The time for dialogue has long passed -Thai newspaper

The politico-fashion debate continues:

Nachura’s take: It’s the wearer, not the shirt. His arguments seem to be the following:

1. For an ordinary citizen to wear a black T-shirt with the logo “Patalsikin na! Now na!” Is not wrong.
2. For an identified critic of the President to wear it is wrong.
3. For anyone to wear it in the company of other people wearing the same thing, is wrong and can possibly be considered seditious.
4. The sole judge of what is permissible assembly are the police. Perception is as important as any factual circumstances surrounding any gathering; hence “Round up the usual suspects!”. Or, the Minority Report principle of law enforcement.
5. People are free to distribute the shirts, but they are liable for the consequences of their actions, which begins with distributing the shirts.

Edwin Lacierda tackles the fashion police-obstructed event in light of the Public Assembly Law. Read his discussion of the law; which is why I said on ANC last night, what is in dispute is the interpretation of the law made by the fashion police. Lacierda, among other things, points out that:

1. Batas Pambansa 880 cannot abridge the freedom to peaceably assemble guaranteed by the Constitution. It can only impose time, manner, and place regulations in the interest of the broader public’s not being subjected to traffic, mayhem, or chaos.
2. The law is “content neutral,” which means the law cannot, and does not, have a bias against any particular kind of assembly, whether for or against the administration: indeed, from the point of view of the law and previous decisions of the courts, anti-administration speech is protected speech.

Palace supports Dinky’s arrest (naturally) but CHR probes Dinky’s arrest (which is a welcome surprise; my only question is why only this arrest and not the previous ones of other people).

ExpectoRants found the whole thing hilariously enjoyable. A Manila Bulletin commentary finds it funny, too: Dinky and the fashion cops.

Defensor: Palace is not paranoid, has no plans to muzzle media. Not plans they’ll admit to or disclose, anyway.

Palace welcomes positive assessments of RP’s economy. In other business news of sorts, Small town lotteries get Palace go-ahead (I’m actually for turning jueteng into a state monopoly like other forms of gambling; wiping out gambling is as futile as Prohibition was in America, and as harmful in the long run).

20-plus senators sign assembly resolution: so sorry, but nyet to the both houses vote as one argument of the House.

In Thailand, the Nation, in its editorial, says Democracy put to the ultimate test:

…Thaksin Shinawatra has launched an all-out offensive against his swelling ranks of critics. Portraying himself as a champion of democracy, Thaksin claims to be heroically abiding by the rules as an upright politician, in order to fend off “unprincipled protesters bent on subverting the Constitution and imposing a mob rule on society”.

The premier insists that the supremacy of the ballot box offers the best possible solution for settling, once and for all, the current political deadlock, which centres on the question of his legitimacy as a democratic leader, or his lack thereof. He expects the outcome of the April 2 snap election not only to renew his mandate to rule, but also to absolve him of every transgression he has committed against Thai democracy and the Kingdom’s citizens over the five years he’s been in power.

Taken at face value, Thaksin’s argument appears sound and consistent with one of the most fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. But on closer inspection, his invocation of ballot-box democracy, as he chooses to interpret it, does not hold water. It fails to take into consideration a major fallacy of the concept, particularly in a less-developed democracy like ours, in which the impoverished, poorly informed masses are easily manipulated by people of his ilk…

Once Thaksin gained power as “chief executive”, he allegedly proceeded to subvert the Constitution by undermining independent watchdog agencies, including the Constitution Court, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission. Their job was to ensure the rule of law, be a check and balance on government power, ensure sound governance, public accountability and fair competition among political parties.

After five years of abuse, these constitutionally mandated organisations have inexplicably lost their effectiveness to serve their stated purposes. They have begun to toe the Thaksin government’s line and become instruments through which the Thai Rak Thai leader can bend the rules, both to tighten his grip on power and advance the selfish interests of himself and his cronies at the expense of the public good. Not even the supposedly politically neutral Senate has escaped such an ignominious fate.

In virtually every single compromised watchdog agency may be found allegations of collusion between the Thaksin government and those senators charged with the nomination and appointment of members to those “independent” bodies, plus allegations of people friendly to the government being installed.

It should thus hardly come as a surprise that all of the alleged corruption cases and high-handed manipulation of democratic institutions by Thaksin and his cronies have gone unpunished. That is why the main opposition parties, led by the Democrats, are boycotting the election. And it’s also why the anti-Thaksin movement, encompassing the urban middle class, civic groups and a growing cross-section of society – indeed all free-thinking, law-abiding citizens – has become so worked up and decided to take to the streets. Protesters are demanding that any fresh election for a new government must be preceded by a thorough reform of the Constitution and weeding out of corrupt elements from key democratic institutions.

Returning Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party to power through the ballot box on April 2 under the existing seriously flawed political system can only seriously jeopardise Thailand’s democracy and imperil its destiny as a viable economy. It could possibly cause social cohesion to disintegrate. The stakes may be high as the confrontation between the two sides of this conflict of ideas heats up, but the ultimate outcome – as to which side’s idea of democracy will prevail – is not in doubt.

It sounds like complaints made over here at home: what is the Ombudsman doing? Why is the Supreme Court silent? Why did impeachment get stalled? Why did everyone else get the blame for the absence of a fact-finding commission, when the President could have appointed one, and can still appoint one? Where is Comelec reform?

A commentary in the same Thai newspaper insists, The time for dialogue has long passed:

The proponents for dialogue or a debate seem to believe – rather naively – that a compromise can somehow be reached. But under the current political circumstances, a compromise is probably the last thing we need.

In fact, it was Thaksin who effectively closed the door to the possibility of a compromise when he decided to dissolve the House last month and branded those calling for his ouster “hooligans” and “devilish people”.

Rejecting all of the grievances against him, Thaksin has gone on the warpath. Ignoring the growing chorus for him to resign, Thaksin has hit the campaign trail and amid the cheerleading at every stop is drifting farther away from political reality.

Apparently still convinced that those who are campaigning for his ouster are just a small bunch of troublemakers, Thaksin is leaning on rural supporters who have benefited from his populist programmes to catapult him back to power through the ballot box…

If Thaksin is interested in a dialogue with his critics, as Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee is trying to suggest, his only motive is to buy time to ease off the pressure. For Thaksin, nothing is going to come in the way of the snap election.

But Thaksin might have forgotten one thing. Democracy is more than having elections. There is no doubt that Thaksin and his party will triumph unopposed in the April 2 poll, which is being boycotted by all of the opposition parties. But political legitimacy doesn’t always come with the votes.

The snap election may pave the way for Thaksin to regain his mandate but will in no way restore his legitimacy to govern – not when a sizeable number of the population still question his ethics and integrity. Thaksin may take comfort from his grass-roots support, but he should know that if the broad sectors of urban society are strongly opposed to him and ready to continue to challenge him on the streets, his post-election administration would be dysfunctional from day one…

A closer look at Thaksin’s ongoing tour of the countryside tells us that the prime minister is doing more than hitting the campaign trail to get people to vote for his Thai Rak Thai Party on April 2. His cheerleading and hate-filled speeches at every stop are not only driving a wedge between rural folk and urban intellectuals, but also setting the stage for possible confrontation between them, in the event he is pressured to relinquish power.

It would be foolish to believe, as some senior Thai Rak Thai figures have quietly suggested to journalists, that Thaksin might consider taking a break from politics after the election…

But everything Thaksin is doing and saying suggests that stepping down or taking a break from politics is the last thing he is prepared to do. Any debate or dialogue is, therefore, at best a waste of time and at worst a diversion from the real issue.

Thaksin has brought the country to the brink of a crisis that cannot be defused with a compromise. Nothing short of his departure – forced or voluntary – can prevent society from sliding into what many fear will be anarchy.

In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial dwells on George Orwell’s 1984, with its Newspeak:

War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.

The editorial sums up why it’s important to make noise now, before being reduced to the silence of the grave:

Many critics believe that in Orwell’s generation, no other novel than “1984” stimulated so much loathing for tyranny and so much desire for freedom. In our present stage of political instability and turmoil, when there is undeclared martial law and a creeping movement toward authoritarianism, it would be well for the people to keep the lessons of “1984” in mind and strongly resist the totalitarian actions and rules of the administration. If we remain too long in a state of apathy and inaction, we may wake up too late, when we have already lost our freedom.

Connie Veneracion explains how bias and distortion can either creep in, or be actively fostered, in media; she believes self-regulation is not enough to maintain standards in media or protect the consumer from the effects of bad journalism.

Tony Abaya asks, if the present political order must pass, how do we tackle the question of what kind of alternative to pursue?

Juan Mercado says every Filipino who migrates or works abroad has already voted in a referendum.

In the blogosphere, Red’s Herring continues his explanations of political theory and how it applies to our present circumstances. First, he tackles Edsas past, present, and possibly future in The people’s choice. He then weighs in on the question of impeachment in Taxing the People’s limits.

Vincula suggests the administration has too short and selective a memory of past events. The Citizen on Mars rather admiringly compares the President to the Road Runner.

Philippine Commentary points to Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ column which tackles how the Supreme Court legitimizes even the illegitimate from time to time.

Newsstand further dissects the surveys to probe into what he identifies as the “outrage gap,” the difference between those who want the President to go, and the far smaller subset that is willing to do something about it. (Newsstand wasn’t that impressed with “V for Vendetta,” though). Big Mango also analyzes the numbers, and comes to a quite interesting conclusion about the importance of “silent majorities.”

Blurry Brain tackles how unemployment figures can change, depending on how unemployment is defined.

Uniffors has startling photos of then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

54 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. More good news..
    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storyPage.aspx?storyId=33326

    The congressional bicameral committee on Tuesday approved the juvenile justice bill, ANC reported.
    Under the bill, police cannot detain suspects below 18 years of age. Instead, the Department of Social Welfare and Development will have custody over the youth offenders.

    Now what they need to do is make available rapidly money to get those children out of the prison system..And into a better environment..

  2. I think that the police are not liable to any form of abuse with regards to the baywalk brouhaha. They have pre-cogs, they just didn’t tell us.

    • Helga on March 21, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    Forgive my being off topic, Manolo – the Black & White Movement blog’s outta site. Again.

    As for the fashion police, I had a good laugh reading the Bulletin Online commentary. Regarding Nachura, I also heard him say that wearing the tees are alright, for as long as you don’t march or chant slogans connected to what’s printed on the shirt. Hmmm… We never chanted, our Black Friday Protests are silent. And we don’t march. And he mentioned something about intent – how do you make an arrest based on intent? Jon and Dawin have the answer – pre-cogs. Cop answer – CPR.

  3. How do you make an arrest based on intent?

    Very easily..

    Proving Intent is always the hard bit. But based on the B&W website and the location and fashion statement.. I don’t think it would be hard to prove.

    Think of the charge of prostitution, the person accepts money then they are arrested, the crime was never committed?

    Intent is part of the Law, and mentioned many times.

    • mlq3 on March 21, 2006 at 4:44 pm
      Author

    sleeping, the whole question is: is it a legitimate arrest, based on a legitimate basis?

  4. Sleeping with who, pointing at the “prostitution arrest” is very astute. Do you see any danger in applying it to all cases? e.g. rape, burglary, mugging, kidnapping, domestic violence, etc.?

  5. As i said in yesterdays blog i dont know the whole facts of the issue. They could have had a cannon mike and overheard a conversation then used that as the basis for the arrest..

    Dont know..

    Purely on the basis of the Shirt, would be hard to prove anything and they made her a hero..

    • Jeg on March 21, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    They intended to go to Baywalk, do the thumbs down thing, and go see V for Vendetta afterwards. Why those scheming, conniving… Areest the lot of them!! 😀

  6. Jon

    That is why there is a Law written down somewhere and the Supreme Court has in the past made a distinction on most cases where things like that can be taken a too far.

    But Yes

    rape – Very hard to Prove (More Attempted Rape) .. Gang Rape probably easier..

    burglary – Can prove that one easy…

    mugging – mugging once again very hard.. (Overheard conversation “He looks like a good target when he comes out we will rob him. (With past convictions and a weapon)”)

    kidnapping – Planning to commit the crime, and you have an inside person you can arrest them in the act, they could say it was a joke, pretend, but with the inside person you have it all..

    domestic violence – Restraining Orders.. (Stay away or we will arrest you because we know what you are intending to do..)

  7. What is the punishment if the policemen were proven to have done wrong? A few slaps on the wrist?

    Now that the Friday actions are well publicized, will more join?

    For BnW, what is the next Friday act?

  8. I’ll just leave it to the police and the lawyers…

    But to me, the police did a terrible mistake in making the arrest. Maybe there was a direct order(from Malacanang?, from Atienza?, who knows). Or maybe there was somebody in the police who wanted to make a name for himself…Whoever it was who made the decision, will definitely feel sorry he did it.

    As for all mistakes done in public, it will become part of history.

    • a de brux on March 21, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    MLQ3,

    Re: LEGITIMATE ARREST

    In the UK Royal Navy, an officer may defy and disobey a superior officer’s order if the receiver of the order deems that the order is UNLAWFUL and has no legitimate basis.

    In other words, the intent of the superior issuing the order including the spirit of the basis of the order NEED NOT BE fully spelled out in the Articles of War (the UK Royal Navy is one of the oldest institutions in the world that formally and officially drafted the Articles of War).

    I reckon, the same method may be applied – cops who are in the receiving end of a superior’s order may refuse an order if they believe that the order is UNLAWFUL and has no legitimate basis!

  9. protest-arrest-protest-arrest-protest-arrest-protest-and then, when the day of reckoning comes, the arrest (or exile) will be on gloria. I’m pretty sure that day will come to pass. I just do not know when.

  10. there’s nothing wrong maybe with setting standard for media, except that the regulatory body, if under the government, might set the standard in such a way that government will look “pogi” all the time.

    So we cannot avoid biases really. A government run media outfit would rather not report about the Hello Garci issue because from the government’s point of view this is already a closed case. They would likely report more about the appreciation of peso and the reduction of fiscal deficit than dwell on the criminality issue of a candidate calling a commissioner official during the height of the counting of the election returns.

    Free media p a rin ako.

  11. Of course, if the 65 percent will act now and go out of their comfort zones, then that day may come sooner than expected.

    I’m starting with my own family who seems to be infected with this cockroach mentality called I.P.I.S.(indifference, passivity, inaction and subservience).

    • in a pig's eye on March 21, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Sleeping’s Comment #7:

    “As i said in yesterdays blog i dont know the whole facts of the issue. They could have had a cannon mike and overheard a conversation then used that as the basis for the arrest..”

    -What a cop out..
    If you don’t have the facts, Sleeping, then kindly quit arguing your case. Kindly quit falling back on “not having the facts” when you’re cornered..

    Guys, it’s the shabu they’ve been sniffing I tell..
    All these raids on these shabu dens have given them enough stash to stay awake on for weeks..

  12. Bystander,

    Yes,dapat siguro sabay sabay. Because protest in small patches like the ones being done by the Bnw movement can easily be rounded up and will bear no disturbance in the conscience of people anethesized by power. “GOD PUT ME HERE”. Laban kayo?

    • baycas on March 21, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    moral of nachura’s story…

    dinky and other identified gloria critics should wear WHITE t-shirts with BLACK prints:
    “HUWAG PATALSIKIN! MAGPAALIPIN!”

    ordinary citizens can still wear the now-famous black t-shirts with white prints:
    “Patalsikin na! Now na!”

    —–

    the now-famous slogan “Patalsikin na! Now na!” had its share of disapproval from grammar experts and possible linguists out there.

    i’m sure the “Now na!” phrase must have come from the new game show at Qtv now gaining popularity. but in fairness to the specialists critical of its usage, may i suggest that the slogan be changed to:

    “PATALSIKIN NA! NGAYON NOW!…oops…

    • Jeg on March 21, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    Speaking of grammar, if there are any grammarians out there…

    ‘Inciting to sedition.’ Is that even grammatically correct? Shouldnt it be ‘inciting sedition’? When you incite to something, youre inciting a verb, not a noun.

    We dont have the infinitive verb ‘to sedite’.

    🙂

    • a de brux on March 21, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    Inciting someone to do something should be the correct formulation.

    • cvj on March 21, 2006 at 9:04 pm

    Looks like the events in Thailand have more similarities with our situation during Erap’s time with its outraged urban population (standing in for our middle class) and the Prime Minister’s rural supporters forming his mass base.

    From the Thai commentary, i find this statement problematic “The snap election may pave the way for Thaksin to regain his mandate but will in no way restore his legitimacy to govern – not when a sizeable number of the population still question his ethics and integrity.” Isn’t legitimacy and mandate the same thing? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that Thaksin’s actions puts into question his fitness for office?

    In the latter formulation, the only thing going for the urban protesters against a legitimately elected leader is moral ascendancy, something which our own middle class seems to be content to bargain away. In our case, the long term practical damage arising from this trade-off between doing what is expedient as opposed to doing what is right would be to the middle class’ ability to collectively act as a moral force – something that would come in handy the next time a populist demagogue takes over.

    • a de brux on March 21, 2006 at 9:09 pm

    CVJ,

    Right you are and I add, his moral SUITABILITY for office…

  13. Maybe for the next meeting, B&W should wear Guy Fawkes masks and claim that they are going to go see “V for Vendetta” again. Think of the fun trying to figure out who’s who….

    • manuelbuencamino on March 21, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    How does one practice fair and balanced reporting when one side is lying? Are news organizations supposed to give equal time to both sides? Do news organizations have a duty to point out lies or should they simply rport them and let the public figure it out?

  14. I prefer to make a distinction. When it comes to news reporting, I think journalists should just report the news as it is. However, when it comes to public affairs shows, the atmosphere is quite different. Here the journalist can voice out his opinions for or against a particular issue without fear of being accused as using media to advance a particular cause.

    By the way, I am not a journalist but I think this is the reason why in a newspaper for example, it has an “opinion” section and a purely “news” section.

    Be that as it may, we should always uphold press freedom especially now that media is under threat by the very people who banked on media (exposes, full coverage of Erap impeachment trial) in their lust to oust a duly elected president in 2001.

    • mlq3 on March 21, 2006 at 11:49 pm
      Author

    cjv, i think what you’re pointing out is a case of the thais coming to grips with articulating things we are a little more used to articulating.

    • a de brux on March 22, 2006 at 12:07 am

    The Thaksin problem for the Thais is like the Berlusconi issue in Italy.

    Berlusconi is under legal siege. The Italian investigators have hundreds of thousands of pages of documents containing some of the most legally ‘debilitating’ issues that could knock out Berlusconi. But Berlusconi is extremely wealthy on top of which his battery of lawyers have the support of media, well indirectly that is, because Berlusconi is a media magnate and owns a huge chunk of the media industry in Italy.

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2006 at 12:26 am
      Author

    a de brux, can any lesson be derived from the two pm’s, in terms of the parliamentary system per se?

    • a de brux on March 22, 2006 at 1:15 am

    mlq3,

    Am honored that you should ask me.

    If your question is about the merits or demerits of parliamentary system and how they affect the political lives of those two PMs, my answer would be the parliamentary system is not a bad system per se.

    Thaksin is duty bound to call for a snap election when his government no longer has the trust of the electorate as parliamentary system of government dictate.

    With regard to Berlusconi, he has done that too but he is hanging by the thread of his shirt. Btw, Europe has always had a different regard for the way Italian handle politics (and business). They have a way of doing things that’s not quite “nordic” which is rather more straightforward and transparent.

    The two PMs and their government basically, have a common serious denominator which general elections, no matter how often they call for them, cannot change. Essentially, Thailand and Italy have both a very high level of corruption in their government. The parliamentary system will fail in any country when the level of corruption is very high.

    • Dwarf_In_the_Palace on March 22, 2006 at 2:24 am

    PUTANGINA MO GLORIA ARROYO
    PUTANGINA MO MIKE DEFENSOR
    PUTANGINA MO MIKE ARROYO
    PUTANGINA MO AVELINO CRUZ
    PUTANGINA MO RAUL GONZALES
    PUTANGINA MO IGNACIO BUNYE
    PUTANGINA MO ARTURO LUMIBAO
    PUTANGINA MO RONNIE PUNO
    PUTANGINA MO ED ERMITA
    PUTANGINA MO GENEROSO SENGA
    PUTANGINA MO ESPERON
    PUTANGINA MO ANGIE REYES
    PUTANGINA MO NORBERTO GONZALES
    PUTANGINA MO LITO ATIENZA

    PUTANGINA NIYO LAHAT NA SUMUSUPORTA SA PUTANGINANG ARROVO

    • Karl on March 22, 2006 at 7:21 am

    Eradicating jueteng,like prohibition…..

    dahil bukod sa mas masarap bawal it might be like we will add more Al Capones and Elliot Ness together with his untouchables around..as if we never had enough of them.

    Turning them to a state monopoly
    so far tough luck with state monopolies like the NAPOCOR

    The state…..with our impression of state as inefficient,walang silbi kaya di naman kelangang magbayad ng tax

    Oh I see,turning them to a state monopoly is the only way for the people to finally stay away from them!

    • a de brux on March 22, 2006 at 7:32 am

    Mlq3,

    I am not a proponent of Philippine partitioning but with your permission, may I plug in the following because I believe the issue is worthy of a real honest to goodness public debate:

    THE SOUTHEAST ASIA FORUM AT THE WALTER H. SHORENSTEIN ASIA-PACIFIC RESEARCH CENTER

    10th Seminar, 2005-2006 Academic Year
    Thursday, 13 April, 12:00 pm-1:30 pm

    Philippines Conference Room
    Encina Hall, Third Floor
    616 Serra Street, Stanford University
    Stanford, CA

    Partitioning the Philippines: Is It Desirable? Is It Realistic? A Scholarly Conversation

    David C. Martinez, Author, activist, and independent scholar

    and

    Lela Noble, Professor of Political Science (Emerita), San Jose State University

    Poverty, inequality, and corruption plague the Philippines six decades after independence. Of the past five presidents, only one took office and left it without military intervention, and he was a general. In his controversial book, A Country of Our Own (2004), David Martinez describes the Philippines as a failed state. The country in his eyes comprises five regions: Cordillera, Luzon, The Visayas, Mindanao, and Bangsamoro. He proposes holding legally binding referenda in each of these regions to determine whether those who live there wish to remain inside the Philippines or form their own independent country. In a conversation moderated by Stanford’s Don Emmerson, Martinez and the Filipinist scholar Lela Noble will examine arguments and evidence relevant to a crucial question: Is the nation-state project still valid for the Philippines?

    David C. Martinez was born in the Philippines. At law school in Silliman University he was a medal-winning debater. He became an activist lawyer, was briefly detained when then-President Marcos declared martial law, fled the Philippines, and eventually reached the US, where he now resides. His essays have appeared in the Philippines Free Press among other publications, and he is a prize-winning author of fiction and poetry as well.

    Lela Noble has written extensively on the Philippines. Her authored or edited books include Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society, and the Philippine State (1998); Philippine Policy toward Sabah: A Claim to Independence (1977), and her articles have appeared in such journals as Asian Survey and Solidarity. From 1996 to 2002, she was dean of the College of Social Sciences at San Jose State. Her PhD is from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
    _____

    • in a pig's eye on March 22, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Cordillera, Luzon, The Visayas, Mindanao, and Bangsamoro..?

    Other than language and geography, what’s the basis for splitting up Luzon, from Visayas and Mindanao? Or even further splitting Visayas from Mindanao? Or even Cordillera from the rest of Luzon?

    Are there raging social conflicts based on social, religious, or ideological differences that would justify the independent existence of these individual parts, say, for the sake of peace?

    I can understand the logic behind annexing Pakistan from the rest of India on account of the former’s desire to create a separate Muslim state. Based on this, perhaps a separate Muslim state could be allowed to splinter off from the rest of Mindanao..

    But other than that, I don’t see how the common good would be served from having, say, three separate Republics of Luzon, Visayas, & Mindanao.

  15. I would rather be like the Chinese who will not stop at anything to have only one China.

    These talks about segregation is a myopic idea which will further weaken an already weak Philippines. Look at the EU, it’s having problems but why is it bent on having one eurozone? One of the reasons is that a bigger “zone” or “nation” is more powerful. Those who are in favor of dividing the nation are those who would stand to benefit, like consolidating their familial hold on power.

  16. oo nga, weird naman yan splitting na yan

    • TRUDIS_LIIT on March 22, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    JUDGEMENT DAY FOR GMA !!! WHEN ONE LOSES POWER

    ALL THE COVER-UP WILL BE REVEALED

    • in a pig's eye on March 22, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    Seven hours have passed. Not many takers on the topic of divvying up the country.

    May I humbly suggest that we move on, MS. Anna? Salamat po.
    ~~~

    In further attempts to dismiss the opposition and her critics as irrelevant, Joey Salceda is attempting to sell us notions of a glorious (ugh) future.

    “Joeynomics” attempts to pique our interest in this new economic order by peddling us visions of; fast-tracked integrated mass transit systems, education, scholarship program, speech labs, English textbooks, close the teacher to classroom deficit, mass housing program, tourism, refocusing DBP nautical highway package to tourism facilities.

    (Hhhmm.. Didn’t Marcos once mouth that we would be great again..?)

    Boo Chanco enthuses thus:
    “I am tempted to be excited by Joey’s vision, which presumably, Ate Glue has bought in.

    But then, should I buy a used dream from Ate Glue? As far as Ate Glue’s ability to deliver on Joey’s promises, I am not an atheist but an agnostic. Show me!!! Prove to me that she can!!!”

    Indeed.
    Do we want to participate in any of this ?

  17. Who will not get excited about good plans? Same with good laws though, it is in the implementation that the benefits will be realized. So I agree with Boo Chanco that eventhough the plan and vision is very good, I will be happy only when it’s implemented and the fruits seen.

    The reason for my doubts are the promises made by Gloria herself that she hasn’t done.

    I listed the promises she made (I got it from Tony Lopez’ article).
    (1) Create one million jobs a year (2) Lend to three million entrepreneurs (3) Develop one million hectares, preferably two million hectares for agribusiness (4) Send every elementary school-age child to school (5) Balance the budget (6) Transport and digital infrastructure (7) Electricity and water to every barangay (8) Decongest Metro Manila (9) Computerize election (10) Unity and closure.

    Which one has she accomplished?

    • joselu on March 22, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    manolo is making mura acceptable in your blog? is that a form of free debate too?

    • joselu on March 22, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    kawawa naman the under-payed over-worked cops.
    but i think they should continue to do their jobs & not be intimitaited by “try hard” personalities.
    how can cops make a mistake or why should they be intimidaited?
    are we encoureging just another group of “untouchables”?
    they should probably bring w/ them the sort of blessing from the cbcp who represent a divided church anyway but just the same giving their blessing to b&w.

    sayang manolo, you where not able to include doronilas article today that was asking interesting question why surveys do not reflect the crowds in the streets.
    are the survey groups just feeding some interest?

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2006 at 3:56 pm
      Author

    joselu, like bad spelling, bad words are a person’s personal choice. bahala na ang tao kung sa tingin niya makakatulong yan o hinde.

    • joselu on March 22, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    don’t make na lang palusot, bad words are intended words to intensionaly harm & insult.actually they are not actions of a thinking person even.spelling errors are just what it is , an error.
    if you only said that it’s freedom of speech, maybe i will just laugh.
    and you have a strip on the top right of the blog that says STOP THE HATE
    you probably don’t mean it anyway.

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2006 at 4:21 pm
      Author

    joselu, the occasional spelling mistake is a mistake. consistently doing that is simply sloppy or intentional. personally, i think insisting on spelling badly is an insult. saying bad words is definitely an insult. i say, it’s up to you if you think spelling badly or using swear words helps your cause or not. i think spelling badly hurts your efforts, just as making mura hurts those who make mura here -don’t you think someone is less inclined to bother reading the comments of someone who simply makes mura and makes no other point?

    you stop the hate by exercising maxiumum tolerance and not clamping down.

  18. Joselu, it might help for you to read this link.

    One thing that might be applicable to you is this paragraph:

    Spelling errors: Conventional explanations of learned errors
    Teachers’ and psychologists’ explanations of why persistent errors arise and why they resist correction are typically based on assumed intellectual or perceptual deficits. Under this deficit model, errors are seen as a sign
    that learning did not take place, i.e., the person learned little or nothing from the original instruction. Although the learner underwent instruction, and appeared to pay attention to the teacher, the information or learning did not “take”. Ruling out lack of motivation and other obvious factors, the underlying assumption is that the learner continues to do it the wrong way because he or she still does not know the right way.

  19. Sorry the link is http://www.spellingzone.com/spellingsystem.html

    It’s not a personal attack against your person. Just trying to help. You might agree with me that you think you don’t have a problem. That it’s normal to make habitual mistakes in spelling. But actually it’s not.

  20. Hahaha!

    • sleeping corny on March 22, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    Joselu, mukhang hindi ata tayo papasa sa spelling quiz. Nakakahiya naman sa mga kapwa pinoy, sa mga investors at sa Call Center industry natin. Bad example yan! 🙂

    • joselu on March 23, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    ok thanks jon

    • joselu on March 24, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Manolo, then I was right that you did not mean what you say.Probably what you should insted use as a sort of a motto is “maximum tolerance & not clamping down”.Since your very particular w/ your words I’m surprised that you banner one word & mean another.
    It seems to me that it is not completely honest relating hate to tolerance.Because after you strip down all the fancy words & philosophy. I’m afraid that all it makes of you is just being consintedor to things that need more guidance & explanation.
    I think hate is something that must be addressed objectivly.
    Hate is caused by many things.Hate can be caused by lack of understanding & acceptance of realities.Hate is an agressive emotion that has to be corrected that can be caused by an inherent weakness.
    It seems to me that the reason that we never get to solve problems is because we have an penchant to use things.Exploit situation for our personal agendas.
    What responsibility & accountability do you have for the things you beleave in?
    Is hate a key element in resolving problems?What will happen when people have expressed their hate.Will they have less of it after? Will they be able to claim to have more understanding of the issues?
    I don’t understand Manolo,if you claim to be some sort of leader or has something to say to.Then what makes you any different from the people you judge?
    Why is it so important to take a particular of a bigger picture & enlarge it to make it look as the truth & totality of things?
    I noticed one blogger who gets palpal everytime in sassy’s blog.So the person goes back to this blog where he is “tolerated”.Where nobody makes him contra.Who really knows for what reason.
    My point is, did tolerance here make his ideas viable to other people?
    Does it matter to you that people go around thinking they are right only to hit brick walls.All because so called “tolerance” is used to gain a certain kind of popularity?
    Are you just resoning the bahala na way, sige na lnag.Anyway at the end of the day people can only be full of gratidue for you offered them a venue to express themselves.
    I have said it in the past.What universla values are you trying to communicate?
    The forever question is always present.Where does “responsibility” fit into the picture of what everybody says & does?
    I understand that due to your limitations & maybe at this point in your life having a lack of exposure, theories mixed w/ idealissim you may see just a part of realty.Do these limitations also give you authority?
    Does democray work better w/ “responsible” people or w/ people w/ hate in their hearts?
    Will democracy work better w/ misguided people or people who want to be guided?

    Manolo, sure I’m guilty of my spelling errors.It’s a limitations just as I beleave many others have limitations too.But I never saw those things as an insult.Manolo, it’s a strange world.One can sell also garbage when it’s packaged properly.

    • joselu on March 24, 2006 at 11:54 am

    pahabol jon, i hope your not a doctor, you might give the wrong diagnosis to the pateient.

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.