Indeed smiles can go a long way, just as much as pointing fingers can save your face. Today, one of the Philippines' most famous senators, a former movie actor, voluntarily submits himself to the anti-graft court and asks for bail.
If a common thief were to ask for such, it is a right that shall be granted him upon compliance with the rules of procedure. The same I hope goes for this man and his corrupt colleagues. There is just something to be said for an administration that began its campaign and its governance on leading a straightforward path of transparency, then turning sideways and back at its own discretion just to prove a point. But I am getting ahead of myself. The issue(s) plaguing me about this PDAF scandal are the following:
1. In the course of identifying officials that shall be charged under the anti-plunder and anti-graft and corrupt practices act, there seems to be a selective justice being implemented. For one, if the goal is to try and convict all those who have misappropriated the funds, then should not all of the previous legislators who received them from the time they were allotted be investigated upon? Why is it that only those from the previous administration are the ones being investigated?
One of my professors might call this the peanut butter strategy, which is the very one that the other senator charged used during one of his speeches. But I countermand right now that it is not. My concern is not for the sake of those who are being investigated now, but for the lack in diligence that the adminsitration seems to be practicing. It is not easy work to carry out I am sure, however, if you will pursue something as vigorous a task as this, make sure that you do it thoroughly and evenly. Do not be so limited because of certain political constraints. Which brings me to issue number two.
2. While the list or the "Napolist" is being developed, one of our professor gave the assignment that we conduct our own research under a presumption that published articles and data regarding all officials suspected are true. Our research lead us to reveal about one thousand legislators and members of the executive then and now to be included in the list. Of course this is on a presumption, but given the data we based our research on were accurate, I would speculate that the list published is meager. There are about fifty names on that list out of a possible one thousand. Probably those were the only ones they could find clear and convincing evidence against at the moment.
At this point, that is forgivable since it is difficult to provide the names. However, I do encourage the executive to release more names despite the lack of clear and convincing proof against them. They are or were government officials you are investigating. They position means that they are in public office, which means that they must be ones who uphold the highest sense of morality and service in the country. Slight mishaps or felonies acts should qualify them as candidates because no such tolerance should be granted when it comes to government posts. Doing such taints and ruins the trust and dignity of the offices that should be held in the highest esteem. Which brings me to my third issue.
3. Being in government means transparency of service to the people. This was part of the campaign of the current president and was the goal of eliciting the "Napolist" in the first place. However, the problem with this method of weeding out does not seems to be apparent to all. So, allow me to elucidate on the matter. I mentioned earlier that the investigation is too limited to officials of the current and previous administration. It seems that this investigation only aims to go as far back as then, when the matter stretches way further back. How then is the matter of transparency of government to be attained?
One might notice that in recent months the government has been trying to attain this goal through internet communications. They have accounts on most of the most popular social networking sites, and they are revamping national and local government key websites.this is good, except that transparency goes beyond that. I know they are providing these as a means to provide more access to information and government services much easier. But as I said, it goes way beyond that. Transparency in government means no transgressions in or out of the system, by civilians and officials alike. However, this is not the current state, and will never be the state. Realistically then, transparency in government means no transgressions in the most visible and important offices. This brings me back to my first point, and we have gone full circle.
The people of the Philippines expect too much of its president and his current administration. They cannot be faulted for doing so because of the promises he must keep. However, that does not mean he must be expected to perfect every single promise he keep. But, a double negative is necessary here because though neither citizen and president can be faulted here, the bigger responsibility and burden of proving that government can be trusted is in the latter's hands.
Given the issues presented, I then pray to this administration to exercise the fair harshness of the law, as well as the extraordinary diligence expected of them. It might seem to much to ask, but that is their prerogative. They asked to be elected, and they accepted the appointments, so they must face the consequences.
If a common thief were to ask for such, it is a right that shall be granted him upon compliance with the rules of procedure. The same I hope goes for this man and his corrupt colleagues. There is just something to be said for an administration that began its campaign and its governance on leading a straightforward path of transparency, then turning sideways and back at its own discretion just to prove a point. But I am getting ahead of myself. The issue(s) plaguing me about this PDAF scandal are the following:
1. In the course of identifying officials that shall be charged under the anti-plunder and anti-graft and corrupt practices act, there seems to be a selective justice being implemented. For one, if the goal is to try and convict all those who have misappropriated the funds, then should not all of the previous legislators who received them from the time they were allotted be investigated upon? Why is it that only those from the previous administration are the ones being investigated?
One of my professors might call this the peanut butter strategy, which is the very one that the other senator charged used during one of his speeches. But I countermand right now that it is not. My concern is not for the sake of those who are being investigated now, but for the lack in diligence that the adminsitration seems to be practicing. It is not easy work to carry out I am sure, however, if you will pursue something as vigorous a task as this, make sure that you do it thoroughly and evenly. Do not be so limited because of certain political constraints. Which brings me to issue number two.
2. While the list or the "Napolist" is being developed, one of our professor gave the assignment that we conduct our own research under a presumption that published articles and data regarding all officials suspected are true. Our research lead us to reveal about one thousand legislators and members of the executive then and now to be included in the list. Of course this is on a presumption, but given the data we based our research on were accurate, I would speculate that the list published is meager. There are about fifty names on that list out of a possible one thousand. Probably those were the only ones they could find clear and convincing evidence against at the moment.
At this point, that is forgivable since it is difficult to provide the names. However, I do encourage the executive to release more names despite the lack of clear and convincing proof against them. They are or were government officials you are investigating. They position means that they are in public office, which means that they must be ones who uphold the highest sense of morality and service in the country. Slight mishaps or felonies acts should qualify them as candidates because no such tolerance should be granted when it comes to government posts. Doing such taints and ruins the trust and dignity of the offices that should be held in the highest esteem. Which brings me to my third issue.
3. Being in government means transparency of service to the people. This was part of the campaign of the current president and was the goal of eliciting the "Napolist" in the first place. However, the problem with this method of weeding out does not seems to be apparent to all. So, allow me to elucidate on the matter. I mentioned earlier that the investigation is too limited to officials of the current and previous administration. It seems that this investigation only aims to go as far back as then, when the matter stretches way further back. How then is the matter of transparency of government to be attained?
One might notice that in recent months the government has been trying to attain this goal through internet communications. They have accounts on most of the most popular social networking sites, and they are revamping national and local government key websites.this is good, except that transparency goes beyond that. I know they are providing these as a means to provide more access to information and government services much easier. But as I said, it goes way beyond that. Transparency in government means no transgressions in or out of the system, by civilians and officials alike. However, this is not the current state, and will never be the state. Realistically then, transparency in government means no transgressions in the most visible and important offices. This brings me back to my first point, and we have gone full circle.
The people of the Philippines expect too much of its president and his current administration. They cannot be faulted for doing so because of the promises he must keep. However, that does not mean he must be expected to perfect every single promise he keep. But, a double negative is necessary here because though neither citizen and president can be faulted here, the bigger responsibility and burden of proving that government can be trusted is in the latter's hands.
Given the issues presented, I then pray to this administration to exercise the fair harshness of the law, as well as the extraordinary diligence expected of them. It might seem to much to ask, but that is their prerogative. They asked to be elected, and they accepted the appointments, so they must face the consequences.
I commend you on a job well done for ferreting at least three of the fifty, out of the possible one thousand corrupt officials you have. How obtuse. Will this investigation continue to be so? I guess we will never know. But of course I hope we do so, otherwise what would be the point of all of it, right?
Yours sincerely,
Czarina
P.S.
I really have nothing more I wish to say, but just in case you missed it, the world of politics can never be clean and perfectly transparent. But I do hope you do not give up. This country needs more broomsticks in public office than it does in the midnight streets.
No comments:
Post a Comment