CRITIC'S CRITIC
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/23-29/2011
The critics commentaries on the RH bill is reaching a crescendo and while new topic, the sexual assault case against IMF’s chief DSK (Dominique Strauss-Kahn) is catching the attention of many newspapers columnists of many newspapers columnists, but most of these opinion writers miss the heart of the issue and fail to enlighten the public.
We’ll start with Elizabeth Angsioco of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (apparently a branch of Bert Gonzales and Jesuit Archie Intengan’s PDSP) whose twopart article “Damaso and ovaries” appeared in the Manila Standard sometime April and is one of the popular expressions of the pro-RH bill that has come out and appears frequently in Internet discussions.
I commented on Angsioco’s title in a recent OpinYon column of mine pointing out the highly picturesque and effective title she used in her article. But now that the climax of the debate is nearing, I take the opportunity to evaluate the content of her article. I have found it to be vacuous except for the hysterics.
A Maria Clara or a Josephine Bracken?
Angsioco raged against the Damasos for using the pulpit to harangue against the RH bill, the anti-RH ordinances of Barangay Ayala Alabang and seven Bataan barangays, and Mayor of Manila Alfredo Lim’s city programs of family planning that is limited to the natural methods but nothing on the issues that the RH bill itself represents.
At the end of her two-part article she states: “I dressed up as Maria Clara and handed out condoms and he was in a barong. People were more than slightly amused by the idea and started having their pictures taken with us.”
I would be amused too if Maria Clara, the quintessential conservative and traditional Filipino who would use the abaniko as Muslim women use the burqa to hide their “evil” feminine allures, were used as a poster woman for the contraceptives and condoms crusade because that’s totally inappropriate.
Josephine Bracken would have been the only appropriate Philippine historical female to represent women’s liberation.
The woman’s rage of Angsiaco is a shrill and hysterical as the eunuch-y fits and frenzy of the Damasos, with the latter calling pro-RH advocates “terrorists” and the former considering anybody questioning the RH bill as anti-women’s rights bigots.
Women’s Rights
I wonder if Angsioco or many of the other pro-RH advocates, crusaders and lobbyists have even read the many versions of the RH bill.
If they did they’d discover that there is nothing in it that changes any basic women’s right to their own body, as they argue today, or their ovaries.
All Filipino women’s rights are already robustly protected by the Magna Carta for Women passed on August 14, 2009 by the previous Congress.
None of the updated RH bills is even attempting to change the present status of the law’s abhorrence of abortion as most pro-RH bill crusaders themselves recoil from the idea of a blanket de-criminalization of abortion which is inherently reprehensible.
Nobody but the Catholic Church issues edicts against the use of birth control devices and pills, but who follows the Church among the women’s flock these days?
Mythical Poverty vs Population
The Malthusian argument that population robustness equals poverty is inane, as a simple comparison easily shows: Japan, with a population of around 130 million (the 10th largest in the world), has a per capita income of $35,500 while the Philippines, with a population of around 94 million (ranking 12th in the world), has a per capita income of only $2,000.
Before the 2010 elections, where the previous lameduck government’s spending-inflated GDP “growth” became the basis for this latest estimate by some economists, ours even hovered lower at around $1,500 to $1,700 per capita.
The point is, the pro-RH proponents’ propaganda, based on an imaginary correlation between poverty and population, is hogwash (as Nobel prizewinning economist Simon Kuznets work demonstrated)--characteristic of the pigsty that is Congress, more so when spewed from the mouths of the usual pro-FVR-Gloria Arroyo porkers.
Veiled Pecuniary Interests
The real issue in the RH bill is Big Pharma and political pork barrel feeders’ disguised pecuniary interests: providing subsidies to purchase and distribute for free as “essential” medications and devices such contraceptive and condoms, hundreds of RH supplied “vans” politicos can skim from and put their names on, amounting to at least P3 billion clearly described in the RH bill plus untold billions mandated by the bill that others agencies such as PhilHealth, Presidential Anti-Poverty Commission, Pop- Com, etc. must extend to the RH program which is estimated to top P10 Billion per annum, and that such budgets included in the RH bill when it becomes law “shall be” provided for in succeeding National Budget that is tantamount to “automatic appropriations”.
All these subsidies when there has never even been a specific allocation for real killer diseases such as TB, dengue, and many other illnesses.
And they can’t even have a kind word for MRT/LRT working and wage earning commuters who are seeking a mere P4-5billion fare “subsidy” which come from their VAT and income taxes, anyway.
The Damaso’s and Angsioco’s hysterics do not benefit the public debate, they only obfuscate and obscure allowing the Big Pharma (that’s why Fidel V. Ramos is there, for the Carlyle group with billions investments in contraceptives and condoms) and political porkers to slip their greed past the people’s scrutiny.
Enemies in High Places
As for l’affaire Dominique Strauss Kahn, disgraced IMF chief, what is the full story?
We all love a scandal story of the big and powerful and assuming their guilt is tempting. But I pulled the reins when Strauss Kahn was denied bail and then placed in solitary confinement, virtually incommunicado.
Could this be a “honey trap” case? Strauss-Kahn has enemies in high places: frontrunning candidate of the French Socialist Party against the sinking French President Sarkozy, a man of the global oligarchs and war coalition, caught in his stalemated Libya Attack amidst a worsening French economy.
Center for Research on Globalization’s Mike Whitney writes: “… Strauss-Kahn was trying to move the bank in … a direction that didn’t require that countries leave their economies open to the ravages of foreign capital … leaving behind the scourge of high unemployment, plunging demand, hobbled industries …. that would not force foreign leaders to privatize their state-owned industries ...
“Naturally, his actions were not warmly received by the bankers and corporatists …”
Exposés in the Business Circa
Reviewing the reactions from opinion writers in Philippine newspapers I found the following commentaries reflecting one-dimensional neoliberal, limited comprehension of the deeper geo-political and economic issues at stake: Business World’s “Calling a spade” by Solita Monsod, “Lessons on rule of law” describing her admiration for how the New York City law enforcers implemented its mandate without fear nor favor; but the view from those who critical watch the powerful globalists who control Wall Street and the US have this view, from Paul Craig Roberts, “The Strauss Kahn Frame- Up: the American Police State Strides Forward” exposing the true picture of the US as the title depicts – a police state ultimately in the service of the financial oligarchy.
This same thing happened to former New York governor Eliot Spitzer who tried to prosecute Wall Street’s Big Finance prior to the 2008 crash and he found his call girl affairs exposed and himself arrested to stop his investigations.
Veteran business columnist Tony Lopez had a more balanced view of the scandal, while Randy David in his Inquirer column “Public Lives” went into a Freudian analysis missing the real import in the global financial, economic and political scene of the Strauss- Kahn event.
(Tune to 1098AM, Radyo OpinYon Mon to Fri 5-6m, and Sulo M-W-F, 6 to 7 p.m. ; GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, TNT with HTL, Tuesdays, 8-9 p.m., replay 11 p.m.; visit http:// newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our radio and GNN shows)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Subsidy for sex, yes; for MRT/LRT or rice, no
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/23/2011
As we near the climax — so to speak — of the so-called “Reproductive Health” (RH) debate, the main issue becomes all the more apparent as the excitement of the foreplay fades. One pro-RH columnist wrote in his column last Friday: “What is at the heart of the RH law — and this is what the anti-RH groups strangely underplay — is using government money to subsidize reproductive choices.” Well, lawyer-columnist, I am highlighting it in my column; and I say you and so many other pro-RH supporters are either being taken for a ride or are taking others for a ride on one of the biggest scams in this nation’s history.
It seems that the real reason for the RH bill is not stemming the Malthusian formulation of population robustness equals poverty, or preventing the spread of HIV, or promoting sex education, or upholding the woman’s right to decide on matters relating to her ovaries. The real purpose is “using government money to subsidize” sex choices!
RH bill proponents really have a strange idea of what government money or subsidy should be used for; and that is coincidentally the way Aquino III’s government and his “civil society” cohorts — who are all backing the RH bill to the hilt — think of it, too.
First of all, PeNoy does not look kindly on the subsidy for rice farmers that the National Food Authority has been extending all these decades. His Budget secretary has in fact made the motions of totally slashing the NFA budget several times. Neither does PeNoy view with kindness or understanding the appeal of millions of MRT/LRT commuters to continue with the state’s “subsidy” (if it can be called that) of their fares, which they solely rely on to travel daily from home to work or school, which is as basic a necessity as power and water in modern life. But when it comes to “reproductive choices” — or sex — this they will subsidize to the tune of billions!
The appeal for the MRT/LRT subsidy was met with different tactics of dissuasion by Aquino III to convince commuters that it is such a burden to government. And when the commuting public wasn’t fazed, PeNoy’s spokesmen even attempted to browbeat Metro Manila’s MRT/LRT-riding population into thinking that they’re being unfair, selfish and abusive for demanding this transport subsidy when the rest of the nation’s taxpayers aren’t using the system. Yet what these prevaricators conveniently omit is that these MRT/LRT commuters are precisely the majority that go to work everyday earning subsistence wages from which government exacts its pound of flesh in terms of taxes — taxes that pro-RH proponents would now want to subsidize the sex choices of the beneficiaries of “free contraceptives and condoms,” the poor and unemployed (that is, if these reach them at all, given that macho culture and inebriation are some reasons that condoms are cast to the wind).
The only thing certain is that, once it becomes law, billions will be specifically allocated by the RH bill, whereby its first approved budget “shall be included in the subsequent General Appropriations Act,” i.e. automatically appropriated and/or sponsored — in perpetuity. That budget is certain to reach Big Pharma (including the FVR-linked Carlyle Group), which then also translates to “automatic sales in perpetuity.” Equally certain are the congressmen’s pork barrel allocations for a least one RH van per congressional district (including drugs, condoms, sex education materials, staff and fuel) that will have the congressman’s likeness emblazoned for all to see. Then, all of these monies are sure to come from the nation’s taxpayers, a great majority of whom are Metro Manila commuters who won’t get any subsidy for their essential work-related fares.
Regarding the RH vans, it must stated that there is already a proliferation of barangay health centers with literally hundreds of thousands of health workers all over the country, so why the RH vans for each congressman, over and above the free ambulances? Local governments do have a big say in these health centers’ budgets and supplies, as well as the dispensation of essential drugs; but keep in mind that neither the national or local governments dedicate budgets for free medication for deadly diseases such a tuberculosis and dengue (go to East Avenue Medical Center and see how expensive these are for the poor).
Yet the bleeding hearts of PeNoy’s government as well as many RH bill proponents believe “contraceptives and condoms” deserve a subsidy of at least P3 billion or more (when we factor in other government agencies such as PhilHealth, National Anti-Poverty Commission, etc. being mandated to fund the RH program)?
An important observation was made by one veteran street parliamentarian about the RH bill proponents taking to the streets to picket, rally and demonstrate for this subsidy for the poor’s “reproductive choices.” He noted the brand new tarpaulins, canvasses and cardboards, and the gleaming colors of the streamers and placards used, not to mention the full page ads. These can only mean huge funds flowing into the pro-RH bill campaign.
I’m sure that — despite my opposition to the Church’s many positions — whenever the Roman Catholic Church funds its campaigns, we know where these are coming from; but for those activist groups associated with Etta Rosales and Dinky Soliman, just where do they get their money? I guess we shouldn’t look far.
We know that USAid, as mandated by Henry Kissinger’s 1974 NSSM 200 (which we have no space to elaborate on), has always been for population control; same with Big Pharma. And, lest we forget, these people have the conditional cash transfer funds at their disposal too, which, as of the latest news, has already been increased by P2 billion over the P21 billion originally allocated. Shades of the CodeNGO PeaceBonds again?
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/23/2011
As we near the climax — so to speak — of the so-called “Reproductive Health” (RH) debate, the main issue becomes all the more apparent as the excitement of the foreplay fades. One pro-RH columnist wrote in his column last Friday: “What is at the heart of the RH law — and this is what the anti-RH groups strangely underplay — is using government money to subsidize reproductive choices.” Well, lawyer-columnist, I am highlighting it in my column; and I say you and so many other pro-RH supporters are either being taken for a ride or are taking others for a ride on one of the biggest scams in this nation’s history.
It seems that the real reason for the RH bill is not stemming the Malthusian formulation of population robustness equals poverty, or preventing the spread of HIV, or promoting sex education, or upholding the woman’s right to decide on matters relating to her ovaries. The real purpose is “using government money to subsidize” sex choices!
RH bill proponents really have a strange idea of what government money or subsidy should be used for; and that is coincidentally the way Aquino III’s government and his “civil society” cohorts — who are all backing the RH bill to the hilt — think of it, too.
First of all, PeNoy does not look kindly on the subsidy for rice farmers that the National Food Authority has been extending all these decades. His Budget secretary has in fact made the motions of totally slashing the NFA budget several times. Neither does PeNoy view with kindness or understanding the appeal of millions of MRT/LRT commuters to continue with the state’s “subsidy” (if it can be called that) of their fares, which they solely rely on to travel daily from home to work or school, which is as basic a necessity as power and water in modern life. But when it comes to “reproductive choices” — or sex — this they will subsidize to the tune of billions!
The appeal for the MRT/LRT subsidy was met with different tactics of dissuasion by Aquino III to convince commuters that it is such a burden to government. And when the commuting public wasn’t fazed, PeNoy’s spokesmen even attempted to browbeat Metro Manila’s MRT/LRT-riding population into thinking that they’re being unfair, selfish and abusive for demanding this transport subsidy when the rest of the nation’s taxpayers aren’t using the system. Yet what these prevaricators conveniently omit is that these MRT/LRT commuters are precisely the majority that go to work everyday earning subsistence wages from which government exacts its pound of flesh in terms of taxes — taxes that pro-RH proponents would now want to subsidize the sex choices of the beneficiaries of “free contraceptives and condoms,” the poor and unemployed (that is, if these reach them at all, given that macho culture and inebriation are some reasons that condoms are cast to the wind).
The only thing certain is that, once it becomes law, billions will be specifically allocated by the RH bill, whereby its first approved budget “shall be included in the subsequent General Appropriations Act,” i.e. automatically appropriated and/or sponsored — in perpetuity. That budget is certain to reach Big Pharma (including the FVR-linked Carlyle Group), which then also translates to “automatic sales in perpetuity.” Equally certain are the congressmen’s pork barrel allocations for a least one RH van per congressional district (including drugs, condoms, sex education materials, staff and fuel) that will have the congressman’s likeness emblazoned for all to see. Then, all of these monies are sure to come from the nation’s taxpayers, a great majority of whom are Metro Manila commuters who won’t get any subsidy for their essential work-related fares.
Regarding the RH vans, it must stated that there is already a proliferation of barangay health centers with literally hundreds of thousands of health workers all over the country, so why the RH vans for each congressman, over and above the free ambulances? Local governments do have a big say in these health centers’ budgets and supplies, as well as the dispensation of essential drugs; but keep in mind that neither the national or local governments dedicate budgets for free medication for deadly diseases such a tuberculosis and dengue (go to East Avenue Medical Center and see how expensive these are for the poor).
Yet the bleeding hearts of PeNoy’s government as well as many RH bill proponents believe “contraceptives and condoms” deserve a subsidy of at least P3 billion or more (when we factor in other government agencies such as PhilHealth, National Anti-Poverty Commission, etc. being mandated to fund the RH program)?
An important observation was made by one veteran street parliamentarian about the RH bill proponents taking to the streets to picket, rally and demonstrate for this subsidy for the poor’s “reproductive choices.” He noted the brand new tarpaulins, canvasses and cardboards, and the gleaming colors of the streamers and placards used, not to mention the full page ads. These can only mean huge funds flowing into the pro-RH bill campaign.
I’m sure that — despite my opposition to the Church’s many positions — whenever the Roman Catholic Church funds its campaigns, we know where these are coming from; but for those activist groups associated with Etta Rosales and Dinky Soliman, just where do they get their money? I guess we shouldn’t look far.
We know that USAid, as mandated by Henry Kissinger’s 1974 NSSM 200 (which we have no space to elaborate on), has always been for population control; same with Big Pharma. And, lest we forget, these people have the conditional cash transfer funds at their disposal too, which, as of the latest news, has already been increased by P2 billion over the P21 billion originally allocated. Shades of the CodeNGO PeaceBonds again?
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Elitism disguised as populist politics
BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
5/21-22/2011
Admittedly, it is easy for one to conceive of a constructive idea that would help put a sense of direction to our society than have it implemented. In fact, even if the idea stands as a mere suggestion, still that will encounter difficulty of being implemented if coursed through our politicians. That simple suggestion becomes one of arduous assignment because the person who conceived of that bright idea thinks quite differently from the politicians in whom we repose our trust to implement them.
Such is the sad realism that is happening in our society. Instances of bright ideas coming from ordinary people are innumerable, and yet many of them are not taken into consideration all because any suggestion that it will be good for the people, and society as a whole, may not be that good for our politicians. Maybe that can be attributed to the fact that we have relied much on that elitist (disguised as a populist) democracy. But even this view is bound to meet its dead end for what is good for the people may not necessarily be good for our politicians. Following that line, one could sense that our politicians are honed by their self-centered instinct of on how to survive in an election under our system of unlettered process of elitist democracy.
At a glance, the wishy-washy reluctance of our politicians to legislate well-meaning laws underscores their refusal to depart from the pseudo-populist line much that only by supporting populists policies will help determine their chances of being elected. But that the people do not know is that many of the proposed bills patronized by politicians came mostly from elitist interest and pressure groups often disguised populist policies. In fact, a much deeper analysis of the given political environment would reveal that our people are ignorant of what a populist democracy is.
Besides, modern propaganda communication have already perfected the art of mass deception to deprive our people of their ability keenly distinguish a real populist policy from an elitist pressure-laden policy, more so if packaged into our consciousness as a populist policy. The irony is we assume that an interest or pressure group policy as a people-oriented policy; that a populist policy is always right relying on that false notion that what is good for our people will be good to our society.
If one would have to ramify that theory, one would soon discover that it is one of the greatest political fallacies of our time. The truth is what is good for the people may not necessarily be good for the government, just as what is good for the government will not necessarily be good for the people. It is on this basic political postulate that exposes the hard truth about our understanding of democracy for frankly speaking the politicians we elected no longer epitomize our democratic idealism. As one would lament, what good is our democratic process if the politicians we elected were created and sponsored by interest or pressure groups made up of the elite that are more successful in exploiting populist sentiments than in actually supporting populist policies.
Rather, the correct theory is that what is good for the people is always and is necessarily good for the government. The trouble however about that theory is that the people themselves have failed to come out with what is essentially good for them. This explains why coming out with misguided form of populist policies has become the forte of politicians for the simple reason that it is most appealing to the people. Hence, through the years of catering to what we believe as constituting the majority, we have produced demagogues much that demagoguery is more appealing compared to a dour but straightforward politician.
This explains why all politicians want to play the role of chief executives because it is in that capacity where they are able to enforce their policies that reflect more of their abeyance to the elite that made possible their election. For instance, senators, congressmen, provincial board members, and city and municipal councilors all scramble to play the role of chief executives within their own limited dominion than in legislating laws and ordinances that would give to them the indelible trademark of becoming a statesman.
Moreover, politicians shun the idea of participating in debate or making a stand on such specific issues precisely because they know that what is being debated will not be on the basis that our people have politically matured, but an ominous hint that one pressure or interest group has gained the upper hand in the propaganda war. Classic to this is the stand of many of our elected public officials on the reproductive health bill. Their position is not based on their understanding of it, but on weighing which side is more popular.
This also explains why many legislative proposals on taxation, education, health, business franchise, public works, rights of certain minorities or groups, etc, are products of rigorous lobby. Despite that none of us would question because we believe they have with them that badge of having been elected by the majority, not knowing they were blinded by the volley of propaganda made by their financial brokers. So, as we move on in our crusade to fulfill our role as an independent state by legislating laws co-terminus to our exercise of sovereignty, we found ourselves mired deeper in political contradictions.
To date, many of our politicians have been reduced to political retardates incapable of seeing the rationale why they have to come out with this or that law. They failed to see the wisdom that good laws can never been inconsistent to good government which combines the policy of serving the people and a policy of disciplining them. Thus, unless and until we could do that, we will never be able to achieve a respectable level of political maturity. Forever we will be stacked to that self-centered elitist politics disguised as populist democracy which is susceptible to foreign exploitation, and our people degenerating to one devoid of any political morality and values.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Rod Kapunan
5/21-22/2011
Admittedly, it is easy for one to conceive of a constructive idea that would help put a sense of direction to our society than have it implemented. In fact, even if the idea stands as a mere suggestion, still that will encounter difficulty of being implemented if coursed through our politicians. That simple suggestion becomes one of arduous assignment because the person who conceived of that bright idea thinks quite differently from the politicians in whom we repose our trust to implement them.
Such is the sad realism that is happening in our society. Instances of bright ideas coming from ordinary people are innumerable, and yet many of them are not taken into consideration all because any suggestion that it will be good for the people, and society as a whole, may not be that good for our politicians. Maybe that can be attributed to the fact that we have relied much on that elitist (disguised as a populist) democracy. But even this view is bound to meet its dead end for what is good for the people may not necessarily be good for our politicians. Following that line, one could sense that our politicians are honed by their self-centered instinct of on how to survive in an election under our system of unlettered process of elitist democracy.
At a glance, the wishy-washy reluctance of our politicians to legislate well-meaning laws underscores their refusal to depart from the pseudo-populist line much that only by supporting populists policies will help determine their chances of being elected. But that the people do not know is that many of the proposed bills patronized by politicians came mostly from elitist interest and pressure groups often disguised populist policies. In fact, a much deeper analysis of the given political environment would reveal that our people are ignorant of what a populist democracy is.
Besides, modern propaganda communication have already perfected the art of mass deception to deprive our people of their ability keenly distinguish a real populist policy from an elitist pressure-laden policy, more so if packaged into our consciousness as a populist policy. The irony is we assume that an interest or pressure group policy as a people-oriented policy; that a populist policy is always right relying on that false notion that what is good for our people will be good to our society.
If one would have to ramify that theory, one would soon discover that it is one of the greatest political fallacies of our time. The truth is what is good for the people may not necessarily be good for the government, just as what is good for the government will not necessarily be good for the people. It is on this basic political postulate that exposes the hard truth about our understanding of democracy for frankly speaking the politicians we elected no longer epitomize our democratic idealism. As one would lament, what good is our democratic process if the politicians we elected were created and sponsored by interest or pressure groups made up of the elite that are more successful in exploiting populist sentiments than in actually supporting populist policies.
Rather, the correct theory is that what is good for the people is always and is necessarily good for the government. The trouble however about that theory is that the people themselves have failed to come out with what is essentially good for them. This explains why coming out with misguided form of populist policies has become the forte of politicians for the simple reason that it is most appealing to the people. Hence, through the years of catering to what we believe as constituting the majority, we have produced demagogues much that demagoguery is more appealing compared to a dour but straightforward politician.
This explains why all politicians want to play the role of chief executives because it is in that capacity where they are able to enforce their policies that reflect more of their abeyance to the elite that made possible their election. For instance, senators, congressmen, provincial board members, and city and municipal councilors all scramble to play the role of chief executives within their own limited dominion than in legislating laws and ordinances that would give to them the indelible trademark of becoming a statesman.
Moreover, politicians shun the idea of participating in debate or making a stand on such specific issues precisely because they know that what is being debated will not be on the basis that our people have politically matured, but an ominous hint that one pressure or interest group has gained the upper hand in the propaganda war. Classic to this is the stand of many of our elected public officials on the reproductive health bill. Their position is not based on their understanding of it, but on weighing which side is more popular.
This also explains why many legislative proposals on taxation, education, health, business franchise, public works, rights of certain minorities or groups, etc, are products of rigorous lobby. Despite that none of us would question because we believe they have with them that badge of having been elected by the majority, not knowing they were blinded by the volley of propaganda made by their financial brokers. So, as we move on in our crusade to fulfill our role as an independent state by legislating laws co-terminus to our exercise of sovereignty, we found ourselves mired deeper in political contradictions.
To date, many of our politicians have been reduced to political retardates incapable of seeing the rationale why they have to come out with this or that law. They failed to see the wisdom that good laws can never been inconsistent to good government which combines the policy of serving the people and a policy of disciplining them. Thus, unless and until we could do that, we will never be able to achieve a respectable level of political maturity. Forever we will be stacked to that self-centered elitist politics disguised as populist democracy which is susceptible to foreign exploitation, and our people degenerating to one devoid of any political morality and values.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
