Farewell, Frank
I was very sad upon hearing that Frank Ephraim, author of Escape to Manila, passed away on Sunday, August 27. He was laid to rest yesterday, in Washington, D.C. Farewell, Frank: we never got to meet again, as we thought we would.
He’d been diagnosed with a brain tumor earlier this year; he’d hoped to reach the expected birth of a granddaughter in September. Last year, the President conferred the Order of Lakandula, rank of Komandante, on him, a distinction he valued greatly. The Philippines honored him for his scholarship and dedication in telling the story of Jews like himself, who found refuge in Manila. Among the fruits of his research was information that helped complete a database of the 1,318 individuals who received visas to the Philippines.
Today is another cause for remembrance. Mike Tan reminds us it’s also the International Day of the Disappeared.
And it’s the birth anniversary of President Ramon Magsaysay today tomorrow. Under normal circumstances, a proclamation would have been issued by now, kicking off a Ramon Magsaysay Centennial Year, since next year marks the centennial of his birth (and the fiftieth anniversary of his death). But no such executive issuance has been made.
The Philippines Free Press blog has several articles on Magsysay, from his being named Man of the Year for 1951, the story of the Nacionalista Party convention that proclaimed him the party’s candidate, his colossal popularity, and his first day in office, to the manner in which Magsaysay distinguished between personal and official expenses, the support he enjoyed from different groups, and attacks from his critics as well as his final hours: all make for an engrossing story. Amando Doronila ponders what might have been, had Magsaysay been reelected in 1957.
Honored with the Magsaysay Award today are Eggie Duran Apostol and Antonio Meleto, together with Gawad Kalinga, among other Asian laureates for 2006.
Listen to the original, and most famous, version of the Mambo Magsaysay. The campaign song, composed and with lyrics by Raul Manglapus, was revived during the Edsa Revolution.
Listen to Mambo Magsaysay in Ilocano. Magsaysay’s fellow Ilocano, President Quirino, called the Mambo craze “a national calamity” (I discovered this, to my delight, in the liner notes of a Perez Prado album).
In the news: Much ado about what Comelec will do next. The official version’s rosy. On TV, Comelec spokesman explains what to expect.
Raul Lambino, after allegedly forged signatures are pointed out, says its all a plot. Says signatures collected based on official lists of voters provided by local officials -but I think what may happen is a doctrine lawyers call “fruits of the poisoned tree.” Davao signatures found to be unverified. Mike Velarde gets ornery with the President.
House of Representatives gets the Senate treatment. Not once, but twice. Administration stalwart Rep. Cuenco is furious.
M/T Solar captain: I tried to save fuel so went through bad weather; seems he was inexperienced with tanker-driving;
Melo Commission to finish work before May, 2007. Inquirer editorial suggests NBI and state prosecutor’s office officials withdraw. Palparan to be replaced with “tourism booster.”
Bolante claims to have more than a boo-boo.
Palace rejects overseas decision on NAIA-3. Possible Palace vs. Piatco showdown on Friday. Palace lawyers scramble on retroactive order that ticked off oilmen.
Spectacularly ill-conceived: government bans Estrada documentary that otherwise, no one would have bothered to watch. Recall Jove Francisco’s account of Diosdado Macapagal’s politically-disastrous ban of the Marcos biopic. (And please, what are those figures about “hits” for the online presence of the documentary? They sound as fishy as the Legion’s!)
Telephone cable theft takes place in Davao. I think there’s a story here. There have been similar epidemics of telephone cable theft in Quezon City and other places. Copper wire at a premium for sale to China?
Watch Dirty Dancing with Gloria, a CENPEG production.
Students will continue viewing Pluto as a planet, for now.
Slate remembers Hurricane Katrina, as does Vanity Fair.
In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is GMA Expert at Manipulating Events So That Plausibility Remains.
Manuel Buencamino says the House had an Alice in Wonderland time during impeachment. He’s too kind: I can’t imagine administration stalwarts getting through a reading of “Jabberwocky.”
Bong Austero on blogging and media, and he plugs some of his favorite blogs.
Interesting discussion arising from Mexico’s close election:
Mexico’s crisis is the ideal time to consider new variants of presidentialism. One alternative, called “parliamentarized presidentialism,” retains direct presidential elections, which many societies still demand. If a candidate emerges with at least 50.1 percent of the popular vote, he or she is declared president. In these circumstances, the model functions as classic presidentialism (even if it does not produce legislative majorities).
If, however, no candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, the elected legislature chooses the president, who thus would begin his term with a legislative majority.
Unlike a directly elected president in classic presidentialism, such a legislatively produced president could be voted out by a “constructive vote of no confidence,” leaving incumbents subject to “coalition requiring” and “coalition sustaining” incentives.
Of course, there is no guarantee that such a system would bring greater democratic stability to countries like Mexico, but it would provide many more mechanisms to resolve crises than are currently available. There is much more thinking to be done. Now is the time to do it.
Note that they don’t suggest abolishing the presidential system; they are interested in making it work better. This is what the Indonesians did when they established run-off elections for the presidency, a change I advocate adopting here at home.
Gwynn Dyer on China’s Communist myth. Conspiracy theories on Thaksin assassination plot.
In the blogosphere, Newsstand thinks the petering out of anti-Jueteng efforts is a sign elections are certain.
JJ Disini believes the President will be looked upon well in retrospect, for insisting the political crisis be resolved within constitutional parameters. He may have a point, but I think it’s the public -overwhelmingly hostile, to my mind, to transitional regimes or military-backed solutions- that was most emphatic.
My Liberal Times compares and contrasts online and traditional media: online wins hands down, he says. Bryanton Post on a journalist’s confab.
The Philippine Experience uncovers an impostor.
Torn & Frayed admires people willing to decline awards. Now What, Cat? points to Fil-Am wins in the Emmy awards.
Belmont Club on the pros and cons of an American presence in Iraq.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, documentary, impeachment, journalism, Magsaysay, media, military, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president
JJ Disini’s logic would apply equally to Marcos’ declaration of martial which was within the confines of the Constitution.
People power, after the 1987 Constitution was ratified, is now within the confines of the constitution. Even ‘withdrawal of support’ is within the confines of the Constitution specially after the Davide Supreme Court legitimized it so that Gloria did not have to declare a revolutionary government
Marcos did not have to leave the confines of the Constitution because he could manipulate it to his advantage. Same thing for Gloria who controls the Batasan and who wields enormous influence on independent constitutional bodies like Comelec, Ombudsman, Sandigan, Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission and the Supreme Court.
Marcos left the confines of the Constitution after he used the barangay assemblies and their viva voce vote as a means to ratify his constitution.
Gloria is trying to break the confines of the constitution with her write-in viva voce, Sigaw, and the de Venecia’s interpretation of the 3/4 vote of Congress on charter change.
So I think JJ Disini’s analysis is off when he credits Gloria for something she has absolutely no respect for.
i agree with manuel. Prostituting the constitutional process and applying an iron fist and thirty pieces of silver to thwart the people’s will, from within and without, can hardly be a legacy worth honoring by posterity.
Either we are all wrong or JJ sees something else. “free from personal interest”, please, we are not stupid. Institutions have been bastardized and the constitution trampled upon by making their own interprstations does not make us a strong republic.
it pays not to really know people from my past.well during the time of Komandante Frank i still may not even be under the idea of conception but nonetheless i had the pleasure of knowing his work thru here…btw MUSTA na po Sir Manolo…been a long time since i last posted a comment here hehehe…a lot of things on my shift…id like to share a blog to you…i hope you have time to read and comment on it…ill just send it through e-mail…kudos PALAGI…
Mlq,
Re ICC arbitration decision:
MIAA General Manager Alfonso Cusi may be technically right when he said that the arbitration court had no jurisdiction in the country and that Piatco should go to a local court to have the ICC order enforced. But he is being narrow minded.
If Piatco fails to obtain satisfaction from a local court to enfore the ICC decsion, the government of the Philippines will be treading on dangerous grounds. Piatco could go back to the ICC and if the ICC finds that there’s sufficient ground to find the government/MIAA in breach of good faith, they could issue an order to freeze or sequester RP government-owned assets elsewhere. Gloria Macapagal’s goverment has a poor record in terms of honoring its contracts with foreign-entities and their local partners. There’s no telling how ICC member nations will react to this latest RP international business caper.
RP is a member of the arbitration court and should know that it cannot take ICC decisions lightly.
Of course I can see very well what JJ sees….And Im sure a lot more people out there see it the same way too!
Manolo, your Arab News Column gives a plausible answer something that’s been nagging me and that i asked Rego to clarify yesterday in the preceding thread i.e. ‘What moral throne?’. Discounting the genuinely pro-Arroyo (e.g. Joselu, , Carlos Celdran), I couldn’t quite understand this phenomenon of a rabid ‘opposition to the opposition’ among otherwise decent people. The explanation you give in this paragraph makes me understand their behavior a little better:
‘But even when the president’s victory was shown to be, at best, questionable, the increasingly implausible nature of her claim to legitimacy didn’t resound as much as it should have. Why was that? The reason, I’ve come to be increasingly convinced, is that she simply has too many accomplices among the ranks of those used to considering themselves the moral custodians of Philippine society. Which is why, one of the violent objections to opposition to the president is often couched in terms that denounce “moralism,†or “self-righteousnessâ€Â.
This may explain wny the hostility is directed at former Arroyo supporters like the Hyatt 10. When they see Dinky, their self-defense mechanism kicks in.
Today, somewhere in northern California, a distinguished old man will be celebrating the late Pres. Magsaysay’s birthday, maybe by himself or with his wife and his family. That fateful day, his brother perished along with the President. He is the President first cousin. This story was related to me by my niece Bibs as was told to her by her Lolo
cvj,
maybe you can find additional answers to your questions from the following paragraph of Bong Austero column in Manila standard.
————————————————————
“I have said this before, and I will say it again here. Many among us Filipinos may not like the President; many among us may believe that the President cheated in the last elections, we may agree that she has to go. Surveys validate these, but there is a world of difference between belief and action.
The stark, naked truth is that civil society and the opposition have once again failed to galvanize people into action. Not last year, not early this year during those fateful days in February, and not during the very recent impeachment process. And if they persist with their holier-than-thou attitude and their shortsightedness, it looks like they never will.
Civil society and the opposition have gone through loops and hoops to try the impeachment case in media. They have even tried to rekindle our collective memory with tricks that hew closely to and even exaggerate those that have worked so well in the pastâ€â€all in a futile effort to provoke collective rage. They conjured the Martial Law bogey, trundled not just envelopes but boxes as supposed smoking guns, and even resurrected the protest anthems of a bygone era. All of these have been met by indifference.
Why? The answer is something that everyone else has been saying since last year and which civil society and the opposition refuse to listen to. First, people are tired of this kind of politics. And second, people are deeply cynical of everyone, including civil society and most particularly, of the opposition. I repeat, many among us are simply tired of the whole thing; been there, done that and we’re still stuck in the same rut. We don’t like the President, but we don’t like everyone else either, especially the opposition.
So what has civil society and the opposition done about this? They ridicule us for supposedly having low morals; they insist that we have no right to be tired. They call us weak and unpatriotic. They assert their moral superiority. In other words, they make us their enemies. It’s the Darth Vader principle at work: If you are not for us, you are not our friend.
To aggravate matters, civil society and the opposition refuse to make the heroic act of breaking away from the political factions that have been the object of contempt in the past and who now bask in the reflected glow of the morality of the current protest movement. I think that many among us have simply not forgiven certain people and their minions for the grievous sins of the past, and rightfully so. The fact that they have not apologized for these sins and even remain defiant up to this day is insulting. And these people and their sins taint the purity of the current movement.
It is truly difficult to assert moral superiority while linking arms with the Marcoses and the Estradas and their minions (I am tempted to include leftists, but that is not a fair generalization). It is truly difficult to convince people to rage against current injustices while at the same time implicitly forgive previous injustices. It is simply difficult to care enough for causes, no matter how righteous, when you know these are led by the very people you feel like strangling with your bare hands.
The message is clear and unequivocal: There are no winners in this contest, only losers. There is no cause for jubilation, only temporary respite. Yes, something died and it wasn’t just the impeachment complaint.”
————————————————————–
That’s the point Rego, Bong has spent a few paragraphs explaining how ineffective the opposition has been, yet he still took the time to criticize its efforts. To me, if something is weak and ineffective, i tend to ignore it no matter what they say, unless of course, it irritates me somehow. A couple of months back, when ManuelBuencamino wrote a piece advising to ‘Forget the Middle Class’, you and Bong took offense. I asked myself, why the outrage when Manuel’s message seemed to be in line with what Bong has been advocating? That’s where Manolo’s explanation comes in.
cjv,
i don’t know how carl and bong view it, but i have encountered this point of view often enough: dissect some people’s opinions about the democratic process enough, and it will boil down to the opinion that democracy is fine and wonderful, but if it leads to an estrada or a poe, then it is acceptable to limit or even subvert democracy to prevent the larger evil of another estrada or a poe.
which leads to two things. on the part of people who supported estrada, and saw him kicked out, and not replaced by anything fundamentally better, and who then saw every rule broken simply to keep poe out (challenging his citizenship, disenfranchizing people, then garci, etc) what incentive is left to believe in democracy?
and as for those who proclaim to love democracy, what does it say when at the end of the day, their argument becomes “well, but you know, we couldn’t have poe running the country…” it means democracy only on certain terms, which validates some if not all the arguments of the critics of edsa 1 and edsa dos.
i mean it is strange and disturbing to see veterans of edsa 1 and 2 link arms with leftovers of the marcos and estrada years; but opposition is opposition: i can’t stand ernie maceda and kit tatad but they, too, were welcomed in the opposition’s ranks when they turned against marcos. at the time, it was better to have them see the light, for whatever motives, than to continue supporting marcos. so what’s different today?
what’s different is that the president is married to the upper class, and she, superficially, at least, talks and acts in a manner more acceptable to the middle and upper class than her opponents.
i criticize dinky often enough, but if dislike for her is based merely on her manners or lack of them, or something so superficial as her opposing someone she once owed a job to, it doesn’t say much, to me, of the basis for disliking her at all.
and yes, there’s certainly enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that the divide in the ranks of the edsa 1 and 2 forces is along class lines and their approach to whether it was better to win at all costs or risk going along with the ultimate choice of the electorate in 2004.
Cvj,
“That’s the point Rego, Bong has spent a few paragraphs explaining how ineffective the opposition has been, yet he still took the time to criticize its efforts.”
If the criticism’s objective is to evaluate where they did go wrong in their efforts ,it is merely to invite the attention of these people to do better next time. But some critics express their disappointments on what as been perceived as a chance for the opposition to shine, win or lose in the attempted impeachment trial so that the blame could have just been pinned on the legislators who changed their minds.
In all these exercises, due diligence is the most important factor to know how serious these people are in removing GMA and not merely to enhance their image for the coming election.
this is something i’ve brought up in some meetings, though often met with silence. i think it would have been a great move to reassure the public that no one who left the president’s government, would serve in the next. simply as a guarantee that the motivation to oppose was out of principle and not ambition.
for those already in elected office, there’s no problem, as their constituents are the ultimate judge.
personally, i think those who have sereved the president, and supported the president in 2004 and have come to be convinced she either cheated, or became unfit for office in 2005, should not consider running or accepting office to atone for complicity in the present administration.
Manolo,
There will be hell to pay for that kind of attitude by the middle class. (The upper class can always go into exile just like their counterparts in Cuba.) At some point, the wheel will turn and the wish/prediction that Bokyo made two threads back…
“Sana bumalik sa pagmumukha nila ang pinagyayabang nilang ‘numbers game’ or ‘rule of numbers’ dahil ang ginagawa nila ay malamang na magdulot ng anarchy na siyang ultimate na ‘rule of numbers’.
…will become a reality.
When the steamroller makes a U-turn and heads towards us, we will find that the middle forces will no longer have the moral ascendancy to counter the tyranny of numbers (and at that time, they will really have the numbers). I don’t think there will be a distinction between Bong, Dinky or you. We can feel a foretaste of that anger in the comment ‘Observer’ made one thread back…
“It is ONLY during ELECTION that the RICH and the POOR are EQUAL … Pati ba naman sa KARAPATAN natin MAMILI ng LEADER NANAKAWIN pa !!!”
…as well as those made previously by BFR.
Arroyo, her blue ladies and the ‘somos’ crowd will increasingly come to rely upon Palparan and his methods to prop up the existing order, but that only postpones the day of reckoning and adds to the weight of the eventual payback.
Ca t, criticism by itself is fair but people also take note of the context in which it is made. For example, in your case, you’ve peppered your comments with ‘BWAHAHAHA’ and ‘Meow’. It’s hard to ignore the signals those words give. You also mentioned that you wanted a front row seat in the cock fight between Admin and Opposition. Bong, in his column, has also likened the choice between GMA and the opposition as a ‘taste test’ and his role is that of a ‘consumer’. I disagree with both frames as we, the ordinary citizens are not just spectators nor consumers. However small, we still have a role in shaping the political system.
cjv, the foretaste of that anger was edsa tres. together with the collapse of our educational system has been a collapse in the traditional belief that education was the way up. it’s still there, and powerful -the belief education can change one’s life- but the odds are so much greater, and the opportunities narrowing down.
isn’t it f.e.u. that shut down its engineering school? if you recall my column on my dentist, the traditional professions that conferred respectability and stability don’t offer that anymore.
when fvr was pushing his cha-cha solution last year, he pointed from his penthouse office at some slums and said, if we don’t have a change, and soon, their patience will snap. he’s right.
who was it who said that the masses elect presidents, but the middle class deposes them? but no one expected the middle classes to elect a president -but that president never getting to serve- and then the post-edsa middle class deciding to make sure that unimaginable set of circumstances becomes permanent.
Manolo, you’re right about Edsa Tres. I’ve been to both Edsa and Edsa Dos, but it’s only on that occasion, being on the receiving end of the people’s anger, that i appreciated how powerful People Power really is. When they started marching to Makati CBD (where i was staying), all i can do was drive to the Gas Station and stock up on water and some food.
just wondering…..
Sigaw Ng Bayan has been called in many blogs as…..
singaw ng baho
singaw ng bayan
and now I have been reading this…SnB…is this what I think it is? Son….. B…?
just curious.
I can’t help thinking bakit masyado ng maraming U.P graduate ang nasa gobyerno na lalong nagpapahamak sa sambayanang filipino.Kung sino pa naman ang matino sila pa ang bubo..
Edsel, hindi kasi dapat asahan ang iilang dalubhasa, kahit gaano man katalino, sa pamamalakad ng buong sambayanan. Kung sila sila lang ang namamalakad, siguradong magkakamali at magkakamali rin. Mas maiging makinig sa nakararami. Iyan ang mungkahing nakasaad sa librong ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ ni James Surowiecki.
The thing about Bong Austero, which someone here pointed out sometime ago, is he bitched about checkpoints but he waxed erotic about giving up his civil liberties for stability and moving on.
The bottom line is not about the shortcomings of the opposition, poor tactics and undesirables among them, but about having a leader who is not so divisive.
Just for the sake of argument, if no Erap or Marcos loyalists and no ambitious politicians were in the opposition, would overthrowing Arroyo become acceptable to Rego and Bong? Would they see what wrong with the woman and will they join the calls for her ouster?
It’s not about who else is against Arroyo. It’s all about whether one approves of what she has done and what she is doing. That’s what we should be talking about and not the side issues that the fence sitters and the rabid Arroyo loyalists keep harping about. If one does not like Arroyo it really does not matter who else does not like her, right?
“I disagree with both frames as we, the ordinary citizens are not just spectators nor consumers. However small, we still have a role in shaping the political system.”
Like what? I can see that we are just in the same gallery. So what do you propose to do. Go to the street ?
Cvj,
To move people or to cause them to act as a group or a mob if needed, there has to be a leader. No credible leader yet. People do not reject whatever the opposition and anti-GMA group did in the past few months to unseat the president. They’re just waiting. IN VAIN.
“Just for the sake of argument, if no Erap or Marcos loyalists and no ambitious politicians were in the opposition, would overthrowing Arroyo become acceptable to Rego and Bong? Would they see what wrong with the woman and will they join the calls for her ouster?”
It is just like asking, does the sun set in the east?
In making assumptions, there are ideal and real scenarios. Yours do not fall on any of the two because it simply cannot happen even when Marcos and Erap factors are eliminated; there will always be ambitious politicians who will ride on the controversy/scandal either pro or anti-admin.
rego,
here’s my problem with bong’s observation: “The stark, naked truth is that civil society and the opposition have once again failed to galvanize people into action.”
as an ordinary citizen, i don’t need galvanizing from civil society (whom i’ve learned to distrust after edsa 2) and the opposition. all i’m anticipating for is a president who has said “i am sorry” to step down because it becomes her moral imperative to do so, by allowing herself to have undergone the impeachment process. we certainly don’t need another people power if that’s what galvanizing is all about. kaya nga duon ako humanga kay erap (and take note: i-did-not-vote-for-him) dahil he was courageous and man enough to allow himself to be investigated during the impeachment trial (and how convenient it was for those who GALVANIZED people power to dismiss him, kasi artista lang naman siya, etc, etc., without reflecting on the sacrilege committed on the institution and constitution of this republic).
why should the initiative to a call for change always have to come from the people, when your president can do simple introspection: a public office is a public trust.
tbl,
“and now I have been reading this…SnB…is this what I think it is? Son….. B…?”
sa tagalog: tuta.
CVJ,
The point is you dont want to listen us. You just wanted us to listen to you and follow your convictions. But is not how we see things eh…
One big problem that we is this. You have been analyzing on why we are not joining your cause. You were searching for answer to that big why. Then someone from your side came out with some (mis} analysis. Eureka! that answers your questions. But when we present to you the real reason, you just dimiss it as just few paragraph and shift the topic quickly to how to react to certain ineffectiveness. ( which actually reaction to certain things is a matter of choice0. That how you wanted to react so be it!)
You have been so consistent on critizing even lambasting us for not joining your cuase . Can we not criticize your way of handling the issue and give our reason for not joining you?
We let you do it your way and at the same time refuse to join you. We stick with our conviction and our way of doing it. You branded us with everything you want. Can we not answer back?
i mean it is strange and disturbing to see veterans of edsa 1 and 2 link arms with leftovers of the marcos and estrada years; but opposition is opposition: i can’t stand ernie maceda and kit tatad but they, too, were welcomed in the opposition’s ranks when they turned against marcos. at the time, it was better to have them see the light, for whatever motives, than to continue supporting marcos. so what’s different today?
mlq3 said this on August 30th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
————————————————————
The difference then and now is that people know better! Cmon Manolo, You don’t realize this? People have seen enough of these politicians and personalities from one side jumping into the other side everytime there is an issue being called for action by the civil society or any other group most specially peopel power. And yes Maceda is a very good example, from Marcos , to Cory, to Erap. Obviously his action doen’t change his nature, he is still forever shrewd and sleazy Maceda. Another good example is Congressman Escudero, is he for real? or he is just using the anti Gloria sentiment for his senatorail ambition. And of course there is Dinky, did she realy resign for the right reason as she proclaimed to the whole world? But the way she is acting now it seem so well that she has a grand agenda. Maniniwal pa siguro ako kay Emily Boncodin, dahil pag katpos mag resign tumahimik. But Dinky? oh please!
Just for the sake of argument, if no Erap or Marcos loyalists and no ambitious politicians were in the opposition, would overthrowing Arroyo become acceptable to Rego and Bong? Would they see what wrong with the woman and will they join the calls for her ouster?
manuelbuencamino said this on August 31st, 2006 at 3:21 am
—————————————————————
Constitutional removal through impeachment, yes.
I have said it before and I will say it again this time. I dont like Mrs Aroyo from teh very start of the election. As amatter of fact even during EDSA2 me and my college freinds who were there has already our doubts in her. So aala pang Garci at kung anu ano issue na pinapalabas ang opposition I already did my own protest. Di ko sya binoto kahit na ano pa ang pag kukumbinsi at pananakot na baka manalo si FPJ mga kaibigan at kakilala ko. Bottomline nauna akong sa inypong lahat mag protesta, at napoprotest pa rin ako hangang ngayon in my very own way. Hindi lang laban kay Gloria kundi laban sa lahat na sa palagay ko dapat ipagprotesta!
IMHO, it is preposterous to say how history will judge somebody. One can only speculate. JJ’s speculation is such, just a speculation, no need to argue about it.
So what is our course of action rego?
Inuduro,
“as an ordinary citizen, i don’t need galvanizing from civil society (whom i’ve learned to distrust after edsa 2) and the opposition.”
>>> oh that’s good!
” all i’m anticipating for is a president who has said “i am sorry†to step down because it becomes her moral imperative to do so, by allowing herself to have undergone the impeachment process.”
>>>>>Good luck !
“we certainly don’t need another people power if that’s what galvanizing is all about. kaya nga duon ako humanga kay erap (and take note: i-did-not-vote-for-him) dahil he was courageous and man enough to allow himself to be investigated during the impeachment trial (and how convenient it was for those who GALVANIZED people power to dismiss him, kasi artista lang naman siya, etc, etc., without reflecting on the sacrilege committed on the institution and constitution of this republic)”.
>>>>Nice to know na may bago ka ng idol. not a bad choice!
“why should the initiative to a call for change always have to come from the people, when your president can do simple introspection: a public office is a public trust”
>>>>>Bakit nga ba? hindi ko rin alam eh!
bu bye guys. Se you next year sa susunod na impeachment!!!!
(Good riddance di ba??????)
[...] Update: Wanna the descendant of another great Filipino (Manuel Quezon) in action? Head over to Manuel “Manolo” Quezon III’s blog. He has also written about Magsaysay, mixed up with some interesting news. [...]
this is something i’ve brought up in some meetings, though often met with silence. i think it would have been a great move to reassure the public that no one who left the president’s government, would serve in the next. simply as a guarantee that the motivation to oppose was out of principle and not ambition.
And that silence is so pregnant with meaning, MLQ3, if the silence is coming from those very same people who left the president’s government. But be that as it may, I think if they wish to run, they should. Submit themselves to an election and not angle for a cabinet position.
[...] (Me maxima culpa: Quite spectacularly, I paid tribute to President Magsaysay the day before his actual birth anniversary. His 99th birth anniversary is today. So what was written yesterday, properly belongs to today! A rundown of the Magsaysay awardees reminded me of this error. See Fool for Five for more on The Guy.). [...]
Cat,
“It is just like asking, does the sun set in the east?
In making assumptions, there are ideal and real scenarios. Yours do not fall on any of the two because it simply cannot happen even when Marcos and Erap factors are eliminated; there will always be ambitious politicians who will ride on the controversy/scandal either pro or anti-admin.”
Oww….you should finished reading to the end because that was what was applicable to you…” It’s not about who else is against Arroyo. It’s all about whether one approves of what she has done and what she is doing. That’s what we should be talking about and not the side issues that the fence sitters and the rabid Arroyo loyalists keep harping about. If one does not like Arroyo it really does not matter who else does not like her, right?”
Your arguments – “I prefer Arroyo because of the people who are opposed to her” is as silly as “I don’t like Arroyo because of the people who like her”
Arroyo is the issue not the people for or against her.
Rego, the message i get from you and your group is this: you were right in your choices before (i.e. voting for Roco) while we were wrong. Today, it is futile to try to fight Arroyo directly because she is too powerful. Besides, the opposition is going about things the wrong way. There are other ways to go about improving our lives and, anyway, Arroyo’s reign will someday end. You also resent being lambasted and ridiculed.
My reaction is: the ideology you and your group promotes – that of making government and politics irrelevant, is self-defeating. While there are areas where collective action can be done through NGO’s and other private initiatives, there are limits to this approach. In any case, NGO’s and private initiatives work better when supported by an environment that has a just and responsive government.
On the issue of ‘moral throne’, you and Bong haven’t really addressed why you are attacking the opposition from the angle of ‘moral superiority’. Bong just reports that he has been attacked for having low morals but just leaves it at that. It’s not clear to me whether he is saying that it’s ok to have ‘low morals’ or whether there is no problem with his morality. All he gives is a counter-accusation of his attackers being afflicted with ‘moral superiority’. By contrast, Manolo’s explanation is more straightforward and representative of your group’s mindset. I’ll settle for that explanation until you or Bong come up with a better one.
Ca T, your mindset of waiting around for a Messiah is part of the problem. Instead of just waiting, the people have to agree on what is right and make things happen. If enough people rally around an idea, a leader or leaders will emerge to carry out the people’s will. Iniduro’s idea above (‘a public office is a public trust’) is timeless, simple and straightforward enough for us to rally around to.
Your arguments – “I prefer Arroyo because of the people who are opposed to her†is as silly as “I don’t like Arroyo because of the people who like herâ€Â
Arroyo is the issue not the people for or against her.
MB,
Your putting words into my mouth. If you have known me before, you will discover that I was the first to criticize her flip flopping. Give me the likes of Roco and I will be jumping from the fence,
From cvj: the message i get from you and your group is this…
What group does rego belong to?
My reaction is: the ideology you and your group promotes – that of making government and politics irrelevant, is self-defeating.
But then, it’s a worthy goal to achieve. Why is it self-defeating, cvj? Because you dont think it can be achieved? I think it would be a glorious day for our country when the people stop relying on politicians and government, when they realize the power they have if they get their acts together, when the politicians realize that theyre actually servants of the people and not masters. What’s wrong with that? Im not a big government guy myself. My view of government is The smaller, the better.
cvj.
so what do you want me to do, go to the streets?
As if joining you is going to solve the problem. sig. stop convincing me. Present your thoughts and i will present mine.
When men agree to think alike, the world is in danger.
Cat, are you a fencesitter? Someone who waits who the winner is before throwing in your lot? Or just plain sigurista? What’s the difference?
rego,
sino yung bagong idol ko? fill me in. i was for roco, who dared gma to sue him in court re: poster anomaly, and that should have been the sane and same attitude gma has taken: take me to the impeachment court so i can address fair and square your accusations. she balked at the idea for apparently she has something to be fearful of. kaya nga, sabi ko, buti pa si erap, nagpakalalake.
tired of all these politicking, sino bang hindi? but do not digress from the primordial issue here: with her legitimacy in question, what do you do to preserve the integrity of the presidency (as an office, not the person)? or better yet, what has she done?
now we know, delicadeza is not a trait automatically imbibed by learned people. tsk, tsk.
Jeg, in earlier comments, Rego said he belonged to a Yahoo group with 7K members. My impression is that they have achieved some sort of consensus among themselves along the lines of what he is advocating in his comments. Yes, the objective of making government and politics irrelevant is self-defeating because it cannot be achieved. It’s as utopian as Marx’s prophecy of the ‘withering away of the state’. The best we can do is to replace bad politicians with good politicians and bad government with good government. Bad politicians have a toxic effect on the day to day institutions like the Civil Service, Judiciary, military, law enforcement and Comelec. The happy scenario you describe cannot be achieved by going about our own way and pretending that the government does not exist and letting whoever is in power run it as they please. I’m also not a fan of big government or any other unwieldy bureaucracies (like big corporations) but these creatures are an integral part of our society and we have to do our best to make them work.
Ca T, you ask me to present my thoughts so you can present yours – haven’t we been doing just that? Beyond that, I’m in no position to ask you or anyone else to do anything.
cvj: The happy scenario you describe cannot be achieved by going about our own way and pretending that the government does not exist and letting whoever is in power run it as they please.
True. But that’s not what ‘making government and politics irrelavant’ means to me. You cant ignore injustice. You cant pretend injustice doesnt exist. If the government doesnt intrude in our lives in a detrimental way, then that would be ideal. This includes exhorbitant taxation and misuse of my money which I worked my a$$ off for. By making government irrelevant, I mean making it irrelevant to our day-to-day lives. The best government is one we dont notice. This present one we have, we cant ignore or pretend not to exist. It keeps intruding in our lives in detrimental ways.
Jeg, unless i’m mistaken, that’s how Rego and his Yahoo group interprets ‘making government and politics irrelevant’. Your interpretation i can live with.
hold on cvj, just wanted to correcct one very important thing from your impression… I did not qoute the 7,000 figure of a our egroup for current political issue. Thats for other issue , the Isagani Cruz gay bashing. ( and Bong is not a member of our group) As far as politics, our group is very much divided as the whole nation. And we discuss a lot of things in our group from politics to personal hygene…
I did mention that in our group there is one ateneo professor who brought up that idea that if Gloria doesn’t then keep her and make Malcanang her own prison cell and make her do a hard labor for the counrty as her punishment. (which i find creative and win-win and therefore im all for it)
And he also mentioned to the group that “Silent Revolution” is going among the people. Which I believe is not a bad idea too. With our politicians and so called leaders making us irrelevant and is just using us in pushing for there own agenda , not the people and nations agenda. When the politicans and our so called leaders are not really doing what they are supposed to do for the people thereby making us irrelevant. I believe it is not a bad idea to make them irrelivant as well. So we decided to focus on just doing what we believe might help our kabayans however small and that is through college scholarship, we chip in what ever we can give and pay for some poor young high school graduates. Which again I believe is not a bad idea. Our firts scholar has graduated already ) with flying colors at that and already got a job. We find fulfillment on this rather than debating on political issues or even going to the streets.
I dont know CVJ, if you came across with the ” circle of influence and circle of concern” ( from the book the 7 Habits of higly Effective People by Stephen Covey). To be more effective you have to work zand focus on your circle of influence , thing or areas where you think you can have the have the most impact or you can do something to make it happen. On the things that you believ you can’t really do nothing much just put it in you area of concern. And by working on your circle of influence and producing result eventually your circle of concern becomes smaller and smaller.
Changing bad politicians with the good one…, isn’t this our fervent objective everytime we go to the polls and vote. This given CVJ, we dont even have to dicuss this. No one consciously vote for someone that will just ruin their hopes and dreams in life. Unfortunately, more bad politicians always ended up gets elected . Such is the reality of our political landscape.
But can we turn upside down our politicial situation? Of course, naman! I am very hopeful about. I can see happening and I really believe that it is happening right now amidst the current political crisis. For one thing people are more discerning now. nag iisip na. Unlike before, when they were called to go to the streets to protest or do people power, presto! they are out in the streets. Now, they learn to really take time to think things over on what really is the issue and who is leading the protest before they join. And even by just joining a group like Black and White Movement and One Voice, they really think things over now. This is a long process though and I am hoping that somehow we will see it in 2007 election. But if it will not happen in 2007 its okay. I am still hopeful and optimistic that it will eventualy happen.
Now the problem is this, you and your ilk cannot really wait for this things to happen and let it happen. You want it to happen, NOW NA! And it has to be your way!!!
Lets over throw the current in effective government in what ever means that we can IMMEDIATELY, throw all the issue to Mrs Arroyo, keep them coming, until the people are convinced that indeed the current administration needs to be kicked out. Then lets use all the scare tactics, martial law, economic meltdown and whatever it take for people to get angry and go to the streets.
Quick solution, quick fix and worst based on emotionalism. ( of course we al know that an emtional aproach to a problem solving is not really that effective) Most peopel learned their lesson already this is not effctive anymore. They tried it already in EDSA 1 and EDSA 2.
And when it take so long for the people to go to the streets and support your cause, You and your ilk come up with a lot of analysis and theories and worst most of them are negative towards these people. You call us names, label us, what ever you want.
And recently Manolo came up with, ” The reason, I’ve come to be increasingly convinced, is that she simply has too many accomplices among the ranks of those used to considering themselves the moral custodians of Philippine society.” And you applauded it it so well, and even declare that that answer your questions to . On the other hand, I was trying to really decipher what Manolo is saying. A lot of question were cmoing into my mind. Is He referring to us , what is the bases of such conclusion?? But I did not react right away and even did not say anything. ( same goes with that piece of buencamino, I did not react instantly on his column no matter how I feel bad about it, I only mentioned it during teh Doronilla thing) Because I dont want to take his words in the wrong context and evem misundertood everything what he is trying to say. But there is also that feeling of “whoa, now manolo is saying that we are now accomplices of Mrs Arroyo”
I woudld not have reacted to your reply hadn’t you mentioned my name. You see I have been avoiding and evading your post CVJ, becuase after all this time, I resigned to the fact that we are seeing things in a complete opposite way. I have this impression that ther is really no way that we can agree on things except to disagree.
Now as to your question about the moral throne that I mention in my reply to inuduro , my feeling is that i really don’t have to answer you on that. Becuase I know for sure that you you know very well the answer. Heck, its all over the op ed section of all newspaper paper , its all over the blogspehere. Im sure you read Mr Buencamino everyday. From there alone, you know the answer very well. And if thats not enough for you I cut and paste Bong column, but you dismiss it as just a few paragraphs of unnecessary criticizng the ineffective. Do I really have to cut in paste , all the columns of Randy David and all other columnist that said so?????
Rego, thanks for your response. When you told me about your group’s scholarship programs back in March, i replied that political opposition and civic duty is not an either/or proposition. What i take exception with is your conception of government without the people.
I do not buy the metaphor of the Ateneo professor as Malacanang is not really a ‘prison’ and Gloria remaining President is not exactly a form of punishment. As for the “Silent Revolution”, as i told Jeg above, it is not possible to make government irrelevant just by ignoring it especially now when government is actively encroaching on our lives as shown by the recent experience with the military demanding that people produce cedulas.
It is not only during elections where we train our politicians to behave. Vigilance has to be continuous and feedback for transgressions must be immediate. We all got burned with our respective EDSA’s but i believe our problem as a people is the lack of follow through after the EDSAs. The problem was not our emotions during EDSA, but rather our retreat back into apathy after. Arroyo has to go because while she is in office, our institutions grow weaker. She is not a benign presence. And even after she leaves, there is much more that needs to be done.
Perhaps I am guilty of misapplying Manolo’s analysis to you and Bong, and if that’s the case, then that is my mistake. However, if you feel alluded to by all the criticisms directed at the apathetic in the papers and the blogosphere, that is as it should be. I believe your philosophy is responsible for propping up Arroyo and that is of no small consequence. Don’t take it too personally though because none of us is capable of judging your worth as a person.
the cat,
I don’t think you get my point. I said if you don’t like Arroyo then it doesn’t matter who else does not like her.To firther illustrate my point I turned around what I said.
Now you say “Give me the likes of Roco and I will be jumping from the fence,”
Two observations on your challenge
1. we are all living under arroyo’s rule. we are either putting up woth it or we are working to tear it down. there is really no fence sitting here. If you are not actively opposing her then you are passively supporting her
2.and this is something I wrote to Bong Austero – it is not my job to gift you with another person. I can offer you an alternative which is a country not run by gloria but as to the person who will replace her …well… only the people hopefully through a clean and honest election can decide that.
I am willing to take a chance with the unknown rather live with something I cannot live with.
But seriously, the MTRCB x-rated Erap’s movie because of a “tendency to undermine…” Tendency! Not clear and present danger. If I were to translate what the MTRCB said it would be, ” Baka kasi mawalan ng tiwala…”
Naknampucha naman!
cvj,
You have managed to simplify in a couple of paragraphs the core values that common people considered to be in the ‘opposition’ veritably espouse.
When you say “It is not only during elections where we train our politicians to behave. Vigilance has to be continuous and feedback for transgressions must be immediate. “, you cannot be any more true.
Gloria’s misdeeds cannot be overlooked for the sake of a superficial comfort and political peace. It just isn’t right to be complacent about her legal shortcomings. They gnaw at the remaining fibers of national sanity.
It is difficult to ask of the ordinary people, the common tao, the men and women in the countrysides, the OFWs and the many more unfortunate others to do their bit and to work for meaningful changes when our leadership who are expected to show them how, lead them astray. And by that, I just don’t mean Gloria Macapagal and her friends in Malacanang, but those who have the education, the stature and the means to push for and effect those changes that are so physically and urgently needed and help cast away today’s morally bereft leaders occupying the upper echelons of power.
The way this administration is behaving and the way these congressmen did with the impeachment, I believe the normal response of people would be anger. This is besides the fact that the previous issue regarding legitimacy has been cleared. Although like what Rego said they are more discerning now and they cannot be easily called to go to the streets. But I think it should be shown that people are still capable of revolting rather than them thinking that people are fed up of doing another people power. That is the reason they are abusing and taking advantage of being in power. It is better to say that the people learned their lessons in the previous “people powerâ€Â. The real mistake was that the previous revolutions were both aimed just for changing the leaders. There were no meaningful decisions made and make those people accountable pay for their wrong doings, if ever it seems results or decisions are taking too much time.
I believe what really needs to be done is to improve and restore people’s trust in our institutions. Let us not focus now on who is better to lead us, I believe this will be better taken cared of (same is true with our constitution) when the improved institutions are in place. As in every competition, we cannot expect the people to be happy with the results if there is no level playing field.
Pasensiya na kayo kung ikumpara ko na naman sa basketball. Yun nga palang referee na nagulpi hindi naman gaano nasaktan, naawat naman kaagad. Ang magandang nangyari natuto ang mga namamahala na ayusin ang dapat ayusin. Hindi na muli pang nakapag- referee yung tao at yung mga sumunod na mga referee ay tumino at natuto ng pahalagahan ang trabaho nila. In the end naging maganda na ang naging takbo ng laro at ang mga taong naglalaro ay nagging masigasig at gumanda ang competition at pati na ang mga taong nanonood ay well behave na at lalong nasiyahan. Kung mahal natin ang larong basketball sino naman ang hindi masisiyahan pag ganito
Ganoon din siguro ang dapat nating gawin pag mahal natin ang demokrasya. Tayo na rin ang dapat na gumawa ng mga tamang hakbang kung paano natin mapapaganda ang takbo nito at iwasan at labanan ang mga pagwawalang bahala at pang aabuso. Kung hindi lalabas lamang tayong mga uncontented and helpless spectators.
Thats another problem Anna, because you and ilk has deluded yourselves to have the monopoly of training the politicians and focus only one faction of the politicians. There are people who doesn’t side with any faction and poke their gun to anybody on either side who doesn’t behave as expected…. Take for example Teddy Boy Locsin, he side for impeaching teh president during the first impeachment and the so called opposition love him so much for that. Then voted against teh second impeachment and presto he was quickly relegated to the shameless list by the opposition. I am having an impression that the you wanted your so called opposition to dictate the standards of our politics. Anyone who doesn’t toe your line fail to meet the standards and should then be sent to your training camp.
Rego, Teddy Boy Locsin’s vote means he sided with the President. He was relegated to the ‘shameless list’ by the oppposition precisely because of his stand on that issue. Isn’t this what we want, to be issue (not personality) based? Anyway, sayang siya. For all that learning he could do no better than Pontius Pilate.
the issue, cvj, is wether the second impeachment is sufficient in substance and teddy boy, clavel martinez and the rest believed that it is not. and run against your line.
you and your ilk just hated anything that favor mrs arroyo to any extent no matter how reasonable that particular action is. Now That is where you became personality oriented and reactive . And never an issue oriented or proactive people.
Now here is another problem, you confuses your “training standard for politics” with favoring or not favoring Mrs Arroyo.
And you just would not setle for any WIN-WIN resolution of any issues. You opted so well to go for a WIN-LOSS, that you WIN and Mrs Arroyo LOST. But of course Mrs Arroyo would not want to loss either , she wanted to win too. That is is how we arrive to this political mess. Each faction desperately wanted to win and and beat their opponent.
How about a paradigm shift and everybody going for a WIN- WIN. ????????????????????????
Rego, just like the rest of the 172 anti-impeachment representatives, Locsin hid behind the rules to justify his decision. The reason i liken him to Pontius Pilate is that he said that this matter should be decided during the 2007 local elections – a convenient cop-out when we consider that he is one of those who has been called upon to make a decision on the issue at hand. In other words, he tried to justify his actions by washing his hands off the matter. On something this grave, i expected more from him in terms of discerning priorities. Sadly, he was not able to step up to the demands of the situation.
In your other posts, you say you value vigilance. However, when people choose to exercise that vigilance, you criticize them for not adopting a ‘win-win’ approach. Even you admit that Arroyo really cheated. By the nature of the offense, someone (in this case the people who voted – all of them) already lost. They were cheated out of their right to make a decision. How would you apply ‘win-win’ in this case when the starting position is already ‘win-lose’? What you are advocating is expedient compromise on the integrity of the electoral exercise – a matter that is far too valuable to give away in return for someone like Arroyo.
cvj, cvj, there will will always be rules in everything and anything. if you dont want to follow the rules then what will happen??????
here’s is another problem, you and your ilk associated vigilance with being rabid anti arroyo!
a win-win aproach is not anchored on anything. if you really wanted to pursue you just have to go for it!!!!!!
cvj, cvj, there will will always be rules in everything and anything. if you dont want to follow the rules then what will happen??????
here’s is another problem, you and your ilk associated vigilance with being rabid anti arroyo!
a win-win aproach is not anchored on anything. if you really wanted to pursue it you just have to go for it!!!!!!
Rego, yes there are rules but there are no hard and fast rules. No system is so self-contained that we can just let it make the decisions for us. There are those who clearly see that Arroyo and her allies are using the rules of procedure to hide what they did and circumvent the substance of democracy. Look at it this way. I was pro-Arroyo. If i was personality oriented, i would have stuck it out with her but i no longer do because i have to consider the issues that go beyond her and the original reasons for my support. And what’s your beef about being ‘rabid’? Sometimes you have to consider what is being said rather than on how it is being said. I think you put too much emphasis on a veneer of decorum and the appearance of harmony rather than the heart of the issue. Any scenario with Arroyo staying in power is not ‘win-win’.
cvj, cvj,…
teddy boy locsin, clavel martinez, these are maverick and principled politicians who was never a pro arroyo but who voted according their principles. the issue is not about hard and fast rules. Pls dont complicate it. The issue is wether the second impeachment is sufficient in substance. If you and your ilk are not really personality oriented, then the focus of discussion in any fora that you participated should have been the substance of the impeachment not on listing and delisting your morality list with personalities who toe you line or not.
Again dito tama is Bong doon sa sinulat nya, That for you and your ilk its always ” if you are not with us then you are not our freind, at sinabi ko rin sa yo dati pa “that you are playing the deadly game of “the enemy of my enmy is my freind”
Changing personalities doesn’t make you a non personality oreinted person. As it is, you just changed personalities.
Of course there is WIN-WIN even if mrs Arroyo is in power. You and your ilk just refuse to use it because it will favor Mrs Arroyo in some ways. You will just not settle on anything less but a total and absolute WIN and a completely humiliating LOSS for Mrs Aroyo. But of course Mrs Aroyo would just not take it sitting down, she has to defend herself and fight too. Thats natural instinct for any body who is being attacked.
Such is the very unfortunate situation country today because of heavy partisan paolitics. With the two faction so consumed with WIN-LOSS or LOSS-WIN, its just become a LOSS-LOSS for everybody. Again, Bong is right in his closing statement with that few paragraphs that he wrote. “No there is no winners in this contest only temporary respite.”
Indeed , THERE WILL NEVER be winners for as long as both side continue to be consumed with the WIN-LOSS attitude and strategies.
Rego, i don’t quite understand how you determine whether someone is ‘personality oriented’ or ‘issue oriented’. when you assert that ‘teddy boy locsin, clavel martinez…are maverick and principled politicians‘, aren’t you also making a personality assessment? They may have all the qualities you say they possess but what i take exception to is their decision and its implications. To me, that’s being issue oriented. As for my withdrawal of support for Mrs Arroyo, all along i’ve thought that i was just being consistent on the issue of cheating, now you tell me that i’m guilty of ‘changing personalities’. That’s news to me because i am not aware of transferring my support to some other personality.
In case you haven’t noticed, the opposition has been trying to get to the substance of the impeachment but Arroyo and her allies are not cooperating in this regard, which brings us back to the issue of the rules and the purposes they serve. I’m not complicating matters when i say that deciding which set of rules take precedence is often necessary. In this instance, House rules were prioritized over the principles of democracy. You and Bong somehow always try to make this matter about you, but the ones we should be concerned with are the people who have been cheated. The real deadly game is for us to allow this injustice to fester as it sets a precedent that further undermines the democratic system.
You have made a choice of lifestyle, Paeng. I respect that. I surmise it didn’t come about naturally, since it developed from talking to taxi drivers, among others. Not everyone has the opportunity to have their eyes opened and, perhaps, not everyone would be willing to adapt in the same way while they still have other choices.
Incidentally, hvrds said:
“The ADB came out with report recently that the country will not be able to solve its unemployment problems by depending on call centers and inflows from foreign workers. The report stated that we have to go through the evolutionary process of agricultural and thence industrial development.”
We call ourselves an agricultural country but that is a misnomer. We always had the soils, the resources and the technology to be a top agricultural producer. But we never had the will or the inclination. Today, our principal agricultural crops are rice, corn, coconuts and sugar cane. The same key crops over a hundred years ago. Yes, feudalism extends even to our archaic agricultural structure.
Greed and political expediency caused us to exploit agriculture (and consequently, the rural sector). Half-hearted and short-sighted policies from an indifferent and distant government have only contributed to the drift in agriculture. Instead of nurturing agriculture so it would bloom and create prosperity and well-being in the countryside, government stifled it with onerous levies and politically self-serving price controls.
Our Asian neighbors, such as Malaysia and Thailand, encouraged and developed agriculture. Instead of exploiting and taxing the farmers, they subsidized, developed infrastructures and extended credit to the countryside. These policies bore fruit when incomes improved in the rural areas and the farmers, besides being food producers, became consumers of all types of goods. This gave impetus to industrial production and, consequently, created more jobs and more wealth. Today, while agriculture remains vital to these economies, it has assumed a small percentage of the total.
As emilie points out above:
“The size of any market in this country is very very low compared to our neighbors.â€Â
We have to uplift our rural areas in order to increase consumption and, consequently, the size of the market. This will spur more industries and services and, ultimately, create more jobs.
It is a fact that we are among the lowest per capita consumers of most products, save for softdrinks, where we are said to be among top. Maybe that is why John Gokongwei said that, as far as he can remember, the only thriving industries we created are Coca-Cola and real estate. Well, Gokongwei may have forgotten about San Miguel. But, then, what does it say on that beer bottle? Since 1890? That was more than a hundred years ago, so it probably doesn’t count. Gokongwei may have a point, after all.
Cvj, cvj,
pause a little and really reflect on what you are doing. …
you will never be issue oriented at all for as long as you focus too much on Mrs Aroyo. You will always be in the look-out for her movement ofetn wondering what she is up to. And you seek self gratification and validation from the like minded .that is why you consider the people who doesn’t toe your line and go with your convictions and plan of actions your enemy.
You are counter dependently guided by Mrs Aroyos actions and you based your decisions on what will thwarth her,or your enemies.
Your judegement is narrow and distorted and you become so defensive, overreactive, and opten paranoid of Mrs Aroyo and your enemies.
Consequently, you develop a weak power, coming from your anger, envy, resentment, and vengeance. A negative energy that shrivels and destroys leaving energy for little else.
rego, so, concretely, what would you suggest.
Oh Manolo, I already did made suggestions earlier in my replies. Lets go for the WIN-WIN strategies and attitude. One Voice which I believed you are a member has put it so well. Its just too bad that the group allowed itself to be entangled with Sigar ng Bayan.
And also I really really feel and believe that Bong Austero has articulated soooooooo well what should be better done. From that very first open letter alone, ther is already a lot worth considering.
Its just too bad that people on your side just ignore it as just a few paragraphs!
I dont know the “pro bloggers” like you are doing it, with that here here and here” .. to link one blog entry to another. So I have to cut and paste some of his sugestions.
Some of them are:
From his blog entry ” Harmonizing Discordant Voices” June 26,2006. He said:
THERE are at least three main challenges facing One Voice, the new citizens group initially composed of respected Filipinos who have come together to craft a five-point proposal to take the country out of the current political impasse.
The first challenge is getting heard loudly and clearly above the din and dynamics of the current political melee, particularly as the run-up towards the second impeachment brings to a boil. This early, the message of the group, precisely perhaps because of its more sober tone, runs the risk of being drowned out by the more insistent and more confrontational stance of the other messages out there. It doesn’t help, of course, that in our country today, controversy and hysterics get more attention and media airtime.
The adversarial positions being taken up by those advocating that the President be kicked out of office now as a nonnegotiable precondition for anything else, on one hand, and by those advocating Charter Change through the people’s initiative, on the other, seem to be presenting far more enticing (though not necessarily wiser) talking points.
The second challenge is convincing more and more Filipinos that their advocacy is far more desirable and ultimately, a more viable alternative that will usher the country out of the current political impasse. I have always maintained that the nonparticipation of most Filipinos in the raging national debate is not necessarily reflective of collective apathy, but more as a kind of protest over the limited, and largely “exclusive†(and often exasperating) menu of options being peddled out there.
There is widespread cynicism and distrust pervading today, and in a highly polarized environment, I believe that many choose to take the less contentious point of viewâ€â€the one that offers a more direct lifeline to stability and security. Of course, this does not sit well with those who have cloaked themselves with the conviction of the moral and intellectual right. On many occasions, embracing the less contentious point of view has been ridiculed as weak and unpatriotic, giving the impression that nationalism has become an absolute concept, which has been franchised exclusively by particular groups. Unfortunately, this has only alienated people even more rather than drawn them into their cause.
Third, and as a logical consequence because the group is pushing for consensus, it will have to perform a major balancing act of accommodating the diversity of opinions and prescriptions out there.
Regretfully, one sector that One Voice has seemingly automatically marginalized is the group pushing for the people’s initiative. I personally do not agree with what that group is advocating (i.e., the specific points of what needs to be revised or amended in the Constitution), but I think there is space in the current political debate for recognition of various means to attain change. A people’s initiative is simply another way of empowering the citizenry and when we come down to it, it is as valid as say, people power, or for that matter, the coming together of the citizens that compose One Voice. They are variants of the same political animal.
But I understand that some items of the five-point proposal being pushed by One Voice are contingent on the defeat of some of the advocacy points of the people’s initiative. I also understand that the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution is potentially flawed although this has not been decided on with finality by the appropriate constitutional bodies. My point simply is that seeking consensus requires a more win-win perspective that does away with putting one perspective to advance another. After all, both groups purport to be in search of the same elusive thing: change.
One Voice also makes a compelling case on the need to craft a social agenda now, and on the imperative need to hold elections in 2007 as an indirect referendum on whether the President should be allowed to serve her full term, among others.
I agree that there is a need to craft a social agenda that focuses on the “common good†now. I have said this before in my blog (www.bongaustero.blogspot.com) and in that open letter that gave me my 10 minutes of infamy, but I will say it again here despite the risk of being ridiculed all over again by some quarters. People are sick and tired of the screaming and whining contest. It is time to bring the discussion to the level of what is the common good. It is time to look inside ourselves and come to terms with the fact that whatever we say or do, we are in the same boat together. We have differences in opinions and points of views but this should not deflect from the fact that this does not necessarily mean we are against each other.
If we can agree on a collective social agenda, then our disagreements can be made more civil and sensible. I truly think that what is tragic today is this preoccupation with short-term goals that divide us (such as how to give GMA the boot) rather than on larger goals that can serve as rallying points. The problems of this country are bigger and larger than keeping GMA in power or not, but yes, the social agenda should not preclude the possibility of a possible peaceful transition of power through democratic ways.
I believe that it is truly time for ordinary Filipinos to take the discussion and the crafting of the solution out of the hands of the politicians. This brings us to the contentious issue of impeaching the President, which is still a democratic option. But regardless of who files the impeachment complaint, the reality is that the impeachment process is a highly partisan and political process. We can rant about this until we are all blue in the face, but it is a numbers game that is beyond the control of the ordinary citizenry.
Thus, making the 2007 elections as an indirect referendum does present itself as a tempting, more realistic alternative. This is conditioned, of course, on the assumption that safeguards towards ensuring that the 2007 elections can be kept honest and clean can be put in place before then. This is possible of course if we put our hearts and collective energy into it.
And Manolo,
Personally, believed that they way people react to any issue that crop up is also very very important! Because I firmly believe that the our country will be shaped not by what the leaders do or not do but how the citizens react to any issues.
Contrary to what cvj is claiming, that i take things personally , I just believe that there were so many good ideas and actions that come out from the current and very long political debate. It just need to be taken with the right attitude. And with the right reactions from the people, I believe it will be a huge help for the country to move forward.
So dont expect me to come up with new ideas. I believe there is not much need for that. I will just be here in this wonderful world of blogspehere to enlighten something on developing a productive reactions to our nations problem. I am doing this in good faith and with pure intentions, And I leave it to the bloggers especially the one that caught my attention on how they would take it.
So I am not really being personal about it, I just feel that that is one of the positive ways that i can help on overcoming our countries problem and help our country to move forward somehow.
I personally think that the suggestions rego forwarded here but taken from Bong Austero’s line of reasoning doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I would summarize it as something like, “because booting Gloria Arroyo out of office will not solve our problems, let’s look for other solutions. Meanwhile, let everything be as they are.”
It is a choice, and the likes of rego love it. I personally don’t.
The way things are going, the people running our institutions are thinking only the good and welfare of the people (in malacanang). So before they do anything they will be considering if their actions are for the benefit of the people (in malacanang).
hey jon,,
siguro dapat malinaw kung ano ba talaga ang pinapipilian nating choices. Baka naman iba naman yung pinapipilian mo sa pinapipilian ng One Voice, ni Bong at iba naman ang sa akin.
The options that we defined for ourselves to choose from , I believe is subjective and really depends on our values and principles. So there is really no way for us to judge the choices of each other. We cant even compare our choices unless the options that we defined are the same…..
For example, some of the options I defined for myself are these:
1. Arroyo cheating or Election cheating as a whole…
2. Morality or Effectiveness…
3. Be issue oriented or personality oriented….
4. Shoudl I focus on my Circle of concern ( e.g Arroyo Cheating, unresponsive leadesr and politicians), my circle of influence ( thing that I can really do and deliver results)
5. Be reactive or be proactive..
I believe to ang nag papahaba nga walang katapusang political debate na eto. Everybody just joined the debate without even clarfying first for himself what really is the issue being debated.
Or it could also be the other way around, bokyo, that indeed they are trying very hard to do something for the people out side malacanang. Again subjective uli eto and really depends on our values and principles.
Rego,
The big picture is for the betterment of the nation, that is in line with your comment #66. How do we go about it is the bone of contention as everybody has his own way of doing things. If we take the 5 specific points you raised above, each person will again view things differently with some agreeing on one or two. When we present our views, we’re glad if there are many who concur, but when they disagree, then we sit back and analyze if we or they are wrong according to our values and principles (here we agree again).
But take for example your point #1. Arroyo cheating or as a whole. What is the best way to achieve our end purpose which is the betterment of our nation? I personally believe that cheaters should be punished (we go back again to the Garci tapes, the new ones regarding Colcol and Rasalan, etc. as points of discussion). That’s the principle. Any time is a good time to start living with that principle as our society (or any society for that matter) cannot really function properly if cheaters are rewarded. So I cannot really agree when somebody says “everybody cheated but forget about it, we move on.”. The implication is we will catch the cheats next time around.
This point has been discussed in so many fora and everybody has expressed their opinions. Whoever gathers the biggest voice, usually gets what they want. So if you and Bong Austero represents the majority, then what you’re advocating will be the way (for now) to go. However, those of different minds will continue to nurture their ideas and wait for their time when their voice is stronger.
Rego,
Those are largely false choices you have defined for yourself.
1. Arroyo cheating or Election cheating as a whole – As Jon has explained above, the two are not mutually exclusive. A full investigation ‘how’ Arroyo cheated would help reveal how cheating at the highest levels general take place. It’s practical value would be to identify who are the parties involved (e.g. Comelece, local government, military) and would allow these institutions to clean house before the next elections. In this way, it contributes to helping eliminate cheating as a whole. Also, while eliminating ‘election cheating as a whole’ is a worthy goal, it does not address the immediate issue of the President’s legitimacy or don’t you think this is an issue?
2. Morality or Effectiveness – I suppose you’re referring to the morality of Arroyo’s removal versus the her continuing ‘effectiveness’ if she remains in power. Even assuming that Arroyo is ‘effective’ (which given her legitimacy problem is also in question) this is a shortsighted trade-off. Stripping our political system of its moral basis is dangerous as Manolo has explained in his speech to the Rotary:
‘when the middle class and the rich either abandon, or are stripped, of all pretenses to public and private decency, you have a truly dangerous situation. No one is left with any moral authority over anyone else; what once served to keep everything cozy and looking good, proves as rotten and corrupt as those once considered moral, political, and social inferiors. So who has any incentive to worship anything except power and wealth? Why should anyone help or believe anyone else?‘
By condoning Arroyo’s cheating, do you want to be complicit in this process – replacing morality with power and wealth?
3. Issue oriented or personality oriented – As shown in previous comments, we have incompatible definitions so nothing more can be said on this.
4. Circle of Concern vs. Circle of Influence – It is a given that as individuals, our circle of influence on matters of public concern is miniscule, as it should be. That is why collective action like One Voice, BlacknWhite or other groups like it, is needed. Once we decide on the right thing to do, then people need to act collectively. In the first place, the issue of election cheating means that even the miniscule ‘circle of influence’ of the individual voter has been violated. This should be restored.
5. Reactive or proactive – I suppose that you are implying that being ‘proactive’ is superior to being ‘reactive’. That’s not always the case. If someone in front of you suffers a heart attack, it is not the right time to lecture about CPR in the interest of saving future heart attack victims. It is common sense to attend to the immediate situation first. As it is, you are using being proactive as an excuse for not reacting to the issue in front of you.
Jon
Before we continue this discussion, I believe its really important that we are alined from which we are coming from. Do we have the same definition of principles and values. To me this two are different things. To me principles are fundamental laws making it an objectiev reality and values are ethics or standards and therfore a subjective reality. If we focus on principles there no is we cannot agree. But if we wnat to be values centered, dyan talaga mag kakagulo tayo. Dahil nga subjective ang value eh.
In your reply, the betterment of the nation is the principle( The principle of growth) while going after gloria and what to do with her after she cheated is values. Again subjective eto and highly divisisve kasi iba iba naman talaga ang values natin and the tendency is for people of the same or those who share values to group together.
Principles are like territories while values are like maps going to territories. Being fundamental you can never go against prinicples pero sa values pwede.
Now para sa akin para hindi tayo nagkakagulo, I d rather focus on principle or be principle centered.
Yang ginagawa nyo of going after gloria at all cost is values. Maganda rin naman yan kasi papunta rin yan doon sa objective reality or principles of nation’s growth. In priniciple, I dont havea problem with that. but that is not my value eh. So I can just sincerely wish you goodluck for that.
Ang source nag pinagkakaguluhan natin is when one group who share values becomes so insistent or even forcing their values on another group who have different values or doesn’t share the same values. Dyan tayo nag kakagulo!!!
What I would suggest is that for everyone or all groups to be priniciple centered. And for as long as all other groups are going to the same principle, hayaan na…..It woudl even be better for each group to share their learnings on their route going to the same territory, the betterment of the nation.
cvj,
your opening statement is really horrible that Im having a hard time deciding on wether to engage on dicussion with or not. eto yung lagi nating pinagtatalunan lalo na doon sa pinpoint out on why we are taking offense on the way buencamino wrote. kasi yung opening paragraph are really designe are really very negative, name calling, judgemental, insults ….
But you did raised some points that I woudl love to talk about. later na siguro after I come home from work. I just have to go to work right now. And maybe by the time, I have gone overwith my negatiev feeling towards your opening statements.
Or maybe you can just read along with my reply to jon and I will just try to mention some important points that you raised along the way.
Rego, if you took offense to my opening statement, then i apologize as it was meant to be an objective introduction to the rest of my comment, not as an insult or namecalling.
Rego, we agree on our definitions of principle and values.
Please tell me if this is a principle or not: Cheating is unacceptable and cheaters should be punished.
To me it is guiding principle.
Jon,
Cheating is not fundamental so it can never be principle. Its a values. Thieves just like every body has values too.
Honesty is a Principle. And Gloria has seriously violated that and look what she got as consequences.!!!! You cannot just go against a principle! You’ll just break against your self against it.
Punishing a cheater is a value. Fairness is principle.
Ok then, let’s discuss using your own definitions.
Do you mean that Gloria violated the principle of Honesty because she cheated? What then should be done about it?
First, I believe that much of the responsibility and the consequences will be on Gloria than on the nation or the people. I agree with Bong Austero when she said that “Gloria may be able to finish her term, solve all the problem of the nation, turn out to be a great president but i doubt if she will be able to live down that black scar on her reputation as ( or for me the stigma of) someone who was caught cheating in an elections.”
Unless she do something to correct it, she will continue to suffer. Hide it, cover it up, evade from it… and she will even continue to suffer more. And even worst she will be violating another principle, the principle of Integrity.
Integrity and honesty is a very important principle. There is just no way that you can break these principles because Honesty and integrity create the foundation of trust which is essential to cooperation and long term personal and interpersonal growth or in Glorias case her leadership.
If I were her I could have just resignend, NO IFS, NO BUTS. RESIGN! If she do that then she back on tract to the living principle of Honesty and Integrity.
Unfortunately, I am not her and we just dont have the same values. And I just cannot forced my values into her.
So my choice is to prosecute her. And our Constitution defined that process to be Impeachment. I am very much a pro impeachment, Jon. and I personaly feel bad that that is not happening.
So what will I do with my frustrations?????
Now here is where I have to exercize my FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Should I be proactive or reactive???. And I chose to be proactive. That is why I dont want to dwell on who voted for or against the recent impeachment. Id rather dwell on why and how they arrive to such a vote. And the decent expalantion I got from congressmen that I trusted and believed was that there was insufficiency in substance. That is the issue! Then I will focus more on the issue. Why and how come it was never sufficient in substance????Learn diligently from the errors and prevent and avoid the same errors in the next impeachment.
We seem to have the same goals, yet we differ on our priorities and some preferences (values).
You also dwelled on principles but you seem to forget that out of these principles, laws are made. And we need to follow the laws, and punish those who break them. I’ll try to remember the points we discussed here and use them the next points we will discuss.
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archive
Books from my library
Most Commented
Recent Comments
Categories
MLQ3′s Social Network Profiles