topnotcher, Harvard Law graduate, political golden boy. The man even has a pretty wife. And no one will dispute that Gibo has been the most eloquent speaker so far, and in various debates, his wit and rhetoric trump everybody else's.
Gibo supporters place an inordinately high premium on academic achievement and -- I am getting tired of this word -- intelligence. There's nothing wrong with that: I would never vote for an inept candidate, someone whose intelligence I would seriously question.
However, people who believe in Gibo are forgetting one thing: eloquence, wit, and polished rhetoric does not a good President make. There is a huge crevasse of logic that stands between a man's intelligence and his ability to effect change in a country that needs it badly; in other words, the former doesn't necessarily give rise to the latter, despite all appearances.
I know it's been done countless times before, but I'm going to invoke history again: our most intelligent leaders -- Marcos and Arroyo -- were also the most reviled, because they did everything they could during their terms to plunder from us and keep themselves above the law. And why did they manage to get away with their thievery for so long? Remember that both Marcos and Arroyo served multiple terms. They were in power longer than they should have been. The reason? They were cunning and brilliant, and they knew exactly how to stay safely ensconced in Malacanang Palace.
Look, I'm not saying that we should conveniently vote for an idiot so we can easily boot him out when the situation calls for it. I'm also not saying that every intelligent candidate is a potential autocrat or a big-time crook. Instead, what I'm saying is that intelligence alone is a poor barometer for determining which presidential aspirant is most deserving of your vote.
So what about Gibo Teodoro? I think he's a tragic example, actually, because I do admire his purported intellect. In fact, let's throw in efficiency as well, since people have claimed that this man works well and has a great track record backing his candidacy. But you know what? None of these makes a difference to me. What completely ruins Gibo in my view is his utter inability to show us that he is a principled man.
Let's face it. Public office demands principled individuals, because it's a service-oriented job. You don't want McDonald's staff to drop their burger patties on the floor, only to pick them up later, dust them off, and bundle them up in buns and paper to serve to you. And when you pay a hundred pesos for that burger, it's only right that you receive your change before the receipt rolls out. We trust people in service jobs to go beyond the bare fulfillment of their tasks; we also want them to be transparent and honest about what they're giving us, and we want to know what goes on in every transaction that we enter with them.
Now let's say that Gibo is a service crew member in your nearest McDonald's, where he mops the floor and is in charge of tidying up the place. Nonetheless, this McDonald's is a crappy one, where dropping food and serving them anyway is par for the course, and you find yourself always shortchanged by a few pesos here and there. Despite all these, however, our dear Gibo doesn't decry the filthy practices of his colleagues. He doesn't stand up and say, "Wait a minute, guys. We picked those burgers off the floor, they’re dirty, and you shouldn’t be eating them. Oh, and please count your change, because you don’t usually get all of it if you do business here." He just mops away at the floor and does good work of it. That's all he does.
Let's imagine that this crappy McDonald's is the administration, and that the manager is GMA. In other words, Gibo is turning a blind eye to everything that the administration is guilty of. And what's his response when asked about what he'll do with Arroyo once her term is over? "I won't intervene."
He won't intervene? That's it?? It's a move that reeks of cowardice. It's inaction that betrays a lack of principle. He knows that Arroyo did something that she has to account for, but he won't even spearhead an investigation. The best he can do is "not intervene." Nice try, Gibo.
People have asked me why it's important for GMA to pay for her transgressions. Why waste time on such an endeavor? Why not focus on other matters? I'll tell you why: it's because we cannot keep on communicating to public officials that it's okay to steal. If we let Arroyo get away with offenses of astounding magnitude, what will our lesser public officials think? They'll think stealing from us again and again is fine, becausehey, we won't do anything about it, anyway, and we allowed bigger crimes to pass through the net before. By letting Arroyo off the hook, we further encourage an already flourishing culture of corruption that should have long been nipped in the bud.
I'd like to go back to that analogy I drew about a crappy McDonald's. Funny how, if you found out that the nearest branch habitually served dirty burgers, you would never go back to it again. If they always cheated you out of your change, you would protest and want your money, and you would never go back to that place again. But when it comes to our government, we're masochists and we're suckers: oh, you've been stealing from me? That's okay, I'll vote for you again. Oh, you've been trampling upon my human rights? That's okay, I'm used to it.
If you vote for Gibo, you're essentially the McDonald's customer who's happy to chew on burgers that have been dropped all over the place before they were finally served to you. You're okay with getting less change than you should, because the guy who's mopping the floor is doing a good job of it, and you think that a clean floor equals clean service. If this crew member were really doing a good job, he'd tell you to get out of there. He would hand in his resignation and find a better place where his principles don't have to be compromised.
In other words, it's not enough that a man be intelligent. It's not enough that his rhetoric can sweep you off your feet. It's not enough that he works efficiently. He must have principles, unyielding and certain. Principle is the scaffolding in true leadership, without which the whole structure of governance cannot sustain itself.
So think about that, Gibo supporters. I'm sure you can. You're intelligent, after all.
Why I'm Not Voting for Bro. Eddie
I have never believed in Bro. Eddie's claims that he is the anointed one to lead the Philippines. Not in the 2004 elections and more so, this 2010.
Watching the video that Arnold Gamboa uploaded on his blog and the explanations he gave only strengthened my belief. It is disgusting how some candidates would do and say anything just to convince people to vote for him ... even to the extent of compromising one's faith in God.
If you consider yourself to have an open mind, watch the video, read what Arnold Gamboa (a former staunch supporter of Eddie Villanueva, no less!) has to say and read all the comments below the blog entry.
Watching the video that Arnold Gamboa uploaded on his blog and the explanations he gave only strengthened my belief. It is disgusting how some candidates would do and say anything just to convince people to vote for him ... even to the extent of compromising one's faith in God.
If you consider yourself to have an open mind, watch the video, read what Arnold Gamboa (a former staunch supporter of Eddie Villanueva, no less!) has to say and read all the comments below the blog entry.
At Dahil Byernes Santo ...
Kahit ilang taon na ang nakalipas simula ng ginawa ang report na ito, hanggang ngayon, ginagawa pa rin ito ng Malacanang ... mas malala pa malamang ngayon ...
Nakakaawa talaga ang Pilipinas kapag nagpatuloy pa ang pagkakaroon natin ng mapagsamantalang namumuno.
Nakakaawa talaga ang Pilipinas kapag nagpatuloy pa ang pagkakaroon natin ng mapagsamantalang namumuno.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Remember that 5-part Hacienda Luisita Story?
Where GMA News Went Wrong
The first time I saw links to that obviously biased report written by someone named Stephanie Dychiu for GMA News going around Facebook, my immediate thought was "I wonder how much was she paid to do this looooooong article that is obviously out to malign the name of Sen. Aquino?!"
If you have read that series of he said-she said type of (irresponsible) reporting, chances are, you were either convinced of Senator Aquino's guilt or your belief in him was strengthened. I was among the second group.
Please read this very enlightening analysis of that GMA-HL articles. If you are one of those Filipinos who is always saying you are open to see both sides of any story, then you better read this one!
The first time I saw links to that obviously biased report written by someone named Stephanie Dychiu for GMA News going around Facebook, my immediate thought was "I wonder how much was she paid to do this looooooong article that is obviously out to malign the name of Sen. Aquino?!"
If you have read that series of he said-she said type of (irresponsible) reporting, chances are, you were either convinced of Senator Aquino's guilt or your belief in him was strengthened. I was among the second group.
Please read this very enlightening analysis of that GMA-HL articles. If you are one of those Filipinos who is always saying you are open to see both sides of any story, then you better read this one!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Eto ang Tunay na Mahirap!
Hahaha! Saludo ako kung sino man ang magaling na nag-photoshop ng mga ito!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Money in the Time of Elections
This is a confirmed post written by Congressman Ruffy Biazon. The original article appeared in his blog here. Let us be vigilant about all kinds of vote-buying.
A candidate who fails to see what’s wrong with handing out money during election season only shows that he has limited understanding of the concept of traditional politics and its ill effects. Worse than the cunning and calculating traditional politician is the naïve and innocently ignorant traditional politician because he is perpetuating the scourge of Philippine political culture and public service without him realizing it.
That kind of tradpol (or trapo, in Philippine political lingo) is personally beyond reform because he thinks he is doing the country a great service although he is unwittingly perpetuating patronage politics. He will always think what he is doing is noble and will only look at those who have an opposing view as detractors to his cause. But for him not to realize the ill effects of his charity, there must be really something wrong with his values orientation and judgment.
What exactly is wrong with giving away money in the time of elections?
Well, it really smacks of vote-buying. During the time of elections, a candidate is only expected to spend money on the production of campaign collaterals, payment of hired personnel, campaign operations and other services. To simply hand over cash to anyone in exchange for nothing, whether voter or non-voter, young or old, male or female, it only serves one purpose—to get votes.
Handing over cash to a child in the time of elections, even if the child cannot vote, only serves to solicit votes for the candidate handing over the cash. Especially if the cash is handed in full view of the public, and even played up in media because during political campaigns, each action of a candidate which is done in public is assumed as a means of attracting votes.
The child who was given money most probably had parents or guardians. Most likely they are voters. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the money handed over to the child is indirectly an appeal to the parents or guardians of the child to support the candidate giving the money.
In such a scenario, the appeal goes out not just to the parents or guardians of the child, but also to the observers of the whole event. The message to those who witness such charity is “look at me, I’m so caring I’m giving away money. So vote for me”.
Under normal circumstances, such actions may be considered charity. But during elections, it should be seen as nothing other than vote buying. The circumstances make it so. It might be said that it would be unfair to make that conclusion because the candidate may just be sincere in wanting help, but the circumstances call for better judgment on the part of the candidate giving the money away.
If the candidate had the right sense of values and principles, he would realize by himself that giving money away during elections will only be seen as a political gimmick and perpetuate a practice long identified with the trapo.
A candidate with better judgment, sound discretion and creativity would be able to think of ways to extend help without resorting to giving away money. For example, if a child is hungry, the candidate can buy food and hand it over to the child. There is a world of difference between handing money over to a child and giving the child food to satisfy his hunger, especially during the election season.
To a child, when he receives money from a candidate during campaign season (which they undoubtedly know owing to the streamers, stickers and smiling faces of candidates), he learns that a “good candidate” is a candidate who hands out money. At an early age, their young minds are already being corrupted by practices of traditional politics. What kind of voters will they turn out to be when they grow old?
Having been a candidate myself four times now, I get frustrated and disgusted at voters who return my handshake with the words “wala bang naka ipit na isang daan dyan?” These are the kinds of voters that the young children who were given money by a candidate turn out to be.
A candidate’s failure to discern this effect of this “political charity” says something about his own character and values. It reveals his principles and his views on what the guiding force in the process of selecting the country’s leaders is ---“pera pera lang yan”.
A candidate who fails to see what’s wrong with handing out money during election season only shows that he has limited understanding of the concept of traditional politics and its ill effects. Worse than the cunning and calculating traditional politician is the naïve and innocently ignorant traditional politician because he is perpetuating the scourge of Philippine political culture and public service without him realizing it.
That kind of tradpol (or trapo, in Philippine political lingo) is personally beyond reform because he thinks he is doing the country a great service although he is unwittingly perpetuating patronage politics. He will always think what he is doing is noble and will only look at those who have an opposing view as detractors to his cause. But for him not to realize the ill effects of his charity, there must be really something wrong with his values orientation and judgment.
What exactly is wrong with giving away money in the time of elections?
Well, it really smacks of vote-buying. During the time of elections, a candidate is only expected to spend money on the production of campaign collaterals, payment of hired personnel, campaign operations and other services. To simply hand over cash to anyone in exchange for nothing, whether voter or non-voter, young or old, male or female, it only serves one purpose—to get votes.
Handing over cash to a child in the time of elections, even if the child cannot vote, only serves to solicit votes for the candidate handing over the cash. Especially if the cash is handed in full view of the public, and even played up in media because during political campaigns, each action of a candidate which is done in public is assumed as a means of attracting votes.
The child who was given money most probably had parents or guardians. Most likely they are voters. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the money handed over to the child is indirectly an appeal to the parents or guardians of the child to support the candidate giving the money.
In such a scenario, the appeal goes out not just to the parents or guardians of the child, but also to the observers of the whole event. The message to those who witness such charity is “look at me, I’m so caring I’m giving away money. So vote for me”.
Under normal circumstances, such actions may be considered charity. But during elections, it should be seen as nothing other than vote buying. The circumstances make it so. It might be said that it would be unfair to make that conclusion because the candidate may just be sincere in wanting help, but the circumstances call for better judgment on the part of the candidate giving the money away.
If the candidate had the right sense of values and principles, he would realize by himself that giving money away during elections will only be seen as a political gimmick and perpetuate a practice long identified with the trapo.
A candidate with better judgment, sound discretion and creativity would be able to think of ways to extend help without resorting to giving away money. For example, if a child is hungry, the candidate can buy food and hand it over to the child. There is a world of difference between handing money over to a child and giving the child food to satisfy his hunger, especially during the election season.
To a child, when he receives money from a candidate during campaign season (which they undoubtedly know owing to the streamers, stickers and smiling faces of candidates), he learns that a “good candidate” is a candidate who hands out money. At an early age, their young minds are already being corrupted by practices of traditional politics. What kind of voters will they turn out to be when they grow old?
Having been a candidate myself four times now, I get frustrated and disgusted at voters who return my handshake with the words “wala bang naka ipit na isang daan dyan?” These are the kinds of voters that the young children who were given money by a candidate turn out to be.
A candidate’s failure to discern this effect of this “political charity” says something about his own character and values. It reveals his principles and his views on what the guiding force in the process of selecting the country’s leaders is ---“pera pera lang yan”.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Who Owns EDSA?
Jim Paredes wrote the article below in his tumblr site. I agree with his views about Satur Ocampo and company. What took the cake though was the comment written by ellobofilipino that said: "Much as I admire Satur and the NatDems for their struggle for a better Philippines, his alliance w/Villar is a denial of his principles." How I agree with that!
I first met Satur Ocampo, Pepe Luneta and a lot of the heavyweights of the Communist Party at Camp Bagong Diwa jail in Bicutan in the early 80s. My mom and stepfather were political detainees then because of their involvement with the Light-a-fire movement that went against Marcos’ dictatorship.
Even if there was tension between the detainees— the National Democrats (Satur, Jo Ma, et al, believers in communism and armed struggle) on the one hand, and the Social Democrats (reformists and believers in democracy which was where my mom and her cause was aligned with) on the other— I was actually in awe of the purity and correctness of the cause the NatDems fought for. I saw them then as true nationalists who faced the dictatorship head on.
In truth, a lot of people in my generation were conscienticized by the Communist left more than the Church, or the more moderate movements. That’s because at that time, they had clearer stands on many issues and their alleged pro-people beliefs were commendable. Looking back now, it was quite easy to appear that way. In the context of Marcos and the hopelessness we faced, they were white and Marcos was black. In the ideological firmament, they were North Stars.
Then, the 1986 elections happened. It was a heated election not just between the forces of reform and Marcos. Among the reformist and democratic forces, there was a great schism. To participate or to boycott the elections was the question of the day. The discussions were brutal and divisive. The NatDems opted for boycott while the great majority of people went with participation.
Personally, I was torn. I believed the NatDems had good reasons not to participate, but there was something deeper going on than the call of ideology. I was so moved by the enthusiasm and the sacrifice I saw everyday being done by ordinary people who believed that democratic engagement was better than armed struggle against Marcos. They were fighting a heroic battle, to be sure. They had no money, guns and the system was rigged against the opposition. But they had courage and determination and the believed they could succeed. It looked more and more like a choice between cursing the darkness and marinating on the hopelessness, or lighting a candle and defying the darkness. I opted to light a candle and be on the side of the people.
The rest was history as they say. The impossible happened. People Power won over the guns and the cheating. It was quite funny (and pathetic) to recall seeing some NatDem spokespersons make their way inside the newly recaptured Channel 4 then on February 1986 and try to wangle to be interviewed. They were dying to be part of the euphoria of this big historical people’s event which they had boycotted. I remember one of them even tried to make a distinction on TV between People Power and Peoples’ Power which no one seemed to be interested in. The point was, they were out in the cold and were desperately trying to get back in and join the people who did not follow their boycott call. Satur escaped from Bicutan in 1985, and re-emerged in 1986, thanks to the democratic space that Cory’s new government immediately restored.
I am writing all this because the papers recently had a quote from Satur Ocampo who told Noynoy that, ”EDSA is not yours’, or something to that effect. This simple remark, said on an election campaign, should have been taken with nary a consequence, except that it elicited so much reaction among EDSA1 veterans. In my egroup alone, I got close to a dozen negative (against Satur) comments. It somehow left a poor taste in the mouth.
Noy certainly does not ‘own’ EDSA. In fairness, he never said so. And much less does Satur who in unison with his companions inside and outside Bicutan had campaigned against participating in the elections. The truth is, no one owns EDSA. And yet, everybody does too. That’s the paradox of this great event.
There are many reasons why this is so. And one of them is because it was a gift given by those who participated at EDSA to the entire Filipino people. And it’s not just those who were there during the 4 days, or the election season, but everyone who risked anything for democracy throughout the decades of struggle. EDSA was a culmination.
But even if no one and everyone owns it, some people, organizations were truer to its spirit than others, and can claim to be closer to the flame, so to speak. And this has nothing to do with who sacrificed most throughout the decades. It is about those who believed it could even happen.
Satur’s scolding statement is on the surface, correct, and that is, that not Noy ALONE but everyone, including himself, has a claim to EDSA. But it seems to imply as well (at least that’s how many read it) that he was on the side of the people specifically in ‘86 in their electoral struggle which directly led to the overthrow of Marcos. The truth is, they did not believe in the electoral, peaceful struggle till after EDSA. That’s why it is strange that Satur provocatively scolded or pontificated Noy when Satur and his crowd were not even in EDSA—not in person nor spirit, and certainly not ideologically. In fact, the NatDems scoffed at the yellow crowd for this ‘historical folly’. No wonder EDSA vets are upset.
I will admit that Satur and his companions have been on their struggle longer than many of the present reformists have been. There is something admirable about that. I honor that. I had classmates and relatives who were with them who died in the struggle. I can even say I was even a believer of sorts and was very open to their ideas even if it was dogmatic, and strident at times. And yes, so grim and joylessly presented.
Let me say too that I USED TO believe they were on the right side of history. Through the years, the lost me. Too many deceptions which happened within their ranks and with the way they have dealt with the public, have made me change my perception. They have become tired, pedantic and their take on many issues are simplistic and leaves me wanting.
Their worldview seems small now as the world has changed. For example, they champion human rights (correctly) in the Philippines but are quiet about abuses in Tienanmen, Tibet, and many places. They have become too much like politicians who know which side of their bread is buttered.
Historically, Satur and company have won some and lost some of the battles they have engaged in. And I have cheered them in some and booed them on others. But count the ‘86 elections that led to EDSA1 as their big loss. They boycotted it. That’s a fact. I am glad though that they learned after that and have correctly decided to participate in the democratic process by running for elections. I voted them in through the party-list. I believe that communism, or socialism, or national democracy whatever it is called now should compete in the arena of the democratic space we have.
Is Satur being a revisionist then about EDSA? Not necessarily. Let’s just say it’s election season and he is a politician.
But a harder thing to explain is why he is running with an alleged land grabber and a Marcos on the same ticket. Can anyone explain? Has this North Star truly disappeared?
I first met Satur Ocampo, Pepe Luneta and a lot of the heavyweights of the Communist Party at Camp Bagong Diwa jail in Bicutan in the early 80s. My mom and stepfather were political detainees then because of their involvement with the Light-a-fire movement that went against Marcos’ dictatorship.
Even if there was tension between the detainees— the National Democrats (Satur, Jo Ma, et al, believers in communism and armed struggle) on the one hand, and the Social Democrats (reformists and believers in democracy which was where my mom and her cause was aligned with) on the other— I was actually in awe of the purity and correctness of the cause the NatDems fought for. I saw them then as true nationalists who faced the dictatorship head on.
In truth, a lot of people in my generation were conscienticized by the Communist left more than the Church, or the more moderate movements. That’s because at that time, they had clearer stands on many issues and their alleged pro-people beliefs were commendable. Looking back now, it was quite easy to appear that way. In the context of Marcos and the hopelessness we faced, they were white and Marcos was black. In the ideological firmament, they were North Stars.
Then, the 1986 elections happened. It was a heated election not just between the forces of reform and Marcos. Among the reformist and democratic forces, there was a great schism. To participate or to boycott the elections was the question of the day. The discussions were brutal and divisive. The NatDems opted for boycott while the great majority of people went with participation.
Personally, I was torn. I believed the NatDems had good reasons not to participate, but there was something deeper going on than the call of ideology. I was so moved by the enthusiasm and the sacrifice I saw everyday being done by ordinary people who believed that democratic engagement was better than armed struggle against Marcos. They were fighting a heroic battle, to be sure. They had no money, guns and the system was rigged against the opposition. But they had courage and determination and the believed they could succeed. It looked more and more like a choice between cursing the darkness and marinating on the hopelessness, or lighting a candle and defying the darkness. I opted to light a candle and be on the side of the people.
The rest was history as they say. The impossible happened. People Power won over the guns and the cheating. It was quite funny (and pathetic) to recall seeing some NatDem spokespersons make their way inside the newly recaptured Channel 4 then on February 1986 and try to wangle to be interviewed. They were dying to be part of the euphoria of this big historical people’s event which they had boycotted. I remember one of them even tried to make a distinction on TV between People Power and Peoples’ Power which no one seemed to be interested in. The point was, they were out in the cold and were desperately trying to get back in and join the people who did not follow their boycott call. Satur escaped from Bicutan in 1985, and re-emerged in 1986, thanks to the democratic space that Cory’s new government immediately restored.
I am writing all this because the papers recently had a quote from Satur Ocampo who told Noynoy that, ”EDSA is not yours’, or something to that effect. This simple remark, said on an election campaign, should have been taken with nary a consequence, except that it elicited so much reaction among EDSA1 veterans. In my egroup alone, I got close to a dozen negative (against Satur) comments. It somehow left a poor taste in the mouth.
Noy certainly does not ‘own’ EDSA. In fairness, he never said so. And much less does Satur who in unison with his companions inside and outside Bicutan had campaigned against participating in the elections. The truth is, no one owns EDSA. And yet, everybody does too. That’s the paradox of this great event.
There are many reasons why this is so. And one of them is because it was a gift given by those who participated at EDSA to the entire Filipino people. And it’s not just those who were there during the 4 days, or the election season, but everyone who risked anything for democracy throughout the decades of struggle. EDSA was a culmination.
But even if no one and everyone owns it, some people, organizations were truer to its spirit than others, and can claim to be closer to the flame, so to speak. And this has nothing to do with who sacrificed most throughout the decades. It is about those who believed it could even happen.
Satur’s scolding statement is on the surface, correct, and that is, that not Noy ALONE but everyone, including himself, has a claim to EDSA. But it seems to imply as well (at least that’s how many read it) that he was on the side of the people specifically in ‘86 in their electoral struggle which directly led to the overthrow of Marcos. The truth is, they did not believe in the electoral, peaceful struggle till after EDSA. That’s why it is strange that Satur provocatively scolded or pontificated Noy when Satur and his crowd were not even in EDSA—not in person nor spirit, and certainly not ideologically. In fact, the NatDems scoffed at the yellow crowd for this ‘historical folly’. No wonder EDSA vets are upset.
I will admit that Satur and his companions have been on their struggle longer than many of the present reformists have been. There is something admirable about that. I honor that. I had classmates and relatives who were with them who died in the struggle. I can even say I was even a believer of sorts and was very open to their ideas even if it was dogmatic, and strident at times. And yes, so grim and joylessly presented.
Let me say too that I USED TO believe they were on the right side of history. Through the years, the lost me. Too many deceptions which happened within their ranks and with the way they have dealt with the public, have made me change my perception. They have become tired, pedantic and their take on many issues are simplistic and leaves me wanting.
Their worldview seems small now as the world has changed. For example, they champion human rights (correctly) in the Philippines but are quiet about abuses in Tienanmen, Tibet, and many places. They have become too much like politicians who know which side of their bread is buttered.
Historically, Satur and company have won some and lost some of the battles they have engaged in. And I have cheered them in some and booed them on others. But count the ‘86 elections that led to EDSA1 as their big loss. They boycotted it. That’s a fact. I am glad though that they learned after that and have correctly decided to participate in the democratic process by running for elections. I voted them in through the party-list. I believe that communism, or socialism, or national democracy whatever it is called now should compete in the arena of the democratic space we have.
Is Satur being a revisionist then about EDSA? Not necessarily. Let’s just say it’s election season and he is a politician.
But a harder thing to explain is why he is running with an alleged land grabber and a Marcos on the same ticket. Can anyone explain? Has this North Star truly disappeared?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tingnan na lang kasi natin ang drawing!
Bukod sa pakikinig sa maraming usap-usapan tungkol sa C-5 controversy, eto ang madaling maintindihan ... isang drawing na hindi "drowing lang."
Dito pa lang, ang linaw-linaw na. Bakit kaya ang dami pa ring bulag? :(
Dito pa lang, ang linaw-linaw na. Bakit kaya ang dami pa ring bulag? :(
Presidentiable Quotable Quotes
Na-receive ko lang sa email ... gusto kong i-share sa inyo para bukod sa matawa ... mamulat din ang mga mata ninyo ...
Noynoy Aquino: "Hindi ako magnanakaw"
Gibo Teodoro: "Hindi ko kelangan magnakaw"
Dick Gordon/Bayani Fernando: "Bawal magnakaw, nakamamatay"
Manny Villar: "Hindi ako nagnakaw"
Erap Estrada: "Kailangan ko ulit magnakaw"
GMA: "Wala na kayong mananakaw!"
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
10 Ways to Fix Philippine Basic Education
Philippine education is in crisis and we need not argue that point.
What we need is a president with a basic education agenda, willing to make the hard decisions. This is what needs to be done ...
Please read the rest of this very informative Policy Note here.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Villar -- Sinungaling!!!
Mga kababayan, dapat ninyo itong panoorin!!! Buksan natin ang ating mga mata. Huwag naman tayong magbulag-bulagan.
Nagawa nga ni Villar gamitin ang posisyon niya bilang Congressman at Senador para payamanin ang sarili niya, paano pa kung maging Presidente pa yan ng Pilipinas? Nakakatakot!!!
Pakiusap - bumoto tayo ng tama!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)