Malaya trumpets One of 2 wants GMA out via people power. The PCIJ blog does some quick analysis. Here is the report of the Social Weather Stations:
The survey, released on April 3, covers the First Quarter of the year, and was taken in the aftermath of the proclamation of a state of national emergency (March 8-14). The survey say responses to the following questions were as follows:
Q. “If President Arroyo resigns, it will be good for the country.”
In December, 2005
Agree 58% (61% NCR, 59% Balance of Luzon, 50% Visayas, 60% Mindanao; 59% Class ABC, 56% Class D, 60% Class E)
Disagree 17% (21% NCR, 18% Balance of Luzon, 17% Visayas, 12% Mindanao; 24% Class ABC, 17% Class D, 15% Class E)
In the First Quarter of 2006
Agree 44% (56% NCR, 44% Balance of Luzon, 35% Visayas, 45% Mindanao; 44% Class ABC, 42% Class D, 50% Class E)
Disagree 23% (14% NCR,Ã‚Â 26% Balance of Luzon, 33% Visayas, 14% Mindanao; 17% Class ABC, 26% Class D, 18% Class E)
Q. “It is good for the country if PGMA will be removed by means of a People Power.”
Agree 48% (55% in NCR, 44% Balance of Luzon, 42% Visayas, 57% Mindanao; 54% Class ABC, 47% Class D,Ã‚Â 49% Class E)
Disagree 27% (22% NCR, 30% Balance of Luzon, 39% Visayas, 13% Mindanao; 29% Class ABC, 27% Class D, 26% Class E)
Q. “It is good for the country if PGMA will be removed by means of a military coup.”
Agree 36% (43% NCR, 36% Balance of Luzon, 32% Visayas, 35% Mindanao; 37% Class ABC, 37% Class D, 34% Class E)
Disagree 35% (33% NCR, 36% Balance of Luzon, 46% Visayas, 26% Mindanao; 34% ABC, 25% D, 36% E)
Q. “The government was right in deciding last February 24 to prohibit rallies against the Arroyo administration.”
What can be gleaned? Resignation is sinking as an option (where it was once a majority position), while people power is rising as a preference; there is surprising minority support for a coup. Only a plurality supports either people power or a coup, but it is a plurality twice as broad as opposition to it. There is a fairly large segment of the population (hovering at roughly 20-25%) that is undecided. The President basically is holding off hostile NCR-Luzon and Mindanao with the Visayas, where support for her, however, has been steadily shrinking. The President’s constituency, nationwide, continues to hold steady at about 25-35% nationwide.
Borra says cheating marred 2004 polls: Fraud not ‘massive,’ Senate body told (Inquirer)
Poll exec admits massive fraud in 2004 elections (Daily Tribune)
GMA election must be respected, Borra says (Manila Standard-Today)
In amendments news:
ChaCha train goes full steam in July, says De Venecia: there’s only one question: unicameral or not? If approved, then Congress becomes an interim parliament, and proceeds with further constitutional overhaul.
Opposition says Palace’s go-to-court dare a trap
Oppositionist admits signature drive legal
“Govt staff can’t do Cha-cha campaign“
For Charter-change plebiscite: P6.5B is needed, DBM has P2.6B
Davao Officials Denounce Malacañang for IRA-Cha-cha Scheme (Davao Today)
In other news, Beltran’s arraignment postponed to May 29 (or: how to keep someone in jail long after you should have been able to prove your case).
Arroyo backs fixed terms for AFP, PNP chiefs: To insulate them from politics (conveniently, if Gen. Senga gets a full, fixed term, he’ll probably be extended as AFP Chief of Staff, which postpones Gen. Esperon’s inevitable succession to the position, which supposedly might further fragment the military).
The most unpleasant day of the year rescheduled: Income tax filing deadline set April 17
In Thailand, the Nation says, Election results are a rude wake-up call for Thaksin. It seems the boycott call worked. Looking forward, the Nation makes a familiar (to Filipinos) demand:
No reconciliation without justice.
Simple rules for writing a Palace statement:
1. Deny everything
2. Concede nothing
3. White is black and black is white
4. Describe the enemy the way the enemy describes you
In the punditocracy, Rene Azurin, a professor in the University of the Philippines, and who was part of the minority in the Constitutional Commission for Charter Change, explains his opposition to the parliamentary system.
The graduation season has two beautiful examples of parents writing to their children: Connie Veneracion to her daughter and Bong Austero to his son.
The blogosphere has Vincula describing what’s needed when one prepares to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court: wisdom, inspiration, but also a sturdy bladder.
Ellen Tordesillas posts a manifesto writers including myself and she, signed.
Philippine Commentary continues his crusade for a revision of what Edsa II was about. I think he’s only partially right. It was the Second Envelope that brought people out on the streets; and it was the people on the streets that decided what the military would do, with some goading from the political provocateurs; and people power itself was short-circuited when the Supreme Court was convinced to weigh in rather than have the people end up besieging the Palace.
An OFW from Hong Kong compares the latest round of cheating allegations to a bad dream that won’t go away.
baratillo books [email protected] tackles three things: ABS-CBN’s effective legal smothering of the Wowowee stampede fallout; contending views on Solita Monsod; and whether pro- and con-Cha-Cha are two sides of an uninspiring coin.
Mamutong takes a gander at explaining just what, exactly, recent news about Meralco is all about.
atty-at-work on the first Philippine expedition to Mount Everest.
New Economist on an article that asks, is France ungovernable? Last Sunday, Sylvia Mayuga posed a question asked by an overseas Filipino: is the Philippines even a country?
Click Mo Mukha Mo says the Jollibee in San Francisco has improved a bit.
Technorati Tags: constitution, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics
29 thoughts on “Survey surprise”
Is France ungovernable?
This is so true, but has been true for so long they have had so many problems with the unions and students always getting it their way, and not for the best of the country.
Which is exactly where the Philippines will lead to if we let mob rule, rule.
Also looking at the Survey it looks like the people are turning away from the opposition.
A 14% swing away from the opposition must be significant in a single quarter?
MLQ the link you pose is wrong on the Place statement it is correct here..
But i am unsure what you are trying to get at with your points.
KMU versus call centers
Thus the Philippines has to compete, and our competition is China and India. And right now, the people who are making us fail in this race are people like KMU.
I agree with you here on this one here KMU does not know what it is really on about..
A lot of the staff are there only until they find a good job in their chosen profession. Have you seen the turn over rate in the Call Center Industry.
If the question is on who is better to lead the country without factoring in the question of mandate and legitimacy. Nobody can be better than GMA. We can’t help but be amazed by her ability to handle the crises that her administration has been faced with. You can’t help but remember too the awe people would feel seeing Marcos deliver his speeches without an outline and his ability to remember dates and facts.
But because the questions of illegitimacy(cheating) will not go away, we can’t help but include it in the equation. And when we do, Gloria does not come out as a good choice.
And because she’s unwilling to give up her position, the survey shows that people wants her out by force. It’s just that they don’t want to do it. (Wanting is not the same as doing…)
A conclusion can therefore be made that if rebel tanks march to Malacanang, the majority will not protect Gloria. The minority who doesn’t want her to be deposed by a people power I would bet would stay on the sidelines too. What’s going to happen will therefore be military (for GMA) vs. military against GMA.
There being no more real party in interest or anybody to question the results, I have already advised the President not to comment anymore on this case,” Macalintal said.
From the point of view of the administration the people are not the real party in interest to ask the accountability of the incumbent about her participation in the cheating in the election.
Is France ungovernable?
Well, it depends on who is asking. If you ask the French economic elite, the answer is “its the rule of the mob.” If you ask everyone else, then the answer is “it’s noisy and unweildy, but we’re doing our best.”
Read the rest here.
“Resignation is sinking as an option (where it was once a majority position), while people power is rising as a preference; there is surprising minority support for a coup.”
People saw that GMA will not resign, she will not voluntarily go, so palalayasin siya by people power, susubuk-subukan ng mga tao, but they see that GMA is using force, violence, aray ko po! … so now the people are just wishful thinking ..sayang the coup being prepared then was preempted, so….ano pa puwdeng i-wish ….
….there is surprising (minority)wishful support for …
assassination with a smile 🙂
(A Survey Challenge: PulseAsia, SWS, PulseMalacanang)
“I agree with you here on this one here KMU does not know what it is really on about.”
they’re idiots, comparing US with Philippine salaries. burgers in the Philippines don’t cost 150 pesos, do they?
for once, i agree with you. 😉
holy kamote! somebody forgot to end the italics tag!
hope this does it. 🙂
(manolo, feel free to delete this post once you’ve corrected the italics problem)
Re: “New Economist asks if France is ungovernable.”
The question is wrong; it should have been “Why are the French never satisfied with all their social and labour privileges?”
I can provide a plethora of answers to the question but would rather not delve in the matter because the New Economist has to do a bit of homework if they really would like to know.
I’d rather tackle why the New Economist prefers to ask a question that it could very well answer and will do it in a way so that even Sleeping (with Gloria) can understand in spite of the elephantiasis disease that seems to afflict him.
As you may well know or may have noticed the New Economist is one of the most Francophobic magazines in Europe and will hit at anything slightly amiss in France to make sure the magazine sells in France.
Actually the Francophobia can be traced back to the time of Guillume le Conquerant but let’s be modern and attack the issue from just a few decades back.
Firstly, our British ‘friends’ haven’t quite forgotten General Charles de Gaulle’s affront on two fronts:
(1) When de Gaulle put up an “aristocratic” fight against the Churchill-Roosevelt plan to dismantle the north of France by sectioning Lorraine Alsace from the French map as well as Corsica and a couple of other provinces
(2) When de Gaulle again vetoed the entry of Britain (being the Johnny come lately that they were at the time) into the MarchÃƒÂ© Commun (Common Market) or what is known today as the European Union, which “forced” Britain’s Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Lady – rumoured to bash her ministers with her enormous handbag when they wouldn’t toe the line – to beg to be allowed entry but with the caveat that UK financial contributions would be one of the heftiest (which endures today) in the Union.
Secondly and quite importantly, many of its writers, columnists or editorialists can not admit that Britain no longer rules half the world or that Paul Drake is no longer master of the seas, or that the Hundred Years War is OVER! To this day, the British cannot quite fathom why the French under Emperor Napoleon Buonaparte whose bulk of the army was defeated in Waterloo by a general they plucked from Ireland, the Duke of Wellington, should be “lording over” the European Union institutions and over Brussels. It irks them infinitely so much that they have decided they will get their revenge in any way they can, the proof is that the New Economist is hell bent never to forgive the French for not LOSING…To this day, they cannot quite figure out how their arch enemy could beat them at every turn in Brussels from the time France “allowed” them to become a member of this exclusive club. More recently, the Brits went berserk when over Blair’s defeat in getting a sizeable reduction of British financial contributions to the EU even while he held the EU presidency for 6 months last year.
As for ruling half the world, they reckon that the English language, which half of the world’s nations strive to speak should be the gauge of their influence on world politics. Unfortunately, the Queen’s English to their consternation has been so corrupted by parvenus in America, India, Singapore (and well, even the Philippines), that to go politicking with these Queen’s English aspiring speakers, they have to course everything through the Americans, whom they still brand “rebels” in reference to George Washington’s armies aided by French aristocrat and English hater, le Duc de Lafayette.
Thirdly, they resent it all the more because Tony Blair (who’s not English, by the way, and therefore a second class citizen by English standards) was forced to play lapdog or pink poodle to George Bush’s bushy Retriever to even be heard on the world political stage because President Jacques Chirac would not kowtow to an English poodle and his Texan cowboy master.
The British, except for the dashing, courageous British MP George Gallaway who happens to be a brave and fierce but detested Scott, felt thoroughly slighted by the French when France refused to back the Bush’s and his lapdog Tony’s ambitious invasion of Iraq. And we all know why the French refused to do so at the time… France wanted the UN inspectors to finish their job so that the world’s so-called civilized nations preparing to pound Iraq could really determine whether they should go ahead and slaughter half of the male, female and children population of one of the seats of Christian civilization which is Iraq.
For that alone, many of the contributing editorialists in the New Economist (Euro hating, bashing professors who were largely borrowed from the London School of Economics) went on a rampage against the French. They really just couldn’t understand that the French mission, “mission civilisatrice” is not quite the same as the “mission destructrice” which the Anglo-American coalition espoused.
In other words, the British, who believe in the superiority of the British race (which would actually put Hitler’s Aryan policy to shame) and that their wry sense of humor is enough to prove their mental aptitude to understand that the world is not an island and therefore more complex, will always resent the French for their cold, implacable carthesian logic.
Another explanation is that the dowdy Brits have always had an inferiority complex (except my husband who is English) vis-a-vis the French. Not only because French women are naturally chic, but this refinement in taste is reflected on the general population from the time a child can read. The Brits envy the French for their uncanny ability for refinement and good taste in the arts, in culture and in everything fine which they can never match. This goes without saying, the British feel constantly threatened because they realize that French will always lead in the area of “l’art de drague” (the art of seduction). (Sometimes I wonder whether former French Prime Minister Edith Cresson was right when she quipped that the Brits “ne sont que des pÃƒÂ©dÃƒÂ©s”.)
Thus in order to make up for the mental and physical finesse that is lacking in their typical shopkeeper humdrum mentality, the Brits and their media in general led by the ultra-conservative New Economist, will grab any chance of “hitting” their former cousins across Guillaume le Conquerant country (William the Conqueror).
Therefore I am not at all surprised that the New Economist could not answer their own question as to why France is ungovernable. They never did and never will. If they haven’t understood France, it is perhaps because they don’t and cannot speak French, the language of Voltaire, of Decartes, of Diderot, of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, of Baron de Montesquieu, of Verlaine, of Victor Hugo and one of the most beautiful languages that the world has ever produced, and are thus unable to meet the standards of French mental finesse.
Sadly, the Brits will always be “ÃƒÂ cotÃƒÂ© de leurs pompes”.
When i was working with my European colleagues (mostly from UK and Ireland), they always took the opportunity to warn me about “the French”. When the time came to work with my French colleagues, it really wasn’t as bad as i expected it to be, just a different style of working. Of course, when the Americans came into the picture, all hell broke lose:-)
Lambino calls his Sigaw ng Bayan army ” constitutional warriors. ” Doesn’t he realize that we moderates don’t want anything else but peaceful change?
The constitutional warriors did not even have a permit for their motorcade in Makati but Lomibao and Querol and their PNP goon squad were not around to enforce calibrated pre-empive response.
All I wanted was to go to work undisturbed. Why can’t these pro cha-cha rabble rousers hold rallies in freedom parks where they will not inconvenience the public?
Can’t they see that the middle class is sick and tired of the politics of cha-cha? Can’t we all just go back to work?
Why do those people want to destabilize the constitution when everything is going great, the peso is strong and the stock market is up?
These people won’t stop at anything but they have not presented us with an alternative. The same trapo faces will be in parliament and in Malacanang.
Shouldn’t Lambino and his constitutional warriors be charged with inciting to sedition? The 1987 constitution prohibits the use of people’s initiative to revise the constitution yet they incite people and conspire with Malacanan and Congress to take unconstitutional methods.
Aren’t there proper venues for changing the system of government? Why are they going directly to the people when they have not yet exhausted all legal means?
The Supreme Court has already ruled against people’s initiatives. Have they no respect for the courts? Have they no respect for the rule of law?
Don’t they realize that people are sick and tired of people’s initiatives? Pirma 1 failed. Now they insist on Pirma2 and they are conspiring with the military to overthrow our system of government
Senga wants a constitutional amendment exempting the AFP from the commission of appointments approval process. Don’t they have any respect for civilian supremacy?
These people are trying to destroy our system of government and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process. They are truly undemocratic and anti-progress. They don’t even bother to consider the same survey you rely on.
I wish they would listen to you and Bong Austero. Maybe you can knock some sense into the heads of these constitutional warriors, congressmen and GMA.
We Filipinos who are on the verge of an economic take-off are being undermined by destabilizers who want to change the constitution illegally.
Great manifesto for peace MBuencamino!
Yep! Let’s put those darn, blasted nignogs of destabilizers behind bars…
Motto of the rich and powerful:
who cares? I am on top and I am the law.
I just ended your italicized problem.
mlq3 your blog is so unsecure it can easily be vandalized.
someone can insert a tag that would end the posting of comments
ay sorry po nagupgrade ka na pala.
Thaksin is stepping down. He’s really not power hungry as compared to Gloria.
I think it’s Thailand’s loss.
Buy ALPRAZOLAM ?
And we can sell take-out food to them
Heheh! Yeah, good idea MBuencamino…
But we should sell them the take-out food only if they can use a fishing rod properly to retrieve the food box hanging from a ceiling ventilator.
That will surely help them experience the kind of life many Pinoys are forced to go through today…
Btw, MBuencamino, my family used to know a Dr David Buencamino… any relation of yours?
I’m sure except I haven’t met him
Sure has it in for the English and any one else who does not like her ideas.
Why would the American press and CNN all be coming out with the same idea that the France has become ungovernable?
They are not English?
mr. bo sanchez, in his latest bestseller, has this to say to his son:
Gosh, you’re so big now!
At six years old, you’re so bright and handsome.
Just like your Daddy. (Okay, Mommy contributed something, too.)
But you know what son? Mommy and I are afraid for your future.
It’s very possible that when you’re ten or 15 years old, your Philippines will be the poorest country in Asia. I’m so sorry, son. I really am.
Because my generation became selfish and chose to do NOTHING.
Oh sure, every so often, we elect–or oust–a President.
It has become national entertainment–like noontime TV shows.
But nothing new happens.
Son, let me explain how politics work in our country. Two months before elections, the country’s ten richest tycoons already know who’ll most likely win–so they pour billions of pesos into that person’s political machinery. And massive vote buying takes place in the barrios.
And some of the most corrupt congressmen, governors, and mayors also help the next president to win in their territories, so they’ll be “protected” by Malacanang.
Therefore, we’re now seen as the second most corrupt in Asia. Galing, ‘no?
Son, the hope of the Philippines won’t ever be the Philippine Government.
Our only hope for you?
If enough Filipinos will learn to love their country.
We need a new breed of heroes who’ll sacrifice their lives for their country.
These heroes will help the poor get out of poverty–through self-development, micro-entrepreneurship, and financial literacy. These heroes will fight corruption as evil. And these heroes will also include Filipino-migrants in other countries—who decide to return one day–as investors and businessmen, with their dollars and their training.
Yes, son. I want to be a hero for you.
We’ll make this country great again.
Because I love you.
(taken from The Boss Fourth Collection, Fill Your Life with Miracles: Discover God in the Ordinary…and Live Extraordinarily! 2005)
Re: Survey Surprise
Arroyo, the incumbent, garnered 40% of the votes cast in May 2004 while the other 60% voted for the 6 other presidential candidates.
By opting to vote for candidates other than the incumbent, the 60% obviously wanted to change the incumbent for another.
That was May 2004.
We’re now, “in the first quarter of 2006.”
SWS now tells us that 48% say that “It is good for the country if PGMA will be removed by means of a People Power.”
Fully 60% already wanted to kick her out in 2004. Now, 2006, 48% want her “removed by means of People Power” (or similarly “kicked out”)
So, there’s that solid 60% in 2004 (with no “undecided” on votes cast) and 48% in 2006.
That’s a spread of 12% (60% minus 48%) in two years.
SWS (and Pulse Asia with an earlier survey of 65% against GMA) should comment on the “significance” of this 12% spread between years 2004 and 2006 (a “Survey Surprise”?)
Not voting for Arroyo in the 2004 is not the same as wanting her to resign or be ousted, domingo.
one last thing domingo. it’s okay to not trust surveys. but i don’t think it’s wise to trust COMELEC’s numbers on Arroyo’s “40%” ehem… “victory” either
you posted the same thing back in mar. 26 2006, yes domingo?
“Not voting for Arroyo in the 2004 is not the same as wanting her to resign or be ousted, domingo.” and “you posted the same thing back in mar. 26 2006, yes domingo?”–john marzan
Sorry, john, I don’t own a computer (not even a cell or land line). I use my daughter’s computer after she’s finished with downloading every sound available in the internet. So, sometimes, it takes time for me to respond.
Arroyo was the INCUMBENT in the May 2004 elections, john.
A vote cast for any one of the 6 (or 5?) other presidential candidates is a vote to “change” the INCUMBENT and “replace” her with the choice of the voter.
Well, perhaps, the verb “to change” or “to replace” is not synonymous anymore with “to resign” or “to be ousted.”
Also, I’m sorry if I violated any rule (is there?) regarding “double posting” (“double billing”?) and I would like to thank you for reminding me, otherwise I might be asked by the administrator to resign or be ousted from this blog.
In any case, allow me to digress (if this has not been double-posted yet), the re-election of the incumbent, or the immediate relatives (dynasty) of the incumbent, is one of the defects in the current system, a defect we are all aware of but do not seriously complain about or offer solutions to minimize it.
The terms to “oust,” “replace,” or “change” (even, perhaps, “surveys”) would be meaningless, irrelevant to a system where there is policy of ONLY one-term, no re-election, no dynasty or ineligibility of incumbents and relatives.
For it will not be the voters anymore, john, (voters who we are told can be easily exploited and bought by TRAPOS during every election); rather, it will now be the constitutional policy in place that will “oust,” “replace,” or “change” ALL the incumbent TRAPOS (and prohibit their relatives from running) at the END OF EVERY TERM–or good riddance to …
To me, john, any system–parliamentary, presidential, unitary, bicameral, whatever–would still fail if the Constitution does not demand that incumbents (and their relatives) STEP OUTSIDE AND STAY OUTSIDE FOREVER rather than asking (or forcing) them later (too late) by people power or by force to STEP DOWN, RESIGN or BE OUSTED!