I've Got this in the Bag!

That was just one of the few phrases that lingered in my head as I pretended to be one of the top contending candidates for this year's senatorial and local elections. Yes, dear citizens, it is that time of year again, and it is that time when we must all go about our duties as citizens and elect some people into office again. Sam old same old.

But then again, maybe it's not the same. I realized checking out these candidate's commercials that something  has changed. It hasn't gone on a complete 180 spin, but perhaps a 30 degree spin for the better? I'd add a smile to that because it means the race is getting tougher to win. And by that, I mean the following factors have changed substantially in terms of national poll results and advertising strategies:

1. Less candidates seem to make campaigns revolving on being seen with the poor
2. Less poor people shown in commercials
3. Less celebrity endorsers
4. More talking in advertisements
5. More speeches on what their platforms are, though they do not really elaborate on any plan
6. Still the same promise of eradicating poverty, but still no clear plan of action
7. More interaction with people of the working class-- which I think is to simulate the idea that they are going to make more policies on quality job opportunities.
8. More smiling in campaigns
9. More political endorsers-- it's an evolution from the less celebrity endorsers. I think this was meant to raise their credibility status in the public eye. I just don't know by how much
10. More serious smiles in photographs rather than "cute-pleasantry" smiles.
11. More posters and fliers illegally posted everywhere.-- Which I think they should be penalized for.
12. More campaign caravans with irritating jingles.
13. More sympathetic commercials regarding their outlook over the Filipino poor
14. More ballot numbers in posters


So, for the most part this list comprises of observations mainly on the main factors purportedly affecting voters' choice. Back in college my friend and I wrote our senior research paper on the same subject, only it was to compare the national and barangay elections in 2010. I'd be doing the same here only it would be shorter and would mainly be about the national elections only.

In its most recent survey, Pulse Asia released results on the top contenders for seats in the Senate. Not surprisingly, most of them are incumbents, and at the top of the ranks are those who were personally endorsed by the President himself in TV commercials.A short note I have about this move is a simple question. This question is directed to the President: "Why would you make such a political move?" On the plausible honest side I would like to give the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes in the capabilities and moral of these people. On the odd side that this is merely a political campaign to boost his party's name, I think it is a very cautious move. Then again, he is the President, and I doubt he would make such a move that he knew would hurt his reputation. I just think that on the blind side it is giving off the notion that he favors this set of candidates to win so that he would fully support their proposals.It comes of as a prejudiced move in short.

As to incumbents being at the top ranks, I would have to commend them on that because it means that campaign wise, they are very good-- or very creative. Still, what this only means for the veracity of campaign ads in pre-election periods is that they are still a very powerful force even with the learned. It is quite bothersome, but at the same time, commendable. Bothersome because it only shows how much better political analysts and campaign managers have gotten much better at merging recent favors of the electorate and purporting that to be the spitting image of the candidate's plan. Commendable because it means the Filipino voter is getting more complex and prudent when it comes to voting for a candidate. 

This is evidenced by the attempted data input in the campaigns. An example would be illustrating or indicating their platforms. Though still general, the attempt is shown. The mere phrasing of "I will eradicate poverty and create more viable jobs" is no longer good enough to sway the average voter. I guess this is the product of years of experience under non-productivity from incumbents. I am surprised though at the slow pace of realization. But the electorate cannot be blamed. After all, it was only under the recent regime change that honest information freely circulated.

For the most part though, I guess you could say an increased quality in voter scrutiny and campaign complexity is at hand. They are not completely at the stage of "let us see what his platform is" because as you can see, most of the incumbents are still at the top ranks. How do I know then that voters have become more prudent? From the campaign materials being flashed on screen and in the radio. If you could listen to one, the prominent features from the fifteen I mentioned are the mention of plans, less celebrities, and more political endorsers. Not much progress though on the manifestation theory on physical presence because campaign posters have evolved to show the ballot number of the candidate.

Just a note to the candidates then, do not be mad, or start filing suits against COMELEC if your ballot number is suddenly changed. it was you who decided to endorse yourself using your ballot number and nobody else. However I would have to say that that is highly unethical.

Back to the campaign results then. As mentioned, the voter scrutiny has changed. Why then? More than the fact of more information circulating, it is the fact that members of the electorate are tired of mere unfulfilled promises. This is why-- to the candidates who have nothing but songs and smiles in their campaigns-- it is likely that voters would choose to vote for those whom they actually hear concrete plans from. Though they may not be well-planned out, these plans would be worth their vote.

It is now only six more days before the election. I would love to tell you who to vote, and who not to vote, but I will not. Yes, I will not do such out of my conscious effort to help you exercise your right. It is your right, not mine, nor anybody else's. So choose wisely my dear citizens...




With faithful scrutiny,


Czarina

Here's to Hoping

To the Senate President, 

Shame on you! Shame on you  for even merely entertaining the idea of distributing those funds to your senator friends. Shame on you for tainting the honorable office that you hold. Mostly, shame on you for demeaning yourself. I was beginning to look up to you after your incredible speech during the impeachment trial. Now, those expectations just dropped a hundred degrees below zero. I am sorry that I might cause you some hurt if you ever get to see this. I am sorry that you are old enough to not change. And I am sorry that your better judgement might have gotten lost somewhere in the books and papers you have piled up. Maybe it's somewhere in your gloomy office at PECABAR *yes I've been there a few years ago on a career trip*. Mostly though, I am sorry that I think this way of you and you probably don't even deserve it. But what would I know, I'm still learning.

Forgive me for this ungraceful note, but I think it is just for you to hear such a criticism especially at this time when expectations have run higher and higher than they ever have. I thank the President for that. I was hoping to see the same illustrious performance from the senate, but then again, the people there still do not seem to know what being a senator truly means. Again, I apologize for tarnishing your reputation even more, but this is not my intention.

Prudence and honor are merely some of the compositions that I look for in a statesman. Sadly that does not seem to be present in many of our legislators. I do not hope to offend any more than I might already have. But you know how the Tagalog saying goes, "bato bato sa langit, tamaaan huwag magalit." I believe that our ancestors came up with that idiom for a good reason. However, as to you sir, I expect no hurt because I want to believe that a Senate President does not have anything to be embarrassed or ashamed of. I still want to believe that. And I am hoping that I will soon learn to. I am hoping that soon, I will come to have some form of faith in the legislature.

I am nothing but disappointed in what transpired in that session. The President's headlining comment made my day then. I seriously hope not to see anymore setbacks from this branch than it has accumulated. But to me, the lowest point of that confrontation was the mere fact that it had to happen at all.

First  of all, why doe the Office of the Senate President give out such funds to other members of the senate? For what use is it? I should think the answer is obvious but I refuse to state it out loud because I said, I wish to gain even a shred of faith in this branch. And it is proving to be more difficult than I had hoped. Those funds were initially meant for what? I was under the impression that members of senate had a pork barrel as well because it was to "aid in executing projects as approved in legislature". Though what these projects are I have no idea. Perhaps I should care to ask the common passerby. Or perhaps the little man crossing the street carrying a rice sack filled with assorted items to his home on the corner of the side walk next to the decrepit street light. Or I could be wrong. Perhaps those funds were meant for the internal operations and daily functions of your office? Please do educate me on this matter.

Either way, I need a very basic answer to a very basic question. What were those funds of the office for? Why were they distributed to members of the senate? And, perhaps most important for this sparked all the controversy, why were the amounts distributed uneven as to the four members? You might not see this, but I am hoping for an honest and honorable answer good sir.

Second of all, why did you retaliate during the interrogation? Being the intelligent man that you are and the knowledgeable lawyer I know you to be, why on earth would you answer that way?

In criminal law, it is common knowledge that flight is an evidence of guilt. To this end sir, that manner of speech you did shows a retaliation that tries to escape from a problem. I am not sure if this lackluster defense of yours is due to your age, but nonetheless, your honor should have spoken true for you. And with that I pity you. I pity you for despite the riches you have gained, which I know you will also try to disguise, the end of your graceful career  as a statesman will always be tarnished with your ungracious evasion of that question.

I am sorry Mr. President. I am sorry your peers at the senate hoped to remove you from your position. I am sorry nothing is going well for you now. But when you get to see this, and I am hoping that you do, I hope you come to realize that at the end of all this, nothing is more worth than living for the betterment of all. Nothing, sir. Nothing.


Hoping for more enlightened days,


Czarina

True Colors are Shining Through

Forgive me for the very cynical attitude that I usually put in my entries. But could you blame me for doing so when I live in a country where politicians center their arguments during sessions in congress on personal debts? If you have not heard of the news, then by all means, feel free to search around for articles on the recent confrontation between two Philippine senators during session. Particularly ones that pertain to their arguments on personal debts, when the session was meant to have been for discussing the unnecessary expenses from the Office of the Senate President.

I might have said too much already. But just to give you a brief background, here's the gist. The Senate President was being accused of distributing the exclusive funds of his office to other members of the senate. Based on their arguments, it appears this is a usual practice of the office. The distribution-- its occurrence, and the amounts released--, it would seem, is based purely on the Senate President's discretion. However, on the recent distribution, a few members of senate revolted stating the funds they were given were outrageously less than those given to others. Because of this, they  confronted the Senate President and questioned his action of distributing his office's funds "unnecessarily".

Well, if I were these senators, I really would feel like I was ripped off and deprived of my right to those funds! I mean, a quarter of a million is a very long way from the two million the others got! 

As to the Senate President, shame on you! Shame on you  for even merely entertaining the idea of distributing those funds to your senator friends. Shame on you for tainting the honorable office that you hold. Mostly, shame on you for demeaning yourself. I was beginning to look up to you after your incredible speech during the impeachment trial. Now, those expectations just dropped a hundred degrees below zero. I am sorry that I might cause you some hurt if you ever get to see this. I am sorry that you are old. And I am sorry that your better judgement might have gotten lost somewhere in the books and papers you have piled up. Maybe it's somewhere in your gloomy office at PECABAR *yes I've been there a few years ago on a career trip*. Mostly though, I am sorry that I think this way of you and you probably don't even deserve it. But what would I know, I'm still learning. (the extensive part of this paragraph/ letter is posted in the next entry)

As to the four senators, and well, the other silent ones as well, I really hope you do know what a senator's career description is. At the very least that is my expectation of you. That is my expectation of you as the senators of today. My expectations of a senator in general are different. But I wouldn't bother posting them here because I know you wouldn't bother knowing either.

But kidding aside, I do think the manner the Senate President answered the inquiries thrown at him was very ungracious and lack-luster. I am very disappointed in him to say the least. I am very disappointed in all of them. But I guess my expectations should not have been raised too much. After all, the President of the Philippines cannot control their actions, nor their election. *ehem!*

Speaking of which, I do commend President Aquino for his take on this incident in senate. It seems he is very frustrated that he can do nothing  to alleviate the dirt from this branch of government. I share your sentiments Mr. President. I truly do. However, you, dear Filipino citizen reader, can.

The race for the senatorial  elections is in a few months. Oddly enough, I have only begun to see media advertisements of these candidates just a couple of weeks ago. I guess that show how effective the new election policy on advertisement banning is. Thank you to whoever pushed for finally implementing this and to the people who worked on it. Now I don't have to switch channels as much as I used to during campaign periods.

If you haven't seen their commercials yet, try watching out for them on your local channels AT YOUR OWN RISK!
I cannot provide a link to any video as none is available at this time

I appreciate the fact that they're trying to portray them selves as "simple approachable and goodwilled" people. However, I also appreciate the fact that I know advertisements are just that. They're advertisements. Meaning they convey the image that is expected of the viewer to like. Translation, what you see in TV is probably not true. Some of them perhaps convey a genuine image of the product, yes. But I forgot one thing. This is politics. What are the products in their advertisements? I honestly am not sure.

If you do watch their advertisements you will find a common trend. Used to be it was "helping the poor by doing charity work" or "giving to the poor their basic needs". What happened to the poor in those advertisements? I do not know. I'm guessing they're still poor given the fact that senate hasn't even come up with a good enough legislation these past few years to boost the economy.  That or those people were just really good actors, or the media just never sensationalized other works of legislation. Lately though the new theme of these commercials is "helping the Filipino get better jobs" and "enriching the Filipino living". Any difference? YES! It appeals more to the middle class and those who are in the lower brackets of society. Why the change? Because people finally realized all the falsities in the previous ones. This one seems more realistic does it not? YES! But that does not mean they will materialize. As I said, an advertisement is merely and advertisement.

I warned you in the beginning of this entry that I tend to be very cynical.

That aside though, I am not saying do not vote. That is a very irresponsible thing to do. I clearly remember one of my professors stating recently that "Voting should not be a right. It should be a responsibility, an duty, an obligation." I could not agree with him more. This might give you something to think about too, and I really hope it does. I remember my sister also telling me, "if you keep thinking every single one of them deserves no spot in office then nothing will happen, and no one will ever vote." On that note, I encourage you to choose very very carefully who to vote for.

So, the next time you see their faces and names plastered with wide smiles across your screen, try to do the following:
1. List down their names
2. Search for ANY, and I mean any, entries about them on the internet.
3. Read all those pertaining to them on official and unofficial publications
4. Build a credential list on them. Type this in if you want
5. Make a mental criticism on their capabilities to intelligently write and construe the law. Also, take note of those who are husbands, sons, daughters, siblings or wives of any existing politician.
6. Take note of these the next time you see any ads pertaining to them, or them in person.
7. Vote based on these notes. Please choose ones that care enough, and know the ways of the law.



With that, I leave you with a quote I cherish on politics from one of my favorite books:
"I ask you, what could the woman do, left by the death of her husband with five little children, and two families who though only of grasping the crown? I am surprised she didn't do worse."- Henry IV, Confessions of Catherine de Medici



Charmed,


Czarina

I Commend You!

It's no secret to anyone that our country is plagued (or maybe blessed as some may call it) by its geographical location to be passed by an average of 26 tropical storms a year. Ever since I was a child, it's been a common notion to us when we were kids that whenever there are rains, classes will get suspended and will not resume until the floods subside.

Today, I'm already in graduate school and that's still the case. But up until a few months back I've had this notion that perhaps nothing could possibly be done to alleviate this concern especially in the metro areas of the country. But quite honestly, I do not believe that nothing can be done. I think something can be, but it is just not being done. Why? Your guess is better than mine.

Last year I have had the privilege of having the experience of being stranded in a coffee shop close to campus during a thunderstorm for about 4 hours. I have spent those hours sitting, looking around, eating, reading, posting, and mostly mindlessly doing nothing. I write this entry now because it is actually raining outside again, and it has been raining for the entire day. No doubt the streets have already been flooded a few hours ago and the news will feature more of the disastrous outcomes of this calamity.

The headlines of the news will probably say something like "Isang pamilya patay sa baha!" *knock on wood*

But more of the media criticism later on.

As I was saying, the streets of this country have always sunk below sea level during times of storms. Now this problem has been around ever since before the Marcos era has started. The concern I have is why has no administration ever come up with a proper solution to this? Is it too much of a rocket science problem that the solution is too difficult to find? I don't know. But as a concerned citizen, my mind only goes into the part where I'm concerned where the taxes are going.

But as I make this criticism, it seems the current administration has taken a step forward. And for that I commend them. I commend both the national and local government for at least recognizing that there is a problem with our roads, and sewage system. I commend them for trying to act upon this concern. Most especially I commend them for taking a step, a small step though, to developing the streets.

A few months back after the last storm passed, they started changing the pipes of the sewage system and rehashing them. This is good actually because the outcome showed itself immediately when a recent storm passed by and flooded the streets again. Only this time, the floods subsided immediately instead of the 2-7 days it takes. However I think this is not enough. Such a solution they have come up with is merely a short term one. They need to think of a more long term solution. For example, clean the sewers underneath the cities and change the pipelines leading to them with larger ones. I'm not entirely sure if this can or will bring about a proper recourse, but I do feel like it can at least shorten the period it takes for the flood to subside.

But even though this may work for the cities, it is not enough because there are large parts of the country that are agricultural lands. And these are the ones that are mostly affected by the storms because the crops get destroyed. If sum, we need to find a solution for the irrigation and sewage systems there as well. If not, then we can say goodbye to our agricultural sector and hello to more importation of food.

But this is all just a thought. Might as well slap a tape over my mouth because they won't hear this anyway.

But hey! Cheers to them for trying... right?

Hater Proponent of the RH Bill and the C**** Crime Law

It's been more than a year now since my last entry. And it's been more than a year now that the past bill written of has been in the limelight. But now, even after all the debates, the prayers, and the controversies surrounding this bill, where does it stand? In a state of limbo.

I wonder, in the first place, why such a bill has been even drafted that way. 

I guess I'm getting ahead of myself right now. Entering law school made me change my perspective on it. It's not just all about the words in it, but the reason for it. In law, we must learn to interpret things as they are written. Reading this bill now gave me a new idea of what it is really about. I criticized it along with others giving their statements for why they want it or why they don't. I hold firm on my stance that to make such a judgment, we should first know what is written in it. However now I have a new position. I still do encourage people to make a choice on the bill based not on what mass media impressions are made on it, but based on the words written in it. Read it, I plead. It is actually the necessary means so that we can educate ourselves on what our lawmakers are really doing with all their time in congress.

As I revisit this bill again, my opinion on its passage has changed. Why? It's as simple as it's proposals are not even necessary. I know many will criticize me for making that statement, but again I ask you, read the bill. The projects and programs it proposes are good, however they are not what this country needs in order to alleviate the problems it seeks to prevent. On its face, they produce good arguments such as  "preventing poverty through preventing further population growth" and "helping mothers evade unnecessary death". Do not get me wrong I do think the healthcare programs proposed there are good. My only problem is that they already exist, and to pass this bill and implement its projects would be a mere redundancy. As Sen. Pimentel said (in his feeble attempt at early campaigning in Gandang Gabi Vice :p- sorry but it's really obvious you guys), "why not use the proposed fund we will shell out for this bill to improve the existing health programs we already have?" He's right. Why not? I want you to think about the same thing. Why not? I would like to give him an answer but it would mean violating (I think..) a law that was enacted to screen unpublished (print) words. I think you all know what this is. But then again, do you? I ask you to read it as well because it is only through reading it that we can fully criticize it and those who wrote it for what they have effected.

All this talk of the recent law and curtailing of rights has somehow gotten overblown. I do not blame users of social media for thinking so, but I also do not blame the lawmakers for enacting the law (read it so you will know what it really contains, PLEASE). My only concern about it is that, along with the RH Bill, it provides an another avenue for officials (legislative and executive) to "EARN" more from the allocated budget than properly using it. Oh, and another would be that even though they try to mask "that" intent with the intent of the words of the law, it is arguable that the crimes it wants to prevent are possible to police. One funny provision of that law though is that it handed such power literally to the police. Not to throw stones, but you just have to wonder how this will work. In addition, there are no existing rules yet on how to proceed with doing this, so how will they implement this? Those are just thoughts, based on that one provision that got everyone worked up. As for the rest of the law, the only comment I have is it seems a great feat to try and implement them. They are very ambitious and vague at the same time. And it is because of these features of the law that make them easy to circumvent. I don't want it mostly because they will just take advantage of it rather than actually implement it for the good of the public, thought they say that is their reason (plus to save the dignity of one certain Senator for his slip during their debates on the RH bill. I hope he does not attempt to plagiarize again because it's very embarrassing for all of us that a Senator does that then degrades his source).

I urge you, read the bill and the law. Make your stance know for what they are. Do not depend on the impressions others and the mass media give you as bases for your choice. Make the better choice and educate yourself. Go further than what other say and make your own say.


Reproductive Health/ Responsible Parenthood Bill
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB04244.pdf

Cyber Crime Law
http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/

Click the Link for the HB4244

http://www.likhaan.org/sites/default/files/pdf/15th_congress_hb4244.pdf

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 2: Power in the Dining Table

The typical family has roles in it. In our family, the play of power is very evident most especially when the time comes for us to make decisions. Here is how it works:

My father is the one whom I think is the most respected decision maker amongst us. Although it is unspoken, the rule is somewhat to ask him for permission before asking our mother because he would ask for the specifics that are necessary. He is the one who seems to be the most balanced between him and my mother that he is able to earn a great degree of our respect. He struggles with making decisions with us during the times that we have “mixed up” schedules.

My mother is the one who seems to fill the typical roles of a mother. She tries to be able to give tips at times. They end up being helpful often, though the method she brings them to us is sometimes uncalled for. Most of the time she is the one whom convincing is hardest when it comes to permissions. I think this was brought about by her lack of experience in the events we ask her for permission to. She often states we should not do so because of the dangers and hazards these could bring us.  Though she s hard to convince, once all the necessary arrangements are given to her, she will allow us. But the problem is that often, there is the hesitation in her to actually give us the permission. Why there is is still beyond my understanding.

My sister is the one whom I am able to discuss my decisions with regard to any matters. I think this is because there is a more open relationship between us than between me and my parents. She is also the one I know the family considers to be the image of responsibility since often most of us are unable to fill some roles that she is able to.

The juxtaposition of power here comes in the dining area when we are able to sit down and discuss issues we see at the time. Often they are political and social issues. The manner of debating arises when my mother and father talk. My father wins most of the time. Although, there are times that my mother wins, but mostly it is because my father does not wish to go further into the discussion. A wise move, I think. My sister and I often join in the debate, but we withdraw on the account that my mother is already starting to raise her voice.

Power and respect here, as I see it, comes into play in familial relations whenever it is possible that the family member is unable to relate much with the other or when issues arise that differing ideas about them are perceived. It is difficult yes, but it is stimulating at the same time. I think that in this manner, such conflicts are ones that are able to strengthen our bonds and are able to boost our respect for one another.