I've been a fan of Manny Pacquiao since the late 90's. I remember watching this reckless kid who swung at everything that moved on Blow by Blow with my father. To me, he isn't a representation of any Filipino value. To me, he is one of the guys, along with Luisito Espinosa and to some extent Gerry Peñalosa, who made boxing fun for me and gave me and my dad a common interest.
Boxing is boxing to me. It isn't about Filipino pride. I love Luisito Espinosa because he could knock anybody out in any given moment and not because of his nationality. The same goes for Manny. Both fighters are amazing and I'm not gonna cheapen their hard work and skills by saying their nationality had anything to do with the fame and respect they are getting.
Both fighters had their fair share of glorious battles. Espinosa had that hellish battle with Guty Espadas where he dropped multiple times only to fight back valiantly before ultimately losing a tiring battle in the 11th round. Manny had that same kind of battle with his first matches with Marquez and Morales; he suffered a broken hand against Marquez and a ghastly cut against Morales. Espinosa was cheated against Soto in their second fight and Pacquiao was cheated in his first fight against Bradley. Espinosa turned Alejandro Gonzales into a zombie in their second fight. And Manny did this to some Thai dude:
That's pro boxing. It's brutal, nasty, exciting and can be a source of some sort of pride I cannot fully comprehend. But those, along with other grand adjectives, are all it is. It's a dangerous sport of brave, skillful warriors who put their bodies on the line to gain personal gratitude in the form of money, fame or whatever.
Be that as it may, I always gave Manny the benefit of the doubt. When he went into acting in the early 2000's in films with Mikey Arroyo and April Boy Regino, I instantly knew he would suck. But hey, it was his dream and there's nothing wrong with cashing in on his fame. Wapakman suck, but so what? When he had concerts, I saw nothing wrong with it. He's no Frank Sinatra, so what? People love him and they enjoyed listening to that "Laban mo, laban ko, laban nating lahat" thingy.
But here we are now. Manny Pacquiao is an elected senator and a retired boxer. More than that, he's a bible-thumping legislator who may very well have the capability to turn his personal beliefs into public policy. The days of me cheering and shouting profanities at the TV because of Pacquiao's fights are over.
When he decided to run against the Custodios and lost, I hoped his desire to go into politics would be quelled. But as we all know, that didn't happen. He decided to do what a normal trapo would do which is to move to an area with weaker political opponents and run for office there. He later on became Saranggani's congressman and this slowly changed my view of Pacquiao.
We provided him a bunch of stuff and yet we
are made to believe we still owe him something. We gave him 24/7
security for decades, vehicles ranging from cars to planes to use, a beautiful palace and the financial support to make his plans come true a reality.
And yet we still owe him? Forget the idea that Marcos is allegedly
corrupt or that his plans allegedly sent us to a period of collapse. Ang
kapal ng mukha ng ilan sa mga tao para sabihing i-boycott ang mga
pinagawang yan ngayo't patuloy pa rin nating binabayaran ang marami sa
mga yan.
Wala namang masamang suportahan sina Marcos per se. Pero
kung itong mga basurang memes o mga post sa mga pekeng accounts ang
ginagamit niyong sources, you are in no position to tell us to boycott
anything since you're currently boycotting rational thinking.
Note: There is no evidence suggesting that Erwin Tulfo has anything to do with the Facebook page embedded in this post.
*** The following post may contain strong language ***
In deciding things, we always look to some things that would validate a choice; if I'm allergic to peanuts, then I won't touch the stuff. That's how decision-making works. It can be simple and objective like deciding what's the best way to get to work. Other times though, if and then statements are not as easily constructed.
In life, we have to face decisions where the choices aren't necessarily wrong or right and the factors are not necessarily tangible and/or quantifiable. It's like choosing Martin Nievera over Gary Valenciano. Both are undoubtedly talented and legends in their field. It's just that Martin Nievara is always playing and waking me up every weekend morning. And in subjective choices like these, we tap into our individual biases. Martin Nievera has always been better than Gary V. to me. Maybe it's because my parents love him and his voice always accompanies great early morning memories. It's not about talent; Martin is certainly incapable of dancing like Gary. It's just that, I like Martin better.
These biases, I accept them. I actually embrace them because overall, I see myself as a decent guy because/despite of them. And I'm sure most people embrace a few of their respective biases as well. I mean, if you attack Aldub, Lizquen or any other love team, their fans would blow their tops and won't hesitate defending their idols on social media with their names and pictures attached to their posts.
Now, what if the subjective question encompasses more than entertainment? What if the subjective question where we have to exercise our individual biases is something that would affect the state? Say, the elections?
Before proceeding, let's be clear that politics is a grey, if not subjective, area. If it weren't, then every state would be following the same political stance. Free market, command economies or whatever is not the one best way to get things done.
Now, what's ironic here is that the questions I put forth are examples of instances where bias is exercised. I'm sure that some reading this may simply say "hold onto your biases for just a day and vote for someone who will usher in a new era of prosperity for this nation" or whatever. But can we blame a desperate mother looking to feed her child who accepts money in exchange for her singular vote? It's easy to say she's a treacherous moron willing to sell out our nation. But isn't it us, the supposed intellectual elite, who are responsible for shaping the government that failed that woman?
Bias is hard to contain. Whenever people say mass media is biased, all I can say is "Duh!". Everybody is biased. Those who claim they are less biased have actually been proven to be the most biased of all (link).
So, what do we do now?
The urge to close this tab is most likely a manifestation of your bias against whatever I'm writing here. So why don't we just embrace it and actually start to scrutinize it?
Denial is a major speed bump in making sound choices in the elections. Let's accept the fact that some of us turn away whenever bad things about our candidates are discussed. The fear of being proven wrong or being humiliated can be immense. But in politics, sit's different. As I've said earlier that politics is a grey area where one plus one can equate to Lynyrd Skynyrd. The only time you can be proven wrong is when you lose your conviction through something like a complete absence of logic or whatever.
After a long delay, the anticipated 2nd Presidential Debate featuring the four leading contenders for the nation's highest post got underway. It definitely got off to a rocky start. But it played in my favor because I just got home when it started. There are definitely plenty of things to talk about. But here are a few things that piqued my interest:
- Why is the Comelec not allowing notes? What's wrong with notes? What's wrong with a presidential aspirant collecting himself and gathering information that would help him convey his plans better? I know people have this high regard for leaders who can talk without scripts. But I'd rather have one who actually spent resources planning instead of just shooting from the hip. Extemporaneous speakers are impressive in their own right. But presidents are afforded multiple staff members with their own respective expertise, a multitude of data sources and limited attention. By preventing our candidates from tapping into their own resources to answer questions, Comelec is doing a disservice because they are preventing the candidates from laying out their plans the best way they could thus preventing the electorate from properly formulating a strong opinion of their potential leaders. Binay wanting to use prepared documents and "kodigos" should not be held against him. Hopefully the Comelec revisits this rule. Rules are not meant to be followed. Rules are meant to be justified or otherwise abolished. And this rule they have during these debates needs to be canned. - Binay's attack on the government's underspending and his explanation of his plan to exempt the poor from income tax lacks depth. His attack on underspending lacked its cause. The main reason for the large surplus we have in our budget is the agencies' inability to map out and implement plans and projects. This may be attributed to a more stringent process in releasing budget as well as gross incompetence on the part of our bureaucrats. Instead of slinging mud to the wall and hoping it sticks, Binay could have provided a clear argument for the failure the ruling party. As for his plan to exempt the poor from taxes, his explanation just opened up more questions. He mentioned our inability to implement our import/export taxation. He cited this as an example on how we can balance out the lost revenue his tax policy would incur. But it just opens up the question on how he plans to improve tariff collection.What does he think of the port booking system that truckers, brokers and freight forwarders are rallying about? Aside from improving freight flow, it would definitely help in accounting for every truck and cargo that leaves the port. But is it worth the supposedly exorbitant fees? How about smugglers that use random beaches? How do we get them to pay tariff? Who is he assigning as BOC chief? He mentions that the increased purchasing power of the exemption would result in higher VAT collection. But of the poor, how many are patrons of businesses that pay the right amount of taxes? It also opens up new questions. This time it's in sales tax acquisition.
I liken Binay's call to exempt the poor from income taxes to a wrestler mentioning the town in which he is performing in a good light. He's merely trying to get a positive reaction. The sad thing is most of us bit and cheered for him even though it's so easy to see right through him.
- “Ihereby declare, on oath, that I
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity
to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or
which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support
and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the
United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant
service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the
law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian
direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me
God.”
How can we trust someone who took the above oath to be the commander-in-chief of our military? The fact that Grace Poe was allowed to run by the Supreme Court doesn't change the fact that she consciously made an effort to give herself an option to side with the US in the event of a war between our nations. To me, there's nothing wrong for an ordinary, private individual to go for that option. But I can't stand to have a president that deliberately sold her loyalty to another state for her personal comfort.
When I first read the oath in Ireneo Salazar's blog post (link) and saw it word per word on a U.S. government's website (link) , I said to myself "Grace Poe can't win". Binay had the opportunity to hammer in my sentiments. But he disappointed me, as usual. - Duterte had a point during on the question of climate change and environmentalism. Adhering to the desires of hardcore environmentalists of banning coal plants is not in the best interest of our country. Think of it this way, by going for full renewable energy, the effect on the environment would be minuscule compared to the cost we would incur. According to WESM(link), Coal and Natural Gas power plants are our main power producers. These two are also the types of plants that pollute the most. By taking away these plants, the cost of electricity would skyrocket since by simply looking at WESM, we can see the spot prices in the electricity market of solar and wind power are considerably higher than electricity made by coal and natural gas. Let's say we actually sacrifice our economy to switch to renewable energy. Is it worth it? Would the improvement in climate offset the economic sacrifice we would incur? But hey, maybe jobs created by renewable power industries would help our economy. But the problem is that other countries posses the comparative advantage in that industry. Japan and the U.S. have the technology. What we have is the manpower. But that industry is capital-intensive. This means that the main beneficiaries of focusing on renewable energy would be the owners of the capital i.e. foreign investors or the people like the Levistes of Solar Philippines. I'm not belittling the issue of climate change or anything. But it's not our issue to handle hands-on even though we are one of the most affected. We can make a difference as a nation by implementing sound strategies like protecting our forests and stopping "pagkakaingins". We can make sure that power plants adhere to cleaner versions of themselves like clean coal technologies. But crafting back-breaking policies solely because of the environment - like converting jeepneys so they conform to Euro 4 - is ridiculous.
- During the talk regarding renewable energy and climate change, Duterte caught my attention when he mentioned monopolies as the reason for the high power rates. The question of monopolies is not restricted to the power industry. Monopolies are also springing up more frequently especially with the administration's go-to-move when it comes to infrastructure development - PPP's.
The word monopoly has this negative connotation. But it is needed in technological advancements in market-driven economies. Pharmaceutical advancements are fostered thanks to the incentive of guaranteed monopolies. It is a major incentive for the private sector. But in certain industries, monopolies are just deterrents to economic advancement.
Take for example the power industry. The competition in the spot market ensures at least some semblance of efficiency since different power plants strive to produce power in the most efficient way so they can beat their competition. But in distribution, no such incentive to improve efficiency exists because Meralco or other coops have monopolies. There's no need to improve wires or whatever they use. There's no reason to improve personnel management. They have no competitions to push them. Back to PPP's, the administration that Mar Roxas loves so much allows monopolies to exist freely. From expressways to railways to utilities to hospitals, this Mar Roxas-endorsed style of governance lets go of responsibilities because it itself cannot fulfill them due to ineffectiveness, inefficiency, lack of accountability and lack of political will to fix itself. Mar Roxas' beloved administration's economics leaves crucial services and industries to the private sector to handle. Sure, the private sector may seem efficient to a lot of people. But its irreverence to positive externalities of their operation and their profit-driven management inflates costs which makes the economy inefficient.
PPP's are not always bad. Assuming the government officials are clean and not complete idiots, building the infrastructure goes through a bidding system which provides competition. This should result in a cost-effective build. Privatizing the SSS, GSIS and Pag-Ibig may not be such bad ideas since financial institutions' main goal is profit regardless of who handles them. But once we allow the private sector to take hold of other government responsibilities like when they operate transportation or healthcare, we unknowingly get screwed.
When the second part of Marichu Villanueva's question was deliberately ignored by Roxas, it just got me asking how much he really believes in his party's administration and how much of its style he would adopt. I wonder what he thinks of the new IRR on the BOT law.
- Miriam needs to quit. She's not performing well in the surveys thanks to her illness. If she really believes she knows what's best for the country, she should pass the information to someone in her party who can win and who would take her as a consultant. Because as of the moment, the supposedly brilliant ideas she has in her mind is going to waste because of her inability to campaign and share her plans.
- I've attacked Duterte in my last post (link). And with how he adjusted into what seemed like a more compassionate version of himself who actually gave a bit of crap, it showed what some of us already knew: he's just like the usual trapo spouting out any generic BS he can spout to gain the votes of anyone who cared to listen.
Duterte is not the genuine, no-nonsense guy he and his supporters are selling. But does that matter? If you genuinely believe in Federalism, increased police wages, special courts to speed up the justice system, the death penalty or bilateral talks with China, then I guess he's the man for you. But to vote for him based solely on his promise he can end crime in 6 months is misguided. A benevolent dictator can end criminality in 6 months. A ruthless depot can do the same. Even an effective republic like the one in Iceland (link) can do it. Sometimes how you will do things is more important than what you will do. And his desire to get killed if he doesn't deliver doesn't cushion the blow of any potential failings his administration would have. Because to be frank, his life is not worth 6 months of this nation's time.
- Let's legalize divorce. If it's such a sin, let the church handle it. Priests, pastors, imams and other religious leaders spend a considerable amount of time studying their holy books. I'm sure they can handle their flock.
My reasoning for supporting a divorce bill is similar to my support of same sex marriage (link). There's no point in having the government dictate what's a sin and what's not.
For the people saying that the family is the basic foundation of society, come on. Do you really want the national government to micro-manage everything and mess with your family life. Sobrang spoon-feeding naman yun.
- Grace Poe is not ready to be president. Duterte threw a screwball at her with that question in the individual Q&A round. When she failed to mention talking with the US in her answer when asked what she would do in the event of a Chinese attack, it should have brought her down. She wasted around twenty seconds in saying she would wake up or some other trivial stuff. As I've mentioned before she shouldn't be our president. That one question, as well as several things she tends to forget like the fact she is the vice-chair of the agricultural committee that handled the Coco Levy Fund, proved she can't be our president.
- Grace Poe had a point when she said the big fish of the Liberal Party seem to be exempted from accountability.Aside from that, other people close to the president seem to be exempted as well. There's Abaya who she cited, Jericho Petilla who almost caused a Luzon-wide power crisis during his term as DOE head, Butch Abad who devised the PDAF/DAP fiasco, Francis Tolentino whose incompetence led to the surrender of some of the MMDA's powers to the Highway Patrol Group, MIAA GM Honrado who oversaw the airport during both the laglag bala scam as well as the worst airport in the world year and a whole host of other people I may be forgetting.
- TV5 really did a better job than I expected. The questions were hard-hitting and whenever Ms. Valdez felt like the discussion was not answering the question, she didn't hesitate in dictating the tempo of the debate. The commercials were also reasonable. And the fact that they sold their coverage to other broadcast groups really put them in a positive light for me because information that would affect how the electorate would vote should not be monopolized. The mudslinging was prevalent. But it did not lower the standard of discussion as expected. The only thing I can really say as a major booboo for them is their misunderstanding with Binay's camp. But compared to GMA, their coverage was so much better.
Conclusion:
Now, if you ask me who won the debate, I'd answer Roxas. He made sure to highlight his party's strengths and avoided acknowledging their particular weakness. He made sure to remind his party is not perfect and he effectively staved off attacks sent his way... well... at least compared to Binay and Poe. Duterte is a close second because I felt he was disengaged towards the candidates not named Roxas. But in any case, nobody really stood out for me.
Now, if you ask me who I'd vote for, I'd answer say... does it really matter?
The following is a quick reaction straight from my Facebook Profile. Please excuse the usage of Filipino as I feel English won't be able to capture the emotion of the post.
Kahit sino pang kandidato yan, didikdikin yan. Mas madali pa nga
madalas tinatanong sa mga kandidatong yan kesa sa mga nagdedebate sa
klase e. At hindi ito ginagawa ng mga estudyante para mag mayabang at
ipakitang matalino sila. Ginagawa ito para mas mapalalim ang usapan.
Sinasabi galit daw tayo sa trapong pasayaw-sayaw lang pag kampanya. O
ayan na... ginigisa. Sabay sasabihin walang modo?
Hindi ko sinasabing may point yung nagtanong kay Duterte. Pero oras na magbulag-bulagan tayo sa kahibangan ng mga kandidato at magpokus sa kumukutya sa kanya... damn.
Yung tinanong kay Duterte e parang tungkol sa implementation ng kanyang
anti-criminal shits. Malabo ang pagkakatanong. Pero hindi naman humngi
ng clarification si Duterte e. Hinayaan ni Duterte na hindi sila
magkaintindihan. Ang sagot niya "bomba na lang" na parang ulyaning gusto
na lang tapusin ang usapan. Yung nagtanong nakalimutan na ang normal
ethics na ineexpect ng lipunan kasi mabigat yung issue sa kanya e. Parang tanga ang pagkakatanong. Pero just like anybody else, he deserves
more than a dismissive "bomba na lang" as an answer.
Duterte's
running for a position that has the most authority to affect the lives
of everyone in our state. Kung merong walang modo dito, si Duterte yun.
He's belittling the importance of this election by making it seem like
he's not even trying.
It's not who you vote for that determines
if you voted wisely. It's how you came to the conclusion that that
person is who's best for our nation that counts. Nakakarumi na yung mga
taong kulang na lang e gawing Diyos ang mga kandidato nila at mag-alay
ng birhen. E kung mag-inom na lang tayo sa halip sa sumamba diyan edi
sana matamis.
Of course, this video was cut. A lot of his supporters are actually encouraging people to look for the full video as the one being circulated by the media doesn't fully capture his stance. So okay, here's the "full, raw, uncut" video they are encouraging us to watch:
Manny P.
Eto ang tunay na clip! Gago din ang media eh!!!Panoorin nyu bago nyu ibash si Manny PacquiaoShare nyu nadin!#KupalLord#KupalCares#SiKupalAngMayAlamCTTO
Posted by Kupal Lord on Thursday, 18 February 2016
There you have it. Pacquiao may think that people engaging in same-sex relations are worst than animals. But at least, he's not condemning them. He's just condemning the practice of same-sex marriage. Those last few seconds taken away by major media outlets really saved Manny for me. I mean without those few seconds, I would have thought he is a bigot or whatever word people are using nowadays (sarcasm?).
But hey, you can interpret his words any way you want. You may interpret it as him calling for Martians to attack and enslave our children if you want. But there is one thing that we must keep in mind when watching this interview: Manny Pacquiao is running for public office.
By filing his Certificate of Candidacy, Manny announced that he is ready to represent every individual in our nation regardless of race, religion, social standing or whatever. Well, that's what I hope. That's the kind of professionalism I hope from anybody running for public office. But sadly, professionalism is not really a word that people associate with our politics.
Manny Pacquiao gave us his religious view. And he also pointed to it as his reason for being against same-sex marriage. Many politicians do it. Going to the bible for guidance is not a bad thing. But if you're in a position to change the lives of millions of people of differing world views and different holy books, maybe it's time we slide that bible back in its drawer.
The separation of church and state has been discussed in this blog before. I've long discussed my belief that the state should not concern itself with religion. You see, government is not doing God any favors by following His teachings in crafting laws. We've criminalized adultery and yet people still do it. The reasoning behind criminalizing adultery is not necessarily because it is "evil". It is criminalized because the legal spouse and children are being put in disadvantageous situations by the practice. This line of reasoning should be at the forefront when discussing policies. The state was not created to further the advances of a particular religion. It was created to improve the physical state of living of all of its constituents regardless of their personal beliefs. Manny Pacquiao and other politicians fail to realize and practice the separation of their religious views and their political responsibilities.
But aside from that particular lack of realization, another observable political feature showing itself in the issue is our inability to digest ideas solely on their merit. When Vice Ganda voiced his displeasure with Manny's sentiments, he was attacked vigorously by social media. People are saying he's a hypocrite for negatively reacting to Manny's sentiments when he himself profits from ridiculing others. Some people on the other hand went quickly to the defense of Pacquiao because of the pride he has brought to the nation. With Pacquiao being a national treasure, they encouraged people to give the legendary pugilist some slack. But the problem here is that this issue is not about Pacquiao or Ganda or Abunda or anybody else.
Pacquiao exercised his right to free speech and there is nothing wrong with that. We shouldn't be scrutinizing him. We should be scrutinizing the idea that we are okay with denying same-sex couples the right to adoption, the tax right-offs, inheritance and other rights being enjoyed by heterosexual couples just on account of their sex. Mon Tulfo was quick to Pacquiao's defense and explained he just exercised his right to free speech and went on a little homophobic tirade of his own. The problem is we forget that with our right to voice our opinions, others also have the right to scrutinize those said opinions. Vice Ganda, regardless of his past, has the right to react to Manny's views. And the validity of Ganda's sentiments should not be tied down to his past.
With that said, this issue has brought out several of the traits of Philippine Politics.We certainly don't have the perfect political environment for instilling progress on all fronts. But it is time we change that. We are far removed from the colonization of other nations. We have long passed the times of dictatorship. It's time we start getting the most of our democracy through intellectual and logical approaches to current issues.
We are now at a point where we should ask ourselves several key question concerning same-sex marriage: Are we okay with people having the gall to liken our fellowman to animals just on account of who they choose to love? Are we okay with denying rights on account of their preferred sexual partners? Are we okay with distinguished people marginalizing the LGBT since they have "gay friends"? Are we okay with individual beliefs stopping the happiness of millions? Should we limit the other people's paths to providence and happiness by our own individual beliefs?
It's not that we have a, as Mon Tulfo put it, primitive society. It's just that we fail to ask the questions that would determine if we are ready for same-sex marriage.
As the 2016 election draws near, the question of who to vote for is slowly creeping into the minds of our people. In my family, my mother seems dead set on foregoing her right to vote for anybody in the presidential and vice-presidential race. My brother and sister-in-law seem to have set their sights on Robredo as their vice president. I, on the other hand, still don't know who I will vote for but am completely aware on who not to support. The influx of candidates looking to be elected for the top posts has definitely made choosing a difficult endeavor. But if choosing through a multitude of names seems problematic, can we imagine having no choice when it comes to our leaders? Well, a few of our countrymen have this problem and there seems to be no solution in sight.
By the way, the problem with the high number of candidates with very similar
platforms has been discussed in many shows and may become a subject of a future
post here in my blog.
As for now, let's focus on how, in some places, we citizens are given no choice. BilangPilipino.com and Interaksyon.com produced an awesome picture of how many unopposed candidates are running for major provincial posts here.
ABS-CBN News also produced a report on the matter.
Clearly, the problem is a recurring theme in our elections.With the high number of political families controlling their own respective little kingdoms, it would be a surprise if all our LGU's had all its positions contested by at least two individuals. But what makes a lack of opposition in elections such a problem?
If you've managed to stumble upon a news segment discussing the issue, an analyst would always say that the strength of the democracy lies in the choices the citizens are given. It seems like an ambiguous statement with no real meaning sometimes. But a person who studied these kinds of stuff for the better part of their adult lives can't possibly be blurting out generic gibberish on national TV, right?
To me, democracy is a system of controlled compromise whose end game is to pass policies that would lead to the improvement of its constituent's lives. I've said before that voting should be based on ideals. Since no candidate truly captures our personal preference, we compromise and should vote for the persons who have the platforms that resemble our ideals the closest.
In the absence of electoral opposition, we as citizens concede our voices when it comes to our leader and we compromise uncontrollably to whatever agenda the elected official has. Instead of the leader adjusting to the ideals and needs of the people, the people adjust their needs and ideals to that of the leader. Some people call it a dictatorship or even despotism. I wouldn't go that far since the officials still have to abide by a constitution approved by the people. But nonetheless, it still leaves the people, the ones for which the government was designed, somewhat voiceless.
But aren't the people voiceless regardless of the number of candidates running? Well, let's look at Duterte who, along with a few other people, is running for the presidency. He once expressed his support for same-sex marriage in 2015 in Vice Ganda's show. Here's a video of him addressing the matter:
He expressed these sentiments back in 2015. I was genuinely surprised when he said same-sex marriage was good. I hate the fact that our government is tied down to principles espoused by the Christian church. It was a refreshing and candid answer. It was clear that he supported it then.
But things change. In late January, the Davao mayor changed his tone. Nowadays, he supports gays but won't push for same sex marriage. This is not a surprise since he has officially confirmed his desire to be president since the release of the video. Aside from that, there is also the statistical fact that 70% of Filipinos oppose same-sex marriage. I guess same-sex marriage is not good enough for us to revisit our constitution.
Duterte needed to change his tone and his platform to be able to win this election. He had to compromise to the electorate's ideals. He doesn't have the luxury that Imee Marcos has in Ilocos who only needs to vote for herself to win the post. Instead for calling for the changing of the constitution to conform with the needs of our LGBT brethren, he chose to compromise with the people's ideals and stick to the status quo.
It sucks to be part of the 30% in this issue. But at least, I can rest assured that the country is being shaped by its citizenry and not some person who is given authority just because nobody else can compete. I mean, I can still assess the field and vote for the presidential aspirant who most likely will take same-sex marriage seriously. Unlike the people of Ilocos Norte who have no choice but to accept Imee Marcos and whatever projects she has in store.
Diversity is important in a democracy. Though things get watered down sometimes, the choices the people are given are the ones that define our nation's present and the ones that will shape our future.
Maybe it's time to get an anti-dynasty law. Maybe it's time to make running for positions cheaper. Maybe gerrymandering is an issue we need to address. I'm not really sure about the solution to the problem of lack of opposition in some areas. But I'm definitely sure it's time we start addressing it.
I don't watch teleseryes voluntarily. My only exposure to them is brought about by my mom's incessant "tampo" whenever I change the channel. She would always say "ito na nga lang kaligayahan ko (this is my only source of happiness)". Of course, I have no choice whenever those words are said and simply surrender the remote of our living room TV even if she has a TV of her own in her room.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes, teleseryes can be entertaining. But to enjoy them fully, you have to endure tons of advertising. That's the deal breaker right there. I was tempted to watch Pangako Sa'yo because it brings out a lot of memories of the early 2000's when I was forced to watch it because of my mom. But the commercials really sucked the enjoyment out of watching the show.
Commercials suck. They ruin shows for me. But I won't go as far as saying that I hate them. I mean, they do serve a purpose even though I frown upon certain types of commercials like the ones promoting medicine. They inform us of new products and to top it off, the salaries our talented actors and production crew receive mostly come from them. They have their benefits. I don't like watching Alden Richards and Yaya Dub promoting Mcdo three times in a span of five minutes. But at the same time, I understand it.
However, this level of understanding I have for celebrities endorsing products is not present in political endorsements. I usually hate it when celebrities endorse political candidates.
Now, don't misinterpret me here. I love that celebrities are politically aware. I understand that they have a voice and they have the right to promote someone who they believe can mold this country into a prosperous land. I don't blame these celebrities at all. There are just some things about some celebrity endorsements that screw up our already flawed democracy.
What do I mean by "these celebrities"?
My biggest problem with celebrities endorsing politicians is that we don't really know which ones are genuine endorsements and which ones are mere advertisements. The Brgy. Ginebra basketball team can endorse gin-bulag without me expecting them to actually drink it. They earn millions of pesos a year and we're supposed to think they actually drink gin-bulag? Come on.
Celebrities endorsing products do not require any defense. Anne Curtis can say she likes GSM Blue. Bela Padilla apparently likes San Mig Light. But in reality, these celebrities were chosen by the products. These products believed fully in their endorsers. The endorsers, on the other hand, only believe in the product up to a certain level. That belief in the product won't keep Bela from drinking whatever beer she prefers.
This lack of belief is what irks me whenever I see celebrities endorsing politicians. I don't mind celebrities endorsing products they kinda believe. But once they endorse people for positions that would change the country, they need to be completely behind the person's ideals. They have millions of fans following their lives and they have the ability to influence a few voters. They should keep that in mind when endorsing politicians and only endorse if they are fully aware and fully behind the candidates.
If you think I'm hastily antagonizing the practice of celebrities endorsing politicians, here's a video:
Juday:And I for one also maybe one way or another believed in her also
Why did Juday endorse Madrigal when she herself is not sure if she completely believed in Jamby?
Celebrity endorsements should not be taken seriously. Unfortunately, it's hard to set aside the fact that these celebrities have strong drawing power. I mean, there's really no study showing their efficacy in getting a politician elected. But if campaign masterminds are willing to pay millions of pesos, just as the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism once reported, to get these celebrities then who am I to tell them they are wasting money?
I love it when celebrities become politically aware. I love that Jim Paredes is very open about his belief in the Liberal Party even though I don't fully agree with the LP leaning so hard on PPP's when it comes to major infrastructure. I love the conviction Chito Miranda has when tweeting or posting about Duterte even if I don't appreciate the lack of respect Duterte has for human rights. These are the political endorsements I can appreciate. They are fully behind their candidates and there's no doubt that they are gonna vote for these politicians. Even though their criteria in choosing the candidate are different from mine, at least I know what they are.
Unlike Paredes' or Miranda's endorsements, the ones we see on TV seem like any other commercial for snacks or appliances. They are hollow and perfect metaphors for our ailing democracy. If celebrities really want to support candidates, they should do it like Paredes and Miranda - void of cheesy song or meaningless one-liners. If they are willing to go on TV and promote their candidates, they should be willing to go on TV to explain why and be scrutinized justly in the same way Miranda and Paredes have exposed themselves on social media. But of course, their parent TV stations won't risk their stars' image being damaged by potentially looking foolish on TV.
Celebrities have political power. They exercise it whenever they tell us which brand of milk to buy or which food joint to check out. Once they exercise it in the realm of governance, their views need to be scrutinized just like the views of their candidates. If their managers won't allow them to go on TV to discuss political matter, at least they must share their views on social media so we can scrutinize them.
The risk for celebrities in endorsing should be correlated to what they are endorsing. If they endorse a brand for something as simple as washing the dishes, then the risk for them should be low. When they endorse someone for something as important as the person who will shape the present and future of the nation, the risk for them should skyrocket.
*** THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN WORDS NOT SUITABLE FOR MINORS... OR WHOEVER ***
Putang ina. This particular expression was the go-to-move of aspiring presidentiable Rodrigo Duterte this November 30 when his party PDP-Laban proclaimed him as their standard bearer. It is an expression many find taboo and hurtful. That being said, it is a common expression being used by many of us Filipinos.
Aside from the constant appearance of "putang ina" or any of its varieties, Mayor Duterte also sprinkled some "Fucks", "Fuckshits", jokes about marijuana usage and a reference about masturbation in his speech. It was certainly a colorful, be it, disjointed speech. A portion of the crowd certainly thought so.
That being said, many were not pleased with the mayor's speech.
Gabriela did not appreciate how Duterte nonchalantly admitted having several partners. According to them, "womanizing and treating women as objects are an affront to women and it should not be flaunted".
People from the Roman Catholic church certainly did not appreciate him cursing the pope and making light of how he kills criminals in Davao. Archbishop Oscar Cruz was quoted in a report by GMA saying Duterte is dangerous. He says Duterte only acknowledges his own rights and he is worse than a dictator. As expected, CBCP president Socrates Villegas was also not pleased.
MAYOR DUTERTE?What the world desperately needs now is leadership by example. We have so many leaders in office and...
Posted by Socrates B. Villegas on Monday, 30 November 2015
Mayor Duterte was really on a roll yesterday. He made enemies out of a lot of people. He may have even turned off some of his supporters. It was crazy. Mar Roxas' own "PUTANG INA!" moment paled in comparison to this one. This profanity-laden speech was something special. I can't imagine anything like this happening again in the near future.
That being said, I find the reactions to Duterte even more reprehensible than his actual speech.
Duterte is a breath of fresh air. Here is a guy who doesn't give a damn about politicking. He's very vulgar like most of us. And like all of us, he has a basket full of flaws pulling him down. His style is certainly more palatable to me than the clean-cut trapos spewing generic gibberish in their campaign rallies.
In saying that, I will not endorse Mayor Duterte for president. It's not because he's a foul-mouthed old man who has four women satisfying his sexual needs. It's because he prefers to have bilateral talks with China and in doing so, killing our political leverage. It's because I can't see him handling International Policy effectively. It's because I don't agree with his style of enforcement where civil liberties are not respected. It's because his reasoning can be flawed sometimes like how he justified his adultery by saying if he can love an entire city, he can surely love four women. It's because he has yet to speak of certain issues I feel strongly about like the PPP law this administration is silently getting done. It's because he changed his stance on taxation from calling for the exemption of poor families in June to being against lowering tax rates in late November
Hopefully, people voting for him don't see a tough guy who will solve all our problems. Hopefully, they vote for him because of his stance on same-sex marriage or feudalism or iron-fist enforcement. Hopefully, they vote for him because they are willing to compromise some of their beliefs because in their view, Duterte's ideas can lift our nation instead of Duterte himself lifting our nation.
Mayor Duterte can call Pope Francis whatever the hell he wants. If there is a God and He decides to banish Duterte to hell for his remarks, that's on Duterte. But that should not have any weight on his style of governance.
Politics is the art of making people believe in what you are saying. It is up to us, the people, to judge ideas based on their merits and not on the merits of the ones who came up with them.
Well, there we have it. After a week, we now have a list of individuals and party lists vying for the right to serve our nation. All in all, we have 172 individuals looking to gain a seat in the senate, 19 for the vice presidency and 130 for chief executive.
The week was filled with excitement, anticipation and drama. Excitement filled the air as the major candidates brought, what it seemed like, entire barangays to witness them file their COC's.
The biggest surprise came from Miriam Defensor-Santiago who decided to run for president after taking an extended leave of absence from the senate these past few months due to her cancer. This definitely topped Jamby Madrigal's surprise filing in 2009. The rumblings started when a post from the senator's Facebook page spread throughout social media indicating an urge to run for the top post. Apparently, all she needed was the support of society leaders to go for the presidency.
The biggest drama, on the other hand, came from the Duterte camp. On Monday, he announced he would definitely not run. His filing for Davao City Mayor was then followed by the filing of his own daughter who proceeded to shave her head killing the rumors that she was against her father's potential presidential bid. People were on the edge of their seats last Friday as they waited to see if Duterte would file. Alas, it was not to be. But it's not the end of the world for you Duterte fans. A Duterte campaign is still possible with Martin Diño filing for the presidency under Duterte's party. PDP-Laban can decide to substitute Duterte in for the VACC chairman.
Aside from candidates who actually have good shots at winning, a number of relative unknowns and long-shot candidates flooded the Comelec office in Intramuros. Alleged NAIA bomber and perennial nuisance candidate Ely Pamatong started the week by burning the Chinese flag. Former Tesda chief Augusto Syjuco also joined in the fun in what seems like a bid to avoid the graft charges he is facing.
The whole week, the news revolved around the filing of the COC's. Unfortunately, based on social media, certain aspects of the filing of COC's did not sit well with our brothers and sisters.
One of the biggest concerns brought up in social media is the torrent of nuisance candidates that flooded Comelec. We witnessed a good chunk of people claiming that God asked them to run. We even had a guy going by the name of Arcangel Lucifer joining the presidential race. A guy came out with his kids who claimed that he was some kind of Intergalactic Ambassador. And with all these craziness unfolding, we now ask ourselves, are these nuisance candidates making a mockery of our elections? Should they be denied filing?
Nuisance candidates have been a staple in our elections for generations now. Filipiknow.net shared an informative piece recently regarding Valentin Delos Santos who was Eddie Gil before there was Eddie Gil. The notion that the nuisance candidates issue is new is wrong. In fact, only 9 of the 99 people who filed for the presidency reached the ballot in 2010. Vetellano Acosta was supposed to be number 10 but he was disqualified after KBL disowned him and claimed they've never heard of him. Apparently, that did not discourage him since he filed once again.
Nuisance candidates are good for a few laughs. But is that all they're good for?
Last week, a man named Romeo Plasquita officially filed his bid to be our nations next president. Sure, there's no way he's gonna make the ballot. But maybe in his case, he may have already provided us with good service.
Plasquita, by showing up in front of the media and filing his COC, gave us a face we can recall when talking about the sorry state of our retirees. Being the son of both government employees, my parents have shared stories about their colleagues who got screwed out of their pensions. Mr Plasquita's case is not special. But at the same time, when was the last time we've talked about it?
Judging by the way Mr. Plasquita talked in front of the media, it's obvious he's not really aiming for the presidency. He just wanted someone to listen to him. Hopefully, filing his COC gave his concerns a louder voice because his plight is shared by millions of retirees around the country.
Aside from Mr. Plasquita, we have also heard other ideas worth discussing from other nuisance candidates.
Victor Quijano who is running for senator opened up the discussion for a highly devolved government. The Local Government Code of 1991 has devolved certain powers to the local government like maintaining tricycle routes and slaughterhouses. Aside from that, the law has decentralized departments so that services are more accessible.
Mr. Quijano wants to take it a step further where the national government is reduced to monetary/fiscal policies, defense, foreign policy and macro-level responsibilities. It seems like his model is the US government. Sure, it may not be feasible. But our diverse culture and geographic situation does make decentralization and outright devolution attractive solutions to our problems. How often have we blamed the national government for things that the local officials can handle? These national roads are handled by the national government so when we see potholes in one area, the mayors can only call the DPWH's attention.
Mr. Quijano may not have the actual blueprint to improve our government's way of handling things. But neither does the supposed legitimate candidates.We've been voting for legitimate candidates and our bureaucracy is still screwed up. I mean, to get a business going, you have to get a permit from the mayor, barangay captain, BFP, BIR and, in some cases, an ECC from DENR and whole lot of other stuff that will take forever. I doubt Quijano holds the key to improving our bureaucracy. But he's the first one I heard touch on the issue.
You may say that Duterte was the first to call for federalism. And I may agree with you in some point. But what Quijano brings that Duterte can't is a clear slate. We wouldn't have voted for Duterte had he decided to run. Had he run, he would've said it's the overwhelming support that forced him not his belief in federalism. Quijano, on the other hand, is all in with extreme devolution. If he makes the ballot, we're gonna vote for him for his ideas and not for who he is.
The great thing about nuisance candidates is that they're just like you and me. We're not great speakers who can make people hang on every word we say. We're not graduates of prestigious institutions. Nuisance candidates may not be worth our vote. But just like us, their words could be worth the listen.
People in the internet have questioned why the Comelec even allows these people to file COC's when we all know they're gonna lose. I understand it's added work. But is the freedom to run and talk get the discussion going on ideas not worth the work? Sure, a lot of potential candidates turn out to be complete wackos. But the same can be said about the people we eventually elect.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not advocating for the inclusion of all the people who filed for their candidacy in the ballots like the writers at Uniffors.com. I mean, I believe that for a democracy to be effective, ideals should be shared by our eventual leaders so we know what we're getting ourselves into. Nuisance candidates are incapable of sharing their ideals. They just don't have the resources What's the point of bombarding the electorate of names they can't connect with an ideal?
Nuisance candidates should be welcomed during election seasons. By all mean, file your COC's. Look at the camera and talk to us. Hopefully, when you speak of important issues we tend to forget about, more ears will be willing to listen.
It's easy to dismiss the ideas of ordinary people. But doing what's easy can get you somewhere you don't want to be.
It's funny how the smallest things make the biggest impressions on people. I remember as a kid in the 90's, men staring and catcalling at women meant nothing and was considered playful. Nowadays though, pulling that sort of crap will turn you into the subject of a viral Facebook post overflowing with feminism. I guess it's better that way. Catcalling, whistling and staring at women are dick moves. They're just a few steps away from rubbing your elbows at a woman's breasts in the MRT. It's because of this attitude change that some people say sexism is fading the country. But then again I ask, what is sexism in the Filipino context?
I'm not really an expert in the field of sexism. I never took a single unit in college that tackled the issue. Heck, I haven't even been in a sexual harassment seminar. Do they even offer those things in companies here? I'm not even entirely sure.
Sexism has been a focus here in the country thanks to the Liberal Party who decided to throw a little soiree here in Laguna. Apparently, the now ex-Chairman Tolentino was the culprit of the mess. Even though he and his allies have denied the allegation, the public backlash has resulted in his desire not to be included in the party's senatorial slate. This doesn't mean he's no longer running. He's just distancing the party from the scandal. Aside from that, a complaint has been filed against Tolentino by a group led by aspiring senator and attorney to the stars Lorna Kapunan.
But I ask though, was it really sexual exploitation as many claim? Don't get me wrong. I don't share the sentiments of Rep. Benjie Agarao who is just too damn hetero to see anything wrong with the performance. I'm just curious as to where do we draw the line?
Sexism and sexual exploitation has been a long-standing issue the Philippines. From the sex dens that sprouted near the US military bases to Jennifer Laude, it's been a constant issue. The underground market of prostitution has turned our country into a destination for sex tourists. There have also been reports and raids of internet-based sex violations. Aside from that, normal days are also littered with inappropriate remarks brought about by sexism. Even the revered field of medicine doesn't escape this reality.
But there are instances that make me stare in confusion when people say something is sexist. One of the incidents that come to mind is the Coco Martin controversy with Bench.
People cried foul because they saw a woman being dragged around the stage by a man. Of course, Gabriela got into the fray. Netizens were pissed and could not understand how a show where a man walking a woman like a dog was allowed to be showcased. But then again, they were not trying to show a woman in a leash. She was portraying some sort of feline and Coco Martin was supposed to be some kind of lion tamer. I don't see anything sexist about it. For one thing, the woman was bending like no woman would. She was obviously trying to portray something completely different from a woman.
I don't see a hint of sexism in this example. It was just a performance. Provocative as it may be, it's a performance.
But let's return to the liberal party and this little mess they made. What made this wrong? If you use my explanation for the lack of exploitation and sexism of the Bench fiasco, I wouldn't blame you if you'd think I see nothing wrong with the performance in Sta Cruz, Laguna. I mean, they're just portraying some oversexed women looking to screw anything that moves. Their not generalizing women. They're just portraying fictional versions of themselves when onstage. Plus, they're doing it willingly and they're happy with the cash. It's common practice here and abroad. There can't be anything wrong with that, right? WRONG!.. well for me...
Before I start discussing the difference between the two incidents, I'd like to let you know that I'm not a big fan of the Liberal Party or "Tuwid na Daan". It's a fair assumption that I'm just pulling them down. But sexism and sexual exploitation are not isolated in the LP. A lot of politicians regardless of their party have been linked to mistresses. Child rapist, Romeo Jalosjos is even supporting Grace Poe.
Returning to the Liberal Party incident, there are a few things that set it apart from the Bench incident or even bold movies.
The occasion in Laguna was attended by people just looking to support their candidates and celebrate with their congressman. Unlike the Bench incident where only the fashion world was meant to spectate the event or bold films where people of right age are the intended viewers, the event in Laguna was meant for all who supported the LP. Some of the crowd were even under-aged. What happened in Laguna was a form of sexual exploitation because these women who performed were exposed to people who were not conditioned to appreciate their performance. Sexism is a form of hasty generalization brought about by a trigger and that trigger can be a sultry performance. And I doubt the dirty old men in the event thought of that.
A defense given by a lot of people in the internet was that the members of the Playgirls were not exploited since they happily accepted the gig and the cash they were given. But if a drug addict happily snorts meth, is that okay? The Playgirls, like addicts, were conditioned not to realize what was happening. They are not like a twerking Maja Salvador because if Maja stopped twerking at ASAP, she is still going to get paid. If Coco Martin no-showed that Bench event, he'd still be a star today. Unlike Maja Salvador or Coco Martin, they need to grab every opportunity to perform. Even if they saw the kids and thought it was inappropriate to perform, it's unlikely they would deny the officials there of their performance. I mean, had they not performed, they wouldn't get paid and get this media exposure.
There are a ton of things in this event that can piss me off. But after going through everything connected to the issue in my head, the main thing that irks me is the fact that come May, this event won't matter. Those politicians in the event will easily get pass this. This has happened before, especially in local government. And it will happen again. Their electoral fate won't be determined by this incident. The LP's electoral fate won't be determined by this incident.
We can draw the line on sexism for the average schmuck. But as far as politicians are concerned, that line can be pushed as far back as they want.
Sexism is alive and well in the Philippines even if we may think it's fading away. We may think we are slowly shifting the tide. But taking into consideration the leaders we elect, we can't fathom the amount of damn we don't give.
Infrastructure development is a key cog in economic progress. At least,
that's what we are taught. If you think about it, what kind of an investor
won't take into account the traffic situation of an area in determining where
to place a business? No sane businessman would willingly deal with constant
water shortages or power outages, right? These are things that even a normal,
high school kid would know. But why is it that the government constantly fail
to address looming or current infrastructure problems?
I've written about traffic and one
of possible steps that could be taken to lessen it on
this blog. But recently, traffic is not the only infrastructure concern popping
up on TV news broadcasts.
Lately, a problem with water supply is being felt by our friends
under Maynilad. But the
government has assured that they're
on top of it. Fears of hoarding are apparently
unbounded as the air force is ready for cloud seeding operations and a
"water czar" will be ready to quench our thirst in the coming
months.
Cloud seeding and forming special agencies to help
with the water problem is all well and good. The same can be said about the HPG
manning EDSA, truck bans being halted to prevent port congestion and the Interruptible Load Program to lower electricity demands. But why did we have to come to this?
Why hasn't the government been planning for the EL Niño? It's not like this is
the first time it happened. Why did we have to wait until now to address the
traffic problem? LTO should have known and alerted the president or whoever of
the increasing number of vehicles, right? Shouldn't the DOE have an expected
power demand data sheet or something?
Why did we have to come to this?
It is easy to blame the present
administration for our problem with infrastructure. I mean, they are the ones
in charge. But to say it is all Noynoy and his stooges' fault is not
enough.
The Philippines has not been the best when it comes
to devising and implementing long term plans. It's not this administration's
fault that a person from Bulacan needs to get a job in the Metro to gain
"decent" salary. It's urban planners of past generations that gave us
this setting. The power crisis we had last summer may not have been an issue
had the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant been running. But of course, Cory and
succeeding presidents allowed that plant to rot. The blame is not solely on
this administration. But of course, they are not free of responsibility.
One of the most noticeable trait of our politics is how our leaders refuse to acknowledge the great things being handed down to them by their predecessors. This trait is not exclusive to the national level as I'm sure all of us have noticed how projects in our towns are stopped once a new mayor comes in. This behavior is due to the need for politicians to hog the glory and credit. Voters attach a certain project or policy to an individual politician. A good example of this is how Marcos supporters point to the expressways to legitimize the dictator's rule or how the Aquinos brought democracy back to the Philippines. But aside from being too simplistic, this behavior can be a deterrent to progress.. The North Rail Project that the Arroyo administration tried to initiate may have proved valuable to us. But since there were anomalies in the project, it's been thrown to the back burner by its successor. The same happened with the Nuclear Power Plant. Politicians are discouraged to look through the ideas of their predecessors because they don't want their names to be attached to these ideas because if it ends up being good, they have to share the credit. And if it doesn't end up well, they get all the blame. This lack of cooperation within succeeding leaders is why our development on all aspects has not caught up with our neighbors'. "Ipagpapatuloy ko ang Tuwid na Daan"
Ever since the fall of Marcos, presidents have usually been succeeded by the opposition or by someone who they did not endorse. The only presidential winner who had his predecessor's endorsement was FVR.
From 1986 to the present, the older generation have said that life was better in the 50's or 60's. The Martial Law era may have been a major cause of that as people like me maintain it had a negative effect on our development. But at the same time, why haven't we been able to at least return to that period of optimism? Maybe we have now. But why did it take us so long? Was the Marcos era that devastating or have the quality of leadership regressed? Remember that that time of supposed prosperity came a decade or two after World War II. It's been three decades since the supposed slump of the Marcos administration. Even with the help of the Americans, I can't see Martial Law having been worse than a war.
Maybe the ever-present call for change has done more bad than good? Maybe it's because of how we understand "change". News programs keep saying change starts with us. "Ako ang simula" has been the saying in TV Patrol since 2010. But what do we change? Some think that merely changing the leaders is the thing. Some say the ideology needs to be changed like how a Duterte federal government, tighter leash style is needed. Some say the way voters think needs to change. Whatever the case may be, some sort of change will occur in 2016. Whether it be a change for the better or a drastic enough change is the question.
As of writing, three major candidates have officially declared their candidacy for president. Grace Poe has said that she will rule with her own version of "Tuwid na Daan". Mar Roxas has said he will continue Aquino's "Tuwid na Daan". Binay on the other hand has criticized this "Tuwid na Daan". While all these have been happening, we can only assume Duterte is riding his bike around Davao like the apparent bad-ass he is. (It's official; Duterte has joined the presidential election along with Miriam Defensor-Santiago)
Change is a coming folks. Like a storm heading our way, we can't stop it. I just wonder how Aquino's successor behaves with regards to things Aquino's administration started. If long term projects don't get awarded to bidders by March, will they get another chance with the next administration? Long term projects like the Manila Flood Control Plan may not reach the deadline. If no bidders are awarded for projects like this, will they be forgotten by the next administration? Will Aquino's high approval rating affect the decision?
The lack of long term planning is one of the reasons why we are still under the "developing country" label. It does sure take a lot of time to develop. And with another sort of change coming this 2016, we can only imagine what that change would mean to our "development".
It's funny how comedy paints the reality of a serious condition. In the US, popular TV shows like Jon Stewart's The Daily Show or SNL routinely mock the shortcomings of their leaders through sketches, exaggerated clips or, in the case of Stewart or Stephen Colbert, outright commentary. Here in the Philippines though, comedy and politics are not seen as a match made in heaven. Jun Sabayton and rest of his crew are looking to change that.
For people like me who watched UNTV in the early 2000's, Jun Sabayton is one of the constant bit players in the show Strangebrew. He, along with Ramon Bautista, played weird characters in the querky show that rose the late Tado Jimenez to prominence. A few years later, you may have seen him in Radioactive Sago Project's widely successful video "Astro". Nowadays, he is seen with Astro and Strangebrew director RA Rivera, Ramon Baustista and Radioactive's Lourde de Veyra in another comedic news and commentary internet program called Kontrabando. He is also a prominent cohort of Lourd de Veyra in Word of the Lourd, History and Wasak as well as in TV5's morning show.
Judging by his past and present roles, Jun Sabayton is not the conventional guy to turn to when it comes to politics. And this is what makes this BAYAW campaign effective. This is what makes it fresh. He is like Pugad Baboy's Cabalfin except that he uses actual lines and gimmicks of current presidentiables where Cabalfin is simply a generalization.
Think of it this way: Whenever Binay goes around and eats with the "masa" or hand feeds kids in a wet market, some say it shows how he is a working man's man while some may say he's just being a "trapo" and campaigning early. But whenever Jun Sabayton goes around and does the same thing, what would the same people say? Or when Mar Roxas said something like "tinatanggap ko ang hamon ng aking mga boss!" when Aquino endorsed him, what did we say? Compare that to when Sabayton said the same thing last week when he came out in a balikbayan box to "declare" his candidacy.
People tend to focus more on who is speaking instead of what is being said. A good example of this is how Binay's "TSONA" was quickly dismissed by many simply because it was him who said.what he said.
With Jun Sabayton's Bayaw, it is easy for me to see how ridiculous it is to see a guy like Binay try to make himself look like a part of the masses. With Bayaw, it's easy to see just how ridiculous it is to see Roxas say "tinatanggap ko ang hamon ng aking mga boss" when we all know he's been trying hard to climb the political ranks for a long time. I mean, he would've been the LP candidate in 2010 had Cory not died. It's as if he's telling us he's only running because we want him to run.
I've long criticized the media whenever election season comes. I feel as though they don't really make people want to think about the important stuff. They flaunt their slogans about how change starts with me without recognizing that if they really do want "change" they have the power.
Hopefully, Bayaw stays with us all the way tot eh elections. Hopefully, he continues to look like a complete tool/idiot as he mimics the people running for office. And here's hoping he dances like a complete nut job the same way our candidates do during political rallies.
It's about that time again. You can smell it in the air as our consciousness is flooded by rallies and advertisements. See my friends, IT'S CAMPAIGN SEASON!!
It's quite funny how time passes. One day we are mourning the death of a Filipino icon. The next day, her son is endorsing Mar Roxas to be his successor.
Philippine politics in the eyes of the common man is characterized by either misplaced hope or soul-numbing apathy. Well, this is my observation: We either say "This person gets it! This is my candidate! I don't know what the exact plans are but he's the son of this former senator/he's a bar top notcher/he has awsome hair" or "Eh, what's the point in voting for someone when we all know all the grand promises will remain in fantasy land?".
It's easy to subscribe to either attitudes. But I've mentioned before that doing what's easy is not always worth doing.
We all know what's wrong with these attitudes. But why are these attitudes even present? Some blame blame it on ignorance. But isn't agreeing to that the same as subscribing to the two attitudes I mentioned? I mean, they're all practical and easy and they are hollow sentiments since all don't answer the question "why?" or "how?"
Why? How? These questions are two of the most powerful tools we have as citizens in shaping our nation. Why should we vote for someone who insists he's just like us but has an office larger than our homes? How can we trust someone to lead our nation when he is out there posing for the cameras as he does the job of his men?
These questions, as individuals are easy to ask. But it takes more than a solitary vote to change the world.
I've always believed that the individual is smarter than society. The individual compromises while society judges blindly. The individual invents and creates. Society goes to war and wastes everything in sight.
The Philippine society can be compared to sheep following everything that its shepherd dictates. The very society that determines who our leaders are going to be is a flock of unthinking sheep.
Don't get me wrong. This is not exclusive to the Philippines. The German society once killed off millions of innocent individuals during WWII. This article is in no way an attempt to bash the Filipino society.
Now, back to the topic, if the Philippine society is the sheep, who is the shepherd? Who do we turn to whenever we need information? Who do we turn to for guidance in those days of national assemblies? Don't look too far. It's everywhere. And no it's not God. It's the Media.
Think about it. Isn't the media our gateway to the lives, ideals and beliefs of our celebrities and politicians? I don't know who the heck Hailee Steinfeld is. But thanks to GMA News Online, I know she's some actress who is part Filipino. Pinoy Pride! Heck, it's the media that tells us to be proud of people who succeed just because they happen to have Filipino blood.
The power of the media usually goes unnoticed in the Philippines. Most don't hold them accountable and this is where misplaced hope and mind-numbing apathy during elections stem from.
A good example of when the media held such great power was during the Mamasapano clash. I remember watching TV Patrol bombard me with the SAF 44's relatives crying and asking for justice for several weeks. All the while, they along with Jessica Soho's State of the Nation on GMA News TV relay speculation after speculation. It's a good thing there are organizations that actually took notice. Too bad society was busy calling for an all-out war that only few individuals saw the article.
This coming election, the media will paint its story of how it's time for change and how it starts from the citizenry. Maybe it's time we start asking for change to start with them. Isn't it about time we ask for them to shed their marketing ways? Isn't it about time they stop calling network talent/show promotions as "umaatikabong/nagbabagang balita"? Isn't it about time they grill candidates about their generic platforms? Or maybe how much of a wuss they are?
I've touched on the term "accountability" before. It is easy to see why the government should adopt it. But for this nation to thrive and be what we always want it to be, it is a term we should always come back to.
Why can't we ever get elections right? It's because we don't hold both the media and government accountable.
