All I see on TV these days are all bickering and trash talking. Seriously, their mindless accusations are getting tiresome, but it doesn't necessarily mean all those mudslinging are fake.
In fact, mudslinging happens because there are some parts of that dirt that are true. For example, Aquino's Hacienda Luisita estate. Even if he said he owns a very small share, he still owns part of it. He could have convince his family to give up on the estate right now instead of halfheartedly promising it when he becomes president. And you know his track record about promises.
Villar's C5-road issue, coupled by past "shady" business deals have been hounding him for the past months. It was impossible for Villar not to know about the road project going to his property or how it manages to GO into his company. He could have just allowed the extension project to his property without cost if he really wanted to help the country.
Teodoro, on the other hand is plagued by Arroyo's kiss of death and his stint as the National Defense Secretary. He might have one of the best educational background, but his actions while in office puts him behind. If he really want to lift the people from poverty (especially in Mindanao), then he should have removed the civilian armies (since he knew the problem all along) and lift Mindanao from the bloodshed and fear.
While some of the mudslinging are just black propaganda, there must have been something within that person to inspire that dirt.
Why do we rely on these people who, even before the elections, are covered in dirt. They don't answer their issues, nor help the country. They just like to throw these dirt at each other to entertain the masses.
What we really need today is someone not thrown in dirt. Someone who has the skills to run the country. Someone who do not attack others below the belt. Someone who do not shift sides in fear of public opposition. Someone who thinks about the country first, before themselves. That's what we need today.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Missing the debates
I remembered my professor telling our class about debates being an “ideal form of public discourse”. He said debates have been a place where people voice out their opinions on certain issues, that is why debates are important in the presidential race. It not only gauges the presidentiable’s intellectual capacity to answer the questions, it also helps them lay out their stand on certain issues.
But recently, only a few presidentiables were attending these debates, claiming that their stands have already been presented during their attendance to the previous forums. They said their campaigns are much more important than doing the same thing all over again. If what they said were true, then why do many people still ask about their stand on certain issues?
To tell you the truth, I was disappointed by their refusal to attend such debates, because I believe debates are the best way to know a candidate inside and out. It gauges their intelligence instead of face value.
It was wrong for them to belittle the debates and claim they had said all they needed to say. Not all Filipinos are able to watch the debates, and not all questions are answered because of the little time.
I salute those presidentiables who keep attending the debates like Sen. Richard Gordon. He, and the other lesser known presidentiables like JC Delos Reyes, was present when debates were held.
Like in the ABS-CBN tandem debate, those in the lead like Villar, Aquino and Teodoro revoked their attendance, disappointing the masses since the company had to stop the debate, but Gordon was there. In the CBCP presidential debate, the same thing happened, those in the lead were not present and those not in the leading surveys are the ones attending.
“Those who refuse to join debates show that they cannot stand the pressure of facing the people,” Gordon said in an interview with the Philippine daily Inquirer when he was asked about the other candidates’ refusal to attend the debates.
“Candidates should demonstrate not only their ability to spend money
or their ability to use their family (to campaign) but also their capability (to lead),” he added.
I don’t know if it was because these people are afraid of public discourse, or they just don’t care about their platforms. I mean, they only relied their campaigns based on popularity than on intellect.
I agree to Gordon’s statement because debates are there to test candidates when they are pressed with issues surrounding the country. They shouldn’t be relaxed just because they have the money for campaign advertisements or they were in the lead of the surveys. If they really were sincere in their campaign, then they should be wiling to go out of their way and attend the debates.
But recently, only a few presidentiables were attending these debates, claiming that their stands have already been presented during their attendance to the previous forums. They said their campaigns are much more important than doing the same thing all over again. If what they said were true, then why do many people still ask about their stand on certain issues?
To tell you the truth, I was disappointed by their refusal to attend such debates, because I believe debates are the best way to know a candidate inside and out. It gauges their intelligence instead of face value.
It was wrong for them to belittle the debates and claim they had said all they needed to say. Not all Filipinos are able to watch the debates, and not all questions are answered because of the little time.
I salute those presidentiables who keep attending the debates like Sen. Richard Gordon. He, and the other lesser known presidentiables like JC Delos Reyes, was present when debates were held.
Like in the ABS-CBN tandem debate, those in the lead like Villar, Aquino and Teodoro revoked their attendance, disappointing the masses since the company had to stop the debate, but Gordon was there. In the CBCP presidential debate, the same thing happened, those in the lead were not present and those not in the leading surveys are the ones attending.
“Those who refuse to join debates show that they cannot stand the pressure of facing the people,” Gordon said in an interview with the Philippine daily Inquirer when he was asked about the other candidates’ refusal to attend the debates.
“Candidates should demonstrate not only their ability to spend money
or their ability to use their family (to campaign) but also their capability (to lead),” he added.
I don’t know if it was because these people are afraid of public discourse, or they just don’t care about their platforms. I mean, they only relied their campaigns based on popularity than on intellect.
I agree to Gordon’s statement because debates are there to test candidates when they are pressed with issues surrounding the country. They shouldn’t be relaxed just because they have the money for campaign advertisements or they were in the lead of the surveys. If they really were sincere in their campaign, then they should be wiling to go out of their way and attend the debates.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Surveys doing more harm than good
I saw Sen. Richard Gordon in the news yesterday commenting about surveys misleading the public to consider only the top presidentiables. Gordon said he will be filing a case on the survey companies for allegedly misleading the public’s mindset into thinking that those in the top positions were the most probable to win the presidential race. He said it was an injustice to those in the bottom half of the survey since those who commissioned the companies were most likely the top presidentiables.
Survey companies are supposed to gauge the public’s thoughts on the presidentiables, but I also believe that Gordon has a point. Showing surveys of the leading presidentiables every week would eventually lead the voters to vote for those in the top of the list.
Nobody wants to waste their votes, and with the surveys showing that presidentiables like Gordon in the lower half of the tier, even his supporters would eventually shift their mindset to vote for those capable to win. These survey companies were shaping the public’s mindset since showing the leading candidates, not to mention the media’s air time for those in the lead, will eventually change the voter’s thoughts to the leading candidate.
While I do agree that surveys are important to gauge the public’s interests, doing the surveys almost per week, not to mention making the commissioner anonymous, would eventually affect voter’s turnout. Instead of being a tool of the public, it becomes a political tool benefiting those in the lead.
Since we do not know how the surveys were conducted, what areas were covered or what type of questions were asked, we can only trust the survey’s credibility based on their results. Even if the survey companies did say their methodologies are academic based, how the questions were constructed will affect the voter’s mindset.
Perhaps, survey companies should limit their findings in order to not affect the public’s votes. They should also reveal the commissioner of the survey, since by doing so will give the public a concept of fair survey results.
We also shouldn’t rely entirely on surveys, but instead make our own decisions on who is fit for the presidency. A simple background check will be helpful for choosing the right candidate. We must vote for those who are fit to run, not because of popularity, but because of their ability. It doesn’t necessarily mean those in the lead will eventually win the presidency, if we won’t shy away and be swayed by the surveys, even those in the lower tier can become the next president.
Survey companies are supposed to gauge the public’s thoughts on the presidentiables, but I also believe that Gordon has a point. Showing surveys of the leading presidentiables every week would eventually lead the voters to vote for those in the top of the list.
Nobody wants to waste their votes, and with the surveys showing that presidentiables like Gordon in the lower half of the tier, even his supporters would eventually shift their mindset to vote for those capable to win. These survey companies were shaping the public’s mindset since showing the leading candidates, not to mention the media’s air time for those in the lead, will eventually change the voter’s thoughts to the leading candidate.
While I do agree that surveys are important to gauge the public’s interests, doing the surveys almost per week, not to mention making the commissioner anonymous, would eventually affect voter’s turnout. Instead of being a tool of the public, it becomes a political tool benefiting those in the lead.
Since we do not know how the surveys were conducted, what areas were covered or what type of questions were asked, we can only trust the survey’s credibility based on their results. Even if the survey companies did say their methodologies are academic based, how the questions were constructed will affect the voter’s mindset.
Perhaps, survey companies should limit their findings in order to not affect the public’s votes. They should also reveal the commissioner of the survey, since by doing so will give the public a concept of fair survey results.
We also shouldn’t rely entirely on surveys, but instead make our own decisions on who is fit for the presidency. A simple background check will be helpful for choosing the right candidate. We must vote for those who are fit to run, not because of popularity, but because of their ability. It doesn’t necessarily mean those in the lead will eventually win the presidency, if we won’t shy away and be swayed by the surveys, even those in the lower tier can become the next president.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Low cost housing scam?
I received this email message about Villar and his low cost housing program in the 90s, and this message was disturbing. Villar’s boast about putting low cost homes for the poor almost destroyed our economy, according to Tony Hidalgo. He said Villar got his billions from this project, and not because he cared for the poor.
Villar was not really aiming for the “mahirap”, it was only a side line from his true aim--- getting rich. Of course, he is after all a businessman, and business is his top priority. If it could help the poor along the way, then why not help them. But Hidalgo said this did not happen in Villar’s low-cost housing project. In fact, millions of the marginalized sector did not benefit from the program.
I’m not an economics major, so I don’t know much about the details like builders, buyers, etc., but Hidalgo made a point about how Villar managed to acquire his wealth with the program. If Villar made this clever tactic before, then what’s keeping him from doing it again once he becomes President?
Villar used his position and the country’s problem, and used it for his own benefit. It only shows his insincerity for helping the poor. His commercials are actually nothing but lies, and his selfish interest would permeate his intentions to help the poor. How can we elect a selfish president?
You can read this email message by Tony Hidalgo and decide for yourself what Villar did with his low-cost housing project.
Villar was not really aiming for the “mahirap”, it was only a side line from his true aim--- getting rich. Of course, he is after all a businessman, and business is his top priority. If it could help the poor along the way, then why not help them. But Hidalgo said this did not happen in Villar’s low-cost housing project. In fact, millions of the marginalized sector did not benefit from the program.
I’m not an economics major, so I don’t know much about the details like builders, buyers, etc., but Hidalgo made a point about how Villar managed to acquire his wealth with the program. If Villar made this clever tactic before, then what’s keeping him from doing it again once he becomes President?
Villar used his position and the country’s problem, and used it for his own benefit. It only shows his insincerity for helping the poor. His commercials are actually nothing but lies, and his selfish interest would permeate his intentions to help the poor. How can we elect a selfish president?
You can read this email message by Tony Hidalgo and decide for yourself what Villar did with his low-cost housing project.
| Subject: Villlar and low-cost housing Here's an addendum to the exchange between Tony Hidalgo and Tong Puno. It really is important to be enlightened about the background of Manny Villar's wealth in light of his quest for the presidency. He is hell bent in covering his tracks and gaining more wealth at the expense of the nation. Dear Tong, To believe in Manny Villar’s “cause”, whatever that may be, is certainly your prerogative, brod. But it does not allow you to distort the facts—to say that black is white or that greed is good. Winnie Monsod’s writings on Villar’s anomalies on the But I will answer as briefly as I can the downright false and sometimes outrageous claims you make concerning Villar’s “heroic” role in the government’s low-cost housing program. True, Villar built many thousands of low-cost houses over more than a decade under the Unified Home Lending Scheme (UHLP) of the socialized housing law (E.O. 90) that he and his CREBA minions drafted and got Cory to sign in 1986, during her emergency government when she had legislative powers, by promising the pie in the sky of solving homelessness in the Philippines once and for all. But he did this to rake in billions in profits at the expense of the government, not out of a concern for the homeless poor. Look at the results of Villar’s thousands of houses under the UHLP from 1986 to 1997 (when we reformed the UHLP to prevent Villar from bankrupting the country). Villar became a billionaire. NHMFC, the financial coordinator of the program, was bankrupted. The funders (SSS, GSIS, Pag-Ibig) were stuck with billions in bad home mortgages covering Villar’s houses and flirted with bankruptcy for a while. Eventually, these bad mortgages had to be covered by the national government using its tax revenues (including your taxes and mine) because the funders were covered by a sovereign guarantee. Subsequently (beginning 2003 or 2004), the losses on the bad mortgages had to be written off by selling them through special purpose asset vehicles (SPAVS) at a fraction of their face value. Meanwhile, look around you. Nearly half of the residents of Metro I repeat: Villar became a billionaire while the funders and the national government suffered many billions in losses and the housing problem is still there, as intractable as ever. Consequently, I strongly disagree with your admiration of Villar’s record in low-cost housing. It was motivated by greed and, in the end, enriched only himself and his cohorts at the expense of the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers. These outcomes were inevitable because of how Villar and his buddies designed the UHLP. The roles of lenders, builders, and financing agencies were jumbled up on purpose to benefit only the developers. Billions were taken annually from the SSS, GSIS, and Pag-Ibig and given to the NHMFC to disburse. The owners of the funds lost all control over how they were lent out. But this control was not given to the NHMFC, which just allocated mortgage quotas to developers (the Villar companies had the biggest quotas) from the annual funds of the lenders and automatically released the face amount of mortgages to the lenders upon submission of the mortgage papers. No one checked the creditworthiness of the home buyers. The developers were “originators” of mortgages—meaning that they went around the malls with blank mortgage papers, waylaid passersby and enticed them to sign the papers, and then went to the NHMFC to cash in. This diabolical system without any financial controls was designed by developers like Villar to rake in the profits. It resulted in default rates of more than 70% in the mortgages and nearly caused a Philippine economic crisis. It required the coordinated intervention of HUDCC, the Dept. of Finance, SSS, GSIS, Pag-Ibig, and HIGC to prevent a financial collapse. This was a very real danger then: we need only look at the recent Naging bilyonaryo si Villar sa low-cost housing at the expense of Filipino taxpayers. Kumita na siya, Tong. Huwag mo nang bigyan ng medalya. Finally, you imply that I am inconsistent in my position on Villar’s role in this program because you say that HUDCC had “boasted” of its production of low-cost houses thanks to Villar’s “vision.” This is not true. I was always critical of Villar’s profiteering in low-cost housing and never claimed credit for the houses his companies built. I was appointed HUDCC Secretary General by President Ramos in June, 1995. I spent a few months going through the documentation of the housing program and holding intensive discussions with the developers’ organizations, lenders, the Dept. of Finance, and the HUDCC financial agencies. Then I wrote a series of memos to President Ramos that explained the hopelessly flawed nature of the program, the extent of the financial problems it had created, and what needed to be done to prevent financial collapse. After getting the President’s instructions to proceed in 1996, I set up the inter-agency task force to reform the UHLP and we completed our work and stopped the profiteering of the developers in 1997. Your brod, Tony Hidalgo
Before passing this, I googled Antonio A. Hidalgo to make sure he is a real person. I found that he is an economist and writer-publisher. My banker friends are all anti-Villar. They know whereof they speak... Am forwarding to you an email sent by Antonio HIdalgo who was the
Hi, This guy is for real. He is the husband of our writing teacher Ms Jing Hidalgo Pantoja, UP Creative Writing Director, Palanca hall of fame awardee. Our teacher just mentioned that this article is really arousing interest.. Antonio Hidalgo was there. So we can truly pass this on. T |
Friday, April 16, 2010
Too hot to handle
The Philippines is certainly drying up. With temperatures ranging from 34 to an outstanding 39 degrees in some areas, crops are slowly dying as the heat rages on. Electricity has already been affected and businesses are slowing down due to the rotational brownouts. People are starting to grow hungry as the prices of commodities have slowly risen up. But it seems that the El Nino phenomenon, though have been happening in this country for years, is being treated lightly by the government.
Of course, we can’t do anything to stop the unusual weather, but we may still mitigate the problem through adequate planning through the government. But sadly, the government also has the same thoughts about the weather as we do and preferred to sit tightly and pray for rain.
They never realized how the shortage has affected Filipinos since we managed to survive the heat throughout our lives. True enough, we might be able to survive the heat like we did before, but we can’t rely that the weather would pass since they are highly unpredictable. The heat may go on until July, and without much planning on the government’s part, then where will we be?
I did not mean that the government is not doing anything to help us survive the weird weather. There have been produce imports and cloud seeding operations going on around the country; but the only problem IS, compared to other countries that have the same kinds of problems, our preparations are simple and will not work in the long run.
It’s not all about the heat. In Luzon, the one hour rotational brownouts have caused a large damage to the production of businesses, losing revenues that would supposedly help boost the economy. Mindanao has its worse with seven to eight hour brownouts thereby halting most businesses in the area. If this continues, businesses would have to lay off workers and the problem would only worsen with unemployment going up.
Most candidates in the 2010 elections do not have any concrete solutions for this problem and would rather stick to general statements like “I will help the farmers with their problems” without anything to back up their statements, maybe because they thought once they’re elected the crisis would be over.
This makes the May 2010 elections even more relevant for the Filipinos. We should not be lulled by motherhood statements and look for concrete ones unlike the rest. If we want to survive worse calamities, we must elect leaders who plan ahead and create measures when calamities strike.
Sadly, those presidential candidates who’ve been leading the surveys are the ones providing those motherhood statements. They don’t provide solutions because they don’t have the capacity to do so. Credentials alone speak themselves. Can we still let them lead if their platforms are all full of “trapo” promises?
Given this situation, it’s much better to choose those who are not leading in the surveys like Sen. Richard Gordon. He has the capability to mitigate these problems. When calamities struck like Ondoy, he was at the front lines to help those in need. He has plans that would provide long term solutions. If that is not a mark of a good candidate, then what is?
Of course, we can’t do anything to stop the unusual weather, but we may still mitigate the problem through adequate planning through the government. But sadly, the government also has the same thoughts about the weather as we do and preferred to sit tightly and pray for rain.
They never realized how the shortage has affected Filipinos since we managed to survive the heat throughout our lives. True enough, we might be able to survive the heat like we did before, but we can’t rely that the weather would pass since they are highly unpredictable. The heat may go on until July, and without much planning on the government’s part, then where will we be?
I did not mean that the government is not doing anything to help us survive the weird weather. There have been produce imports and cloud seeding operations going on around the country; but the only problem IS, compared to other countries that have the same kinds of problems, our preparations are simple and will not work in the long run.
It’s not all about the heat. In Luzon, the one hour rotational brownouts have caused a large damage to the production of businesses, losing revenues that would supposedly help boost the economy. Mindanao has its worse with seven to eight hour brownouts thereby halting most businesses in the area. If this continues, businesses would have to lay off workers and the problem would only worsen with unemployment going up.
Most candidates in the 2010 elections do not have any concrete solutions for this problem and would rather stick to general statements like “I will help the farmers with their problems” without anything to back up their statements, maybe because they thought once they’re elected the crisis would be over.
This makes the May 2010 elections even more relevant for the Filipinos. We should not be lulled by motherhood statements and look for concrete ones unlike the rest. If we want to survive worse calamities, we must elect leaders who plan ahead and create measures when calamities strike.
Sadly, those presidential candidates who’ve been leading the surveys are the ones providing those motherhood statements. They don’t provide solutions because they don’t have the capacity to do so. Credentials alone speak themselves. Can we still let them lead if their platforms are all full of “trapo” promises?
Given this situation, it’s much better to choose those who are not leading in the surveys like Sen. Richard Gordon. He has the capability to mitigate these problems. When calamities struck like Ondoy, he was at the front lines to help those in need. He has plans that would provide long term solutions. If that is not a mark of a good candidate, then what is?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A bite from the past
I’ve read Gordon’s statement in April 9's article at GMA News.TV regarding Villar and Aquino's political issues, and I do agree with him. Both leading candidates will surely be hounded by their pasts once one of them becomes president.
For Villar, it will be the controversial C-5 road extension where he allegedly benefited from the government’s road extension project. And for Noynoy, it will be the Hacienda Luisita estate and the harsh dispersal that lead to a massacre of farmers that happened a few years ago.
In fact, both candidates have already been hounded by issues ever since they ran for the presidency. Even if you think that it is jut another propaganda brought by those against them, the fact that both issues actually happened and were not “fully” resolved will remain a thorn on their campaign.
How can these two candidates, who’ve been at each other’s throats in the elections, be in the top of the surveys? Even before running the campaigns, their names have already been under the mud, without any solutions to clean it. Even if their names are cleared, there will still be a small smudge that will remain. Can we leave it to them to run our country?
I also do not believe the two's statements regarding their issues. It's impossible for Villar not to have known that the road extention will pass through his land, let alone benefiting him.
On Noynoy's part, he said he will sell the hacienda to the farmers when he becomes president. Why wait to become president if he can do it right now? I believe he will do what his family did and prolong the issue indefinitely. He doesn't really want to sell the land, he's only saying that to get more votes.
Why choose these people if you could choose other candidates like Richard Gordon who doesn't have any dirt to his name. Even from his track record alone, Gordon can beat the leading presidentiables. Competency is not a question unlike those leading in the surveys.
I know many people are scared of voting for candidates like Gordon because they think their votes will be wasted from a candidate who has a lesser chance of winning, but if we change that thought, people like Gordon might have a fighting chance.
Link to Gordon’s statement here: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/188073/gordon-past-controversies-will-hound-noynoy-villar
For Villar, it will be the controversial C-5 road extension where he allegedly benefited from the government’s road extension project. And for Noynoy, it will be the Hacienda Luisita estate and the harsh dispersal that lead to a massacre of farmers that happened a few years ago.
In fact, both candidates have already been hounded by issues ever since they ran for the presidency. Even if you think that it is jut another propaganda brought by those against them, the fact that both issues actually happened and were not “fully” resolved will remain a thorn on their campaign.
How can these two candidates, who’ve been at each other’s throats in the elections, be in the top of the surveys? Even before running the campaigns, their names have already been under the mud, without any solutions to clean it. Even if their names are cleared, there will still be a small smudge that will remain. Can we leave it to them to run our country?
I also do not believe the two's statements regarding their issues. It's impossible for Villar not to have known that the road extention will pass through his land, let alone benefiting him.
On Noynoy's part, he said he will sell the hacienda to the farmers when he becomes president. Why wait to become president if he can do it right now? I believe he will do what his family did and prolong the issue indefinitely. He doesn't really want to sell the land, he's only saying that to get more votes.
Why choose these people if you could choose other candidates like Richard Gordon who doesn't have any dirt to his name. Even from his track record alone, Gordon can beat the leading presidentiables. Competency is not a question unlike those leading in the surveys.
I know many people are scared of voting for candidates like Gordon because they think their votes will be wasted from a candidate who has a lesser chance of winning, but if we change that thought, people like Gordon might have a fighting chance.
Link to Gordon’s statement here: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/188073/gordon-past-controversies-will-hound-noynoy-villar
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Treating it like "The Apprentice"
Now who’s the right candidiate?
That might be the million peso question we’ve been itching to find out. The 2010 election is becoming more like a game show where texters choose their most favorite contestants among the rest. Well, yeah if you put it that way, but it should be more of a “The Apprentice” type of game show where Donald Trump finds the right “apprentice” from the group of businessmen for his million dollar job of a lifetime.
He chooses the winner based on past records, accomplishments, failures, and popularity of each surviving contestants. In fact, that show can be a role model for us voters since Trump does not base his choice from flashy celebrities, but by their records of accomplishments throughout the season.
It’s not just any game show where you pick the most handsome/beautiful contestant from the rest, but by analyzing each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, then deciding if that person is fit for the job.
If we employed Trump’s assessment for the presidential candidates, sadly most of the leading presidentiables would’ve been fired right from the start. Either because they have nothing to show in terms of track record in governance resulting in a weak political background and policy making capabilities; or they have been proven to have acted/legislated based on what’s good for their personal businesses. After basing on track record alone, only a few contestants will remain given this situation. Among them will be Sen. Richard Gordon.
With that said, let’s take a brief look at his resume:
Even businessmen think of Gordon as the right candidate for the job. In the mock polls conducted last March, foreign business executives and members of the diplomatic community in the Philippines Gordon as the best person who “can do the best job” in running the country for the next six years.
So even in game show format, we can see that Gordon has what it takes to be “the apprentice” for the job. Let’s stop believing in surveys and look at each presidentiable’s records and you will see who is right for the president’s seat.
That might be the million peso question we’ve been itching to find out. The 2010 election is becoming more like a game show where texters choose their most favorite contestants among the rest. Well, yeah if you put it that way, but it should be more of a “The Apprentice” type of game show where Donald Trump finds the right “apprentice” from the group of businessmen for his million dollar job of a lifetime.
He chooses the winner based on past records, accomplishments, failures, and popularity of each surviving contestants. In fact, that show can be a role model for us voters since Trump does not base his choice from flashy celebrities, but by their records of accomplishments throughout the season.
It’s not just any game show where you pick the most handsome/beautiful contestant from the rest, but by analyzing each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, then deciding if that person is fit for the job.
If we employed Trump’s assessment for the presidential candidates, sadly most of the leading presidentiables would’ve been fired right from the start. Either because they have nothing to show in terms of track record in governance resulting in a weak political background and policy making capabilities; or they have been proven to have acted/legislated based on what’s good for their personal businesses. After basing on track record alone, only a few contestants will remain given this situation. Among them will be Sen. Richard Gordon.
With that said, let’s take a brief look at his resume:
- Gordon has 33 years of executive experience – as the youngest 1971 Concon delegate and as Olongapo City Mayor.
- After the US base in Subic closed down in 1991 leaving 400,000 Filipinos jobless, Gordon successfully transformed the US naval facility into a world-class freeport facility that attracted investors and created jobs.
- As Tourism Secretary from 2001-2004, he made the country a preferred tourist destination in Asia.
- As Senator from 2004-2010, he has authored 270 bills and resolutions, 13 of which have been passed into law – including the automation of the elections.
- He has been working for the past 40 years as a volunteer for the Philippine National Red Cross and helping many Filipinos who are victims of tragedies as well as natural disasters.
Even businessmen think of Gordon as the right candidate for the job. In the mock polls conducted last March, foreign business executives and members of the diplomatic community in the Philippines Gordon as the best person who “can do the best job” in running the country for the next six years.
So even in game show format, we can see that Gordon has what it takes to be “the apprentice” for the job. Let’s stop believing in surveys and look at each presidentiable’s records and you will see who is right for the president’s seat.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The wrong kind of advetisements
Barely a month before the 2010 elections, many political advertisements spouting nonsense had crowded television and radio airwaves to its peak. Most of them full of crappy cliché lines that only appeal to the emotions without any substance.
Take Villar for example. All of his advertisements rely on marginalized children who talked about alleviating them from poverty through his guidance. Noynoy on the other hand, advertised his parents (instead of himself) to boost ratings. Gibo, well he’s all about airplanes and how he can lift people up from their current state, etc.
With only a few weeks left to show their worth to the public, very few presidentiables have been giving the right kind of advertisements, like how a candidate can SOLVE poverty, how they might IMPROVE the economy, and how to DEAL with issues like corruption in the country. Most only employed flashy advertisements from known celebrities (Yes, even Villar’s kids were actors) that attacks the Filipino’s sympathy for change. Most relied on boosting emotion than prividing solutions.
I’m sorry to say this but most Filipinos are suckers for celebrities and entertainment. Instead of answering dire issue, we enjoy mudslinging in debates. Gossips and scandals are second entertainment for us, even though we know it’s not true. Recently, this presidentiable discovered showbiz news as fertile campaign propaganda by employing “chizmiz” for more air time.
This is the reason I hate Philippine elections because it is all about popularity contests and not issues. I get frustrated at many politicians who win because this celebrity endorsed him or that advertisements has a catchy jingle therefore we should vote for him. Haven’t they realized we are making the same mistakes again?
Instead of looking at all the glamour, why don’t we look at each presidentiable’s track record to see what these people have done for us. Were they able to author bills that actually helped the country when they were senator? Were they hooked in an issue while running in office? Do they have they skills to manage the country? If we made questions like that and apply them to the current presidential candidates, then very VERY few candidates would remain, and I assure you they are not one of those leading in the surveys.
Take Villar for example. All of his advertisements rely on marginalized children who talked about alleviating them from poverty through his guidance. Noynoy on the other hand, advertised his parents (instead of himself) to boost ratings. Gibo, well he’s all about airplanes and how he can lift people up from their current state, etc.
With only a few weeks left to show their worth to the public, very few presidentiables have been giving the right kind of advertisements, like how a candidate can SOLVE poverty, how they might IMPROVE the economy, and how to DEAL with issues like corruption in the country. Most only employed flashy advertisements from known celebrities (Yes, even Villar’s kids were actors) that attacks the Filipino’s sympathy for change. Most relied on boosting emotion than prividing solutions.
I’m sorry to say this but most Filipinos are suckers for celebrities and entertainment. Instead of answering dire issue, we enjoy mudslinging in debates. Gossips and scandals are second entertainment for us, even though we know it’s not true. Recently, this presidentiable discovered showbiz news as fertile campaign propaganda by employing “chizmiz” for more air time.
This is the reason I hate Philippine elections because it is all about popularity contests and not issues. I get frustrated at many politicians who win because this celebrity endorsed him or that advertisements has a catchy jingle therefore we should vote for him. Haven’t they realized we are making the same mistakes again?
Instead of looking at all the glamour, why don’t we look at each presidentiable’s track record to see what these people have done for us. Were they able to author bills that actually helped the country when they were senator? Were they hooked in an issue while running in office? Do they have they skills to manage the country? If we made questions like that and apply them to the current presidential candidates, then very VERY few candidates would remain, and I assure you they are not one of those leading in the surveys.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Choosing the "lesser evil" crap
I remembered a friend telling me about voting for the “lesser evil” among the presidential candidates, instead of someone who has the skills since that lesser evil will be the most likely to win. My friend said it would’ve been better to choose yellow because he hasn’t done anything much to screw his name. But I said, THAT is the reason. He hasn’t done ANYTHING, that’s why there’s nothing to talk about, except his celebrity parents and siblings.
Can a person expect someone who hasn’t even done anything for years in office effectively run the country? Can we expect economic development from someone who easily bends his knees to please the crowd? Can we expect somebody who easily turns tail after being criticized for his stand? Certainly no. He will be easily crushed in the political area, let alone help the in the country’s development.
It is not only about the weak political will, but the skills needed to properly handle business as big as the country. Choosing the “lesser evil who’ll win” over the “not evil person with skills, but most unlikely to win” is doing disservice to the country. My friend’s not the only one thinking like that; most Filipinos (who are politically literate enough) actually do. If all of us thought like that, then that politician with skill will certainly lose. And if we chose the lesser evil, who do you think can we blame when that person wins and do the corruption thing all over again? It’s not the politician’s fault--- it’s ours.
If there’s a choice between the “not evil” over the “lesser evil”, then why not choose the “not evil” one instead? Even if he might not be able to win, at least we still have the face to criticize the incumbent for his actions. It’s not about the concept of who will win in the race, it’s about idealism. If we chose the lesser evil, then we are accepting the responsibilities that entails with voting for that person. We are giving him the power to abuse since we already expect him to abuse it, though not blatantly compared to the others. For years, we were so used to this thought that we blindly chose our presidentiables for popularity than experience.
We shouldn’t follow what the surveys told us and vote for the popular leading candidates or the lesser evil between the two. Let’s consider each candidate’s track record and analyze what he has done through the years, then choose the right person for the job. In fact, if you analyze enough, there will be VERY few candidates left who can fit the job; and trust me, they are not in the top surveys.
It’s just sad to think that Filipinos are always blinded by the glamor and popularity that it does great disservice to the others who actually did well on their work, but failed to get credit for it. Perhaps it’s time for the people to shape up and choose someone better than just someone with a lot of face on TV.
Remember, this election will be the most critical point in the Philippines. With so much problems piling up, choosing the right candidate to run the country is the most important thing a Filipino must do right now.
Can a person expect someone who hasn’t even done anything for years in office effectively run the country? Can we expect economic development from someone who easily bends his knees to please the crowd? Can we expect somebody who easily turns tail after being criticized for his stand? Certainly no. He will be easily crushed in the political area, let alone help the in the country’s development.
It is not only about the weak political will, but the skills needed to properly handle business as big as the country. Choosing the “lesser evil who’ll win” over the “not evil person with skills, but most unlikely to win” is doing disservice to the country. My friend’s not the only one thinking like that; most Filipinos (who are politically literate enough) actually do. If all of us thought like that, then that politician with skill will certainly lose. And if we chose the lesser evil, who do you think can we blame when that person wins and do the corruption thing all over again? It’s not the politician’s fault--- it’s ours.
If there’s a choice between the “not evil” over the “lesser evil”, then why not choose the “not evil” one instead? Even if he might not be able to win, at least we still have the face to criticize the incumbent for his actions. It’s not about the concept of who will win in the race, it’s about idealism. If we chose the lesser evil, then we are accepting the responsibilities that entails with voting for that person. We are giving him the power to abuse since we already expect him to abuse it, though not blatantly compared to the others. For years, we were so used to this thought that we blindly chose our presidentiables for popularity than experience.
We shouldn’t follow what the surveys told us and vote for the popular leading candidates or the lesser evil between the two. Let’s consider each candidate’s track record and analyze what he has done through the years, then choose the right person for the job. In fact, if you analyze enough, there will be VERY few candidates left who can fit the job; and trust me, they are not in the top surveys.
It’s just sad to think that Filipinos are always blinded by the glamor and popularity that it does great disservice to the others who actually did well on their work, but failed to get credit for it. Perhaps it’s time for the people to shape up and choose someone better than just someone with a lot of face on TV.
Remember, this election will be the most critical point in the Philippines. With so much problems piling up, choosing the right candidate to run the country is the most important thing a Filipino must do right now.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Botong Isko Results
It was not surprising that Gordon won the University of the Philippines’ mock polls Botong Isko last month. Compared to the other presidentiables, he is by far suitable for the post.
Gordon was able to tap in to the student’s plea for good governance and solutions for long term economic development. Some of his plans were straight to the point, and some were even harsh, but he was able to defend them through his straight-to-the-point answers.
Of course, there were other students and most professors, especially the “older generations”, who were surprised by the turnouts of the mock polls. For an activist institution voting for someone who was claimed to be an avid supporter of the US troops stationed in the country, it was something gone mad.
But I believe the students were not voting based on color or a particular stand, but by the overall bearings a presidentiable has in order to lead the nation. Out of all the candidates, Gordon was able to provide concrete solutions on issues surrounding the country. While most presidentiables were bashing each other in the debates, he was able to be cool enough to answer the questions without the motherhood statements these people love to hand out (then bash at the other’s foolishness).
They weighed in what the candidates were offering from the past debates and chose the right person. They didn’t rely on popularity contests like the leading candidates, they preferred more on what a candidate has to offer.
Most students also believed that out of all the presidentiables, Gordon was true enough to answer the questions without fear of any backlash. When he was asked if he would increase taxes when he became president, he instantly said yes because he believed it was impossible not to increase taxes, since it was needed to stimulate the economy. Other candidates, especially the leading ones, plainly said no just to please the crowd; but in the end they changed their tune once they realized their response was unfavorable. This act alone was Gordon’s strong point.
But being true to the public has its shortcomings as a politician. Let’s face it, our country is still mired by popularity contests. The only reason those in the top were leading the surveys was because of the millions of pesos spent on campaign advertisements. For a campaign strategist’s perspective, it was the best move to garner the masses’ votes. But it only shows how shallow they are by dancing on TV and getting celebrities to endorse them for money.
What the majority of the Botong Isko did was not listen to surveys or enthralled by the flashy jingles they saw on TV, they weighed in, analyzed and thought who will be best suited for the job--- and they have spoken.
Gordon was able to tap in to the student’s plea for good governance and solutions for long term economic development. Some of his plans were straight to the point, and some were even harsh, but he was able to defend them through his straight-to-the-point answers.
Of course, there were other students and most professors, especially the “older generations”, who were surprised by the turnouts of the mock polls. For an activist institution voting for someone who was claimed to be an avid supporter of the US troops stationed in the country, it was something gone mad.
But I believe the students were not voting based on color or a particular stand, but by the overall bearings a presidentiable has in order to lead the nation. Out of all the candidates, Gordon was able to provide concrete solutions on issues surrounding the country. While most presidentiables were bashing each other in the debates, he was able to be cool enough to answer the questions without the motherhood statements these people love to hand out (then bash at the other’s foolishness).
They weighed in what the candidates were offering from the past debates and chose the right person. They didn’t rely on popularity contests like the leading candidates, they preferred more on what a candidate has to offer.
Most students also believed that out of all the presidentiables, Gordon was true enough to answer the questions without fear of any backlash. When he was asked if he would increase taxes when he became president, he instantly said yes because he believed it was impossible not to increase taxes, since it was needed to stimulate the economy. Other candidates, especially the leading ones, plainly said no just to please the crowd; but in the end they changed their tune once they realized their response was unfavorable. This act alone was Gordon’s strong point.
But being true to the public has its shortcomings as a politician. Let’s face it, our country is still mired by popularity contests. The only reason those in the top were leading the surveys was because of the millions of pesos spent on campaign advertisements. For a campaign strategist’s perspective, it was the best move to garner the masses’ votes. But it only shows how shallow they are by dancing on TV and getting celebrities to endorse them for money.
What the majority of the Botong Isko did was not listen to surveys or enthralled by the flashy jingles they saw on TV, they weighed in, analyzed and thought who will be best suited for the job--- and they have spoken.
Lilia sells food in the streets but hasn’t heard of microfinance
By Peter Blaza, Nephele Kirong
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:57:00 03/10/2010
Filed Under: Poverty, Entrepreneurship, Economy and Business and Finance
MANILA, Philippines—Life could have been easier for Lilia Roseryo had she been a beneficiary of a microfinance program, a government blueprint to ease poverty.
But she hasn’t even heard of it. And maybe most of the Filipinos who belong to that poor segment of society with little education or access to capital or credit.
Every day, Roseryo wakes up at 4 a.m. to cook dishes like sinigang and adobo. By 7 a.m., she leaves her small home in Tondo, Manila, and heads wherever there are crowds of people she could sell her ready-to-eat meals.
She once owned a small carinderia (eatery) right in front of her home, but it fell on bad times. Her husband deserted her two years after the youngest of her four children was born. He is sickly. The three other kids have stopped schooling.
Borrowed capital
Capital is borrowed from a neighbor. She takes home about P60 to P70 a day, minus all the expenses, a little repayment for the loan and setting aside the required money for the next day’s enterprise.
The family eats the unsold lunches, when they haven’t yet been spoiled.
“I’m cooking food, but they’re not for my children,” she laments.
No, she hasn’t heard of the microfinance program that the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) claims it is promoting to ease creeping poverty hounding a third of the Philippine population.
Flagship program
It is one of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s flagship programs to provide livelihood opportunities.
Under the NAPC, accredited organizations are provided loan from P1,000 to each individual to as much as P150,000 for groups of borrowers at minimal interest.
Emmanuel Esguerra, an economics professor of the University of the Philippines-Diliman, says that the government’s microfinance system is flawed and limited.
He says the dominance of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) involved in the programs puts the program’s sustainability under question.
“NGOs are still very heavily dependent on subsidies,” Esguerra says.
Arcane guidelines
Like any bank loan, money borrowed under the program is given through a set of guidelines. Often, the poor fail to meet the standards of credit and project feasibility, something arcane for the unschooled.
“Credit markets in the Philippines are so imperfect that people who are not even poor are not even able to obtain themselves credit,” he says.
Esguerra says that even if the poor present the necessary documents, there’s no assurance the loan will be processed because collaterals are still needed.
“The better way to help these poor guys is not to expect them to be entrepreneurs,” he says, as entrepreneurial skills are not equally distributed among everyone.
Esguerra says it may be more appropriate for the government to engage the poor in conditional cash transfers instead of microfinance.
He says this program enables poor households to receive funds, in return providing the household’s children enough time to concentrate on education and improving employment opportunities.
Better fighting chance
“The next generation will have a better fighting chance,” Esguerra says, in comparison to households engaging in microfinance.
For Mariel Vincent A. Rapisura, program manager of the Ateneo de Manila University Microfinance Capacity-Building Program, where proper information and guidance are provided results are positive.
“In our research, it has been consistently shown that microfinance prevents the poor from becoming poorer. Microfinance clients typically have improved quality of life derived from improved business income,” Rapisura says.
“The improvements in their quality of life include better nutrition, better housing, gender empowerment, higher propensity to save, better ability to send children to school and better access to health services,” he adds.
It could certainly help people like Lilia Roseryo.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:57:00 03/10/2010
Filed Under: Poverty, Entrepreneurship, Economy and Business and Finance
MANILA, Philippines—Life could have been easier for Lilia Roseryo had she been a beneficiary of a microfinance program, a government blueprint to ease poverty.
But she hasn’t even heard of it. And maybe most of the Filipinos who belong to that poor segment of society with little education or access to capital or credit.
Every day, Roseryo wakes up at 4 a.m. to cook dishes like sinigang and adobo. By 7 a.m., she leaves her small home in Tondo, Manila, and heads wherever there are crowds of people she could sell her ready-to-eat meals.
She once owned a small carinderia (eatery) right in front of her home, but it fell on bad times. Her husband deserted her two years after the youngest of her four children was born. He is sickly. The three other kids have stopped schooling.
Borrowed capital
Capital is borrowed from a neighbor. She takes home about P60 to P70 a day, minus all the expenses, a little repayment for the loan and setting aside the required money for the next day’s enterprise.
The family eats the unsold lunches, when they haven’t yet been spoiled.
“I’m cooking food, but they’re not for my children,” she laments.
No, she hasn’t heard of the microfinance program that the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) claims it is promoting to ease creeping poverty hounding a third of the Philippine population.
Flagship program
It is one of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s flagship programs to provide livelihood opportunities.
Under the NAPC, accredited organizations are provided loan from P1,000 to each individual to as much as P150,000 for groups of borrowers at minimal interest.
Emmanuel Esguerra, an economics professor of the University of the Philippines-Diliman, says that the government’s microfinance system is flawed and limited.
He says the dominance of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) involved in the programs puts the program’s sustainability under question.
“NGOs are still very heavily dependent on subsidies,” Esguerra says.
Arcane guidelines
Like any bank loan, money borrowed under the program is given through a set of guidelines. Often, the poor fail to meet the standards of credit and project feasibility, something arcane for the unschooled.
“Credit markets in the Philippines are so imperfect that people who are not even poor are not even able to obtain themselves credit,” he says.
Esguerra says that even if the poor present the necessary documents, there’s no assurance the loan will be processed because collaterals are still needed.
“The better way to help these poor guys is not to expect them to be entrepreneurs,” he says, as entrepreneurial skills are not equally distributed among everyone.
Esguerra says it may be more appropriate for the government to engage the poor in conditional cash transfers instead of microfinance.
He says this program enables poor households to receive funds, in return providing the household’s children enough time to concentrate on education and improving employment opportunities.
Better fighting chance
“The next generation will have a better fighting chance,” Esguerra says, in comparison to households engaging in microfinance.
For Mariel Vincent A. Rapisura, program manager of the Ateneo de Manila University Microfinance Capacity-Building Program, where proper information and guidance are provided results are positive.
“In our research, it has been consistently shown that microfinance prevents the poor from becoming poorer. Microfinance clients typically have improved quality of life derived from improved business income,” Rapisura says.
“The improvements in their quality of life include better nutrition, better housing, gender empowerment, higher propensity to save, better ability to send children to school and better access to health services,” he adds.
It could certainly help people like Lilia Roseryo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)