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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
