Sunday, September 6, 2009
ADRANTS vol. 2: Luky Me! Lomi
Now this is a commercial that's definitely targeted to women. Despite the obvious attempt at portraying Derek Ramsey as man's man (few words, gray apartment, rock music), his moans of pleasure right before his "few words" are a little disturbing for the male audience. Also, Derek Ramsey eating instant noodles? Not convincing. With that body I imagine he eats very little outside of protein shakes and probably dumbbells. In fact, in some shots, you can clearly see he's angry at the crew who forced him to eat instant noodles. Or is his face also too ripped to smile?
ADRANTS vol. 1: Greenwich
Note to all marketing and advertising people: Slapping on a "for men" label on your product does not automatically make your product more appealing for men. Especially on food. I would understand when shampoo or lotion or adult diapers have variants which say "for men" (along with "manly" colors like gray and dark blue), because these products don't normally appeal to men, and it may be considered unmanly if you buy these products. But food? Man hungry, man eat meat. The qualifier isn't necessary, and may cause the brand to be perceived as trying too hard, especially after showing scenes of men who like embracing other men, who also apparently likes pizza "for men". Using "cheesy" is actually a good idea, using it both figuratively and literally. Unfortunately it was ruined because someone in the marketing department had the brilliant idea of selling pizza using a strategy also used by beauty products.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The price tag of an image
(originally published in the August 2009 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)
“Anak, itabi mo”
Roughly translated to “son, pull over”, these are the now-famous words of Senator Mar Roxas in one of his TV commercials. It would seem like the campaign period started early for the May 2010 elections, as the Filipino public is already being bombarded with political ads since October 2008. Disguised as infomercials, those who have announced their plans to run for office next year can be seen everywhere – in TV, in print, on the radio, even on the web. Of course, judging by how long their faces are shown in these commercials, no one would think these are to “promote advocacies”.
In Mar Roxas’ commercials, it is very clear that he is trying to say that he cares about the poor. The senator even talks to them about the communities’ problems, and how no other politician seemed to care except for Roxas. In Senator Manny Villar’s case, the commercials would make it clear that his family used to be poor, and because of that, he’s more likely to help other poverty-stricken Filipinos. Another presidential hopeful, Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay’s commercial shows how life is in Makati – free education, higher wages for government employees, free health care. A logo states that the ad is for the foundation anniversary of the city, but the line at the end of the commercial reveals its true intentions: “Ganito kami sa Makati, ganito sana sa buong bayan” (This is how we are in Makati. I wish that this is how we will be for the whole country).
While political advertising is perfectly legal thanks to the Fair Elections Act of 2001, it should be done during the campaign period or ninety days before the polls open. Advertising spending also has a limit, to somehow ensure fairness and prevent politicians from staling public funds. These early “advocacy” campaigns clearly undermine the purpose of the law, making it hard for other candidates who are not as wealthy to get the same amount of recognition from the public.
No one is being fooled, except maybe for the Commission on Elections, which has taken no action against these ads. The public, however, is probably sick of these repetitive ads. A more immediate concern is how much these commercials cost. Production of a high-quality commercial could easily reach seven figures, and airing them on national television costs another several hundred thousands of pesos, multiplied by how many times it would air. Villar and Roxas have already spent close to 400 million pesos on these commercials. While they were apparently paid for by either themselves or their friends, it is still a massive waste of money, especially in a country which desperately needs it.
What’s so wrong about Philippine politics is that the personalities are overemphasized. Very little has been said about candidates’ platforms. Instead, they take the role of products being advertised, establishing a strong unique selling point to the voters. That is why a lot of celebrities and media personalities successfully transition into politics. Filipinos are more interested in who they are voting, not what the candidates will do when they get elected. In turn, hundreds of millions of pesos are being spent on advertising: money which could have gone to actually helping the poor instead of trying to publicize themselves and the values they supposedly hold.
Filipino voters are getting smarter. The effects of these ads are waning, according to surveys by the Social Weather Station (SWS). If politicians want votes, they need to take actual action, and not just after they announce their intentions to run after the elections. If they already have a position in the government, they should make the most of what they have before aspiring for a higher position. They should take advantage of their terms and do good for the people, instead of trying to put up an image that is obviously contrived. Moreover, they should stop wasting resources on advertisements. Voting shouldn’t be about choosing who has the best image, but determining who is most qualified. Expressing good intentions through advertisements is alright, but actually living up to that image that was created by these ads is infinitely better.
 |
| Photo taken from tonyocruz.com |
“Anak, itabi mo”
Roughly translated to “son, pull over”, these are the now-famous words of Senator Mar Roxas in one of his TV commercials. It would seem like the campaign period started early for the May 2010 elections, as the Filipino public is already being bombarded with political ads since October 2008. Disguised as infomercials, those who have announced their plans to run for office next year can be seen everywhere – in TV, in print, on the radio, even on the web. Of course, judging by how long their faces are shown in these commercials, no one would think these are to “promote advocacies”.
In Mar Roxas’ commercials, it is very clear that he is trying to say that he cares about the poor. The senator even talks to them about the communities’ problems, and how no other politician seemed to care except for Roxas. In Senator Manny Villar’s case, the commercials would make it clear that his family used to be poor, and because of that, he’s more likely to help other poverty-stricken Filipinos. Another presidential hopeful, Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay’s commercial shows how life is in Makati – free education, higher wages for government employees, free health care. A logo states that the ad is for the foundation anniversary of the city, but the line at the end of the commercial reveals its true intentions: “Ganito kami sa Makati, ganito sana sa buong bayan” (This is how we are in Makati. I wish that this is how we will be for the whole country).
While political advertising is perfectly legal thanks to the Fair Elections Act of 2001, it should be done during the campaign period or ninety days before the polls open. Advertising spending also has a limit, to somehow ensure fairness and prevent politicians from staling public funds. These early “advocacy” campaigns clearly undermine the purpose of the law, making it hard for other candidates who are not as wealthy to get the same amount of recognition from the public.
No one is being fooled, except maybe for the Commission on Elections, which has taken no action against these ads. The public, however, is probably sick of these repetitive ads. A more immediate concern is how much these commercials cost. Production of a high-quality commercial could easily reach seven figures, and airing them on national television costs another several hundred thousands of pesos, multiplied by how many times it would air. Villar and Roxas have already spent close to 400 million pesos on these commercials. While they were apparently paid for by either themselves or their friends, it is still a massive waste of money, especially in a country which desperately needs it.
What’s so wrong about Philippine politics is that the personalities are overemphasized. Very little has been said about candidates’ platforms. Instead, they take the role of products being advertised, establishing a strong unique selling point to the voters. That is why a lot of celebrities and media personalities successfully transition into politics. Filipinos are more interested in who they are voting, not what the candidates will do when they get elected. In turn, hundreds of millions of pesos are being spent on advertising: money which could have gone to actually helping the poor instead of trying to publicize themselves and the values they supposedly hold.
Filipino voters are getting smarter. The effects of these ads are waning, according to surveys by the Social Weather Station (SWS). If politicians want votes, they need to take actual action, and not just after they announce their intentions to run after the elections. If they already have a position in the government, they should make the most of what they have before aspiring for a higher position. They should take advantage of their terms and do good for the people, instead of trying to put up an image that is obviously contrived. Moreover, they should stop wasting resources on advertisements. Voting shouldn’t be about choosing who has the best image, but determining who is most qualified. Expressing good intentions through advertisements is alright, but actually living up to that image that was created by these ads is infinitely better.
Death Penalty: The solution to nothing
(originally published in the January 2009 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)
With the recent buzz on certain drug pushers from wealthy families dubbed the “Alabang Boys”, talks about the death penalty are scurrying about. Senator and majority floor leader Juan Miguel Zubiri attributes the alarming criminal activity in the country to the abolishment of capital punishment back in 2006. While it might be true that some criminals only did what they are convicted of because they didn’t deem squeezing into a tightly-packed prison as threatening, is the number significant enough to justify the reinstatement of a penalty which is essentially legalized killing?
The death penalty was repealed by the 1987 constitution, after the Marcos regime. It was brought back by former President Fidel Ramos in 1996, reportedly in response to rising crime rates. A decade later, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo once again removed it. Was the national crime rate affected significantly? Not exactly. In the years of the Ramos Administration, crime rates were steadily declining, regardless of whether the death penalty was enacted or not. Starting from 1993’s 145.7 crime incidence per 100,000 of the population, it went down to 112.8 in 1995, just before Ramos brought back capital punishment. It continued to decline steadily, only slightly rising in some years. The lowest crime rate reported in the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) website was in 2006, 81.9, even after the current president removed the death penalty. It rose significantly in 2007, but is mainly attributed to political turmoil. In fact, it seems that a more direct antecedent of high crime rates is the political and economic conditions of the country.
The highest crime rate in recent history was recorded in 1984 to 1986, which, according to the CIA Factbook, was approximately 310 per 100,000 people. Any Filipino would know that this was the time former president Ferdinand Marcos was losing the support of the people, inciting civil unrest. In 2007, there was a large number of politically-motivated killings all over the country. All of these lead to a very simple fact: crime rates are not significantly affected by the death penalty.
What then is the effect of the death penalty? Aside from a miniscule decrease in the population and a heightened sense of fear of committing “heinous crimes” for a number of people, there is hardly any benefit derived from killing criminals. What then is the solution to the banes of modern Philippine society? A better justice system: one that cannot be bribed. Let us not forget that the “Alabang Boys” didn’t gain notoriety just because of the gravity of their crime or their elite families. It is mainly because of allegations of bribery against the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Even if the law reverts to the barbaric penalties of the pre-Hispanic period, crime will still continue to thrive if the courts can easily be paid to get offenders off the hook. Only those who can not afford the prices will be put to death. In other words, the poor, who ironically are seldom the masterminds of the crimes they’ve committed, especially when it comes to drug trafficking. This reveals the real culprit that all Filipinos know so painfully well: corruption.
What the Philippines, not just the government, should focus on is trying to eliminate this cancer of society. And it doesn’t just entail running anti-corruption commercials on primetime TV. While there is a specific agency, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, that focuses on the elimination of corruption in the government, these efforts are clearly not enough. Every single citizen should do their part in this fight. It might seem too idealistic to be realized in this modern world, but this is the only way to reverse the culture of corruption in the country. We are all victims, but what we don’t see is that we also contribute in cultivating this mindset in our own little ways. And no, the death penalty won’t help this cause.
While most reasonable people are afraid of death, especially if it’s in a prison, the death penalty would not improve the conditions of the country. If anything, it would only further dehumanize our already-downtrodden people. Before thinking about what punishment is fit for a crime, offenders should be caught effectively, and shouldn’t be able to bribe his way out. Senator Francis Pangilinan says in a statement published by Inquirer.net, "It isn't the harshness or severity of punishment but the certainty of punishment that will make would be criminals think twice before committing illegal acts."
 |
| Photo by Andrejs Zemdega for Getty Images |
With the recent buzz on certain drug pushers from wealthy families dubbed the “Alabang Boys”, talks about the death penalty are scurrying about. Senator and majority floor leader Juan Miguel Zubiri attributes the alarming criminal activity in the country to the abolishment of capital punishment back in 2006. While it might be true that some criminals only did what they are convicted of because they didn’t deem squeezing into a tightly-packed prison as threatening, is the number significant enough to justify the reinstatement of a penalty which is essentially legalized killing?
The death penalty was repealed by the 1987 constitution, after the Marcos regime. It was brought back by former President Fidel Ramos in 1996, reportedly in response to rising crime rates. A decade later, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo once again removed it. Was the national crime rate affected significantly? Not exactly. In the years of the Ramos Administration, crime rates were steadily declining, regardless of whether the death penalty was enacted or not. Starting from 1993’s 145.7 crime incidence per 100,000 of the population, it went down to 112.8 in 1995, just before Ramos brought back capital punishment. It continued to decline steadily, only slightly rising in some years. The lowest crime rate reported in the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) website was in 2006, 81.9, even after the current president removed the death penalty. It rose significantly in 2007, but is mainly attributed to political turmoil. In fact, it seems that a more direct antecedent of high crime rates is the political and economic conditions of the country.
The highest crime rate in recent history was recorded in 1984 to 1986, which, according to the CIA Factbook, was approximately 310 per 100,000 people. Any Filipino would know that this was the time former president Ferdinand Marcos was losing the support of the people, inciting civil unrest. In 2007, there was a large number of politically-motivated killings all over the country. All of these lead to a very simple fact: crime rates are not significantly affected by the death penalty.
What then is the effect of the death penalty? Aside from a miniscule decrease in the population and a heightened sense of fear of committing “heinous crimes” for a number of people, there is hardly any benefit derived from killing criminals. What then is the solution to the banes of modern Philippine society? A better justice system: one that cannot be bribed. Let us not forget that the “Alabang Boys” didn’t gain notoriety just because of the gravity of their crime or their elite families. It is mainly because of allegations of bribery against the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Even if the law reverts to the barbaric penalties of the pre-Hispanic period, crime will still continue to thrive if the courts can easily be paid to get offenders off the hook. Only those who can not afford the prices will be put to death. In other words, the poor, who ironically are seldom the masterminds of the crimes they’ve committed, especially when it comes to drug trafficking. This reveals the real culprit that all Filipinos know so painfully well: corruption.
What the Philippines, not just the government, should focus on is trying to eliminate this cancer of society. And it doesn’t just entail running anti-corruption commercials on primetime TV. While there is a specific agency, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, that focuses on the elimination of corruption in the government, these efforts are clearly not enough. Every single citizen should do their part in this fight. It might seem too idealistic to be realized in this modern world, but this is the only way to reverse the culture of corruption in the country. We are all victims, but what we don’t see is that we also contribute in cultivating this mindset in our own little ways. And no, the death penalty won’t help this cause.
While most reasonable people are afraid of death, especially if it’s in a prison, the death penalty would not improve the conditions of the country. If anything, it would only further dehumanize our already-downtrodden people. Before thinking about what punishment is fit for a crime, offenders should be caught effectively, and shouldn’t be able to bribe his way out. Senator Francis Pangilinan says in a statement published by Inquirer.net, "It isn't the harshness or severity of punishment but the certainty of punishment that will make would be criminals think twice before committing illegal acts."
Pro-abortion or pro-choice?
(unpublished article for the October 2008 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)
In the September 2008 editorial of The Varsitarian (the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas), which is titled “Lagman bill is Stalinist,” Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, the primary author of the Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill), was condemned for reasons ranging from unproven economic theories to comparisons with China’s one-child policy and the Marcos regime. They even blatantly insulted the position of 27 Economics professors from the University of the Philippines, calling it inane and dishonest. Amidst all these allegations however, it doesn’t seem like the editorial board of The Varsitarian did their own research.
House Bill No. 5043, better known as the RH Bill, is a law drafted by six representatives (led by Lagman) that seeks to promote the well-being of women and their children. An Economics degree shouldn’t be necessary to say that population has a direct relationship with poverty. It’s very basic: more people in the country equals more mouths to feed which leads to more people seeking jobs which the country can’t provide. To prove this point further, the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) report that as family size increases, poverty worsens. In 2003, poverty incidence for a family of four is at 17.05 percent, compared to 46.55 for a family of eight. This is the reason why a lot of developing countries are seeking to control rapid population growth rates. Estimates for the Philippines’ population growth rate are at 1.95 percent, above the 1.5 percent average of ASEAN members.
This is why the RH Bill has been drafted. In order to assist economic growth and raise the standards of living of the Filipino people, population control is necessary. However, because of the Philippines’ strong Christian values, abortion is not an option, and artificial birth control is frowned upon. The solution: a softer bill that would educate women on how to achieve the desired number of children, and at the same time, not contradict the teachings of the Church, even though the state is separated from it. The Catholic Church still doesn’t seem to be pleased though.
The Church strongly opposes the bill, repeatedly saying that it is pro-abortion and anti-life, even anti-Christ. This is because some contraceptive methods are believed to cause abortion. Some representatives of the Church also claim that the bill denies the freedom of religious belief, because it imposes penalties to those who don’t comply with the law.
If you take a close look at the proposal, however, you would know that these claims are not founded solidly. First of all, it does not compel all constituents to use contraceptives. It merely wants to inform the people about their choices, and making those choices available to all. Section 12 provides for reproductive health education, which encompasses responsible parenthood, reproductive health care, family planning, and responsible sexuality, among others. It does not, however, state that all who receive this education should apply it in their daily lives. The choice is implicitly given to the individuals. Even the much-debated Section 16, which designates two as the ideal number of children, explicitly state that it is neither mandatory nor compulsory, and reassures that no punitive action shall be imposed on parents who decide to have more children.
From my standpoint, no right is violated and no morals have been downgraded. The people have the right to know what these methods of contraception are, so that they can make an informed choice. By blocking this bill, women will continue to conceive unwanted children which they won’t be able to provide for properly, all because they didn’t know that there are more effective ways of contraception.
In the end, it all comes down to a choice between morality and prosperity. The Church obviously advocates the former, opposing even the slightest hint of immorality in all laws that are passed. On the other hand, the Filipino people have long been suffering from poverty and all its related problems. While it may be argued that graft and corruption are the tyrants that rob the people of their hard-earned money, the high population growth rate certainly doesn’t help either. Are we willing to give one up in favor of the other? The individual should be free to choose; not the Church, not the State.
As for The Varsitarian, I suggest a brush-up on current economic development theories is in order. Simon Kuznets died in 1985 and certainly didn’t have the power of foresight to predict current trends in economics. Economics professors in UP, however, do. If indeed their research was funded by the government, then I applaud them for putting the taxes we pay to good use. Or would the editors of The Varsitarian rather have it channeled to political campaigns? Do not question other people’s credibility without establishing your own.
(The Varsitarian's September 2008 editorial can be read here.)
 |
| Illustration from quierosaber.wordpress.com/ |
In the September 2008 editorial of The Varsitarian (the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas), which is titled “Lagman bill is Stalinist,” Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, the primary author of the Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill), was condemned for reasons ranging from unproven economic theories to comparisons with China’s one-child policy and the Marcos regime. They even blatantly insulted the position of 27 Economics professors from the University of the Philippines, calling it inane and dishonest. Amidst all these allegations however, it doesn’t seem like the editorial board of The Varsitarian did their own research.
House Bill No. 5043, better known as the RH Bill, is a law drafted by six representatives (led by Lagman) that seeks to promote the well-being of women and their children. An Economics degree shouldn’t be necessary to say that population has a direct relationship with poverty. It’s very basic: more people in the country equals more mouths to feed which leads to more people seeking jobs which the country can’t provide. To prove this point further, the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) report that as family size increases, poverty worsens. In 2003, poverty incidence for a family of four is at 17.05 percent, compared to 46.55 for a family of eight. This is the reason why a lot of developing countries are seeking to control rapid population growth rates. Estimates for the Philippines’ population growth rate are at 1.95 percent, above the 1.5 percent average of ASEAN members.
This is why the RH Bill has been drafted. In order to assist economic growth and raise the standards of living of the Filipino people, population control is necessary. However, because of the Philippines’ strong Christian values, abortion is not an option, and artificial birth control is frowned upon. The solution: a softer bill that would educate women on how to achieve the desired number of children, and at the same time, not contradict the teachings of the Church, even though the state is separated from it. The Catholic Church still doesn’t seem to be pleased though.
The Church strongly opposes the bill, repeatedly saying that it is pro-abortion and anti-life, even anti-Christ. This is because some contraceptive methods are believed to cause abortion. Some representatives of the Church also claim that the bill denies the freedom of religious belief, because it imposes penalties to those who don’t comply with the law.
If you take a close look at the proposal, however, you would know that these claims are not founded solidly. First of all, it does not compel all constituents to use contraceptives. It merely wants to inform the people about their choices, and making those choices available to all. Section 12 provides for reproductive health education, which encompasses responsible parenthood, reproductive health care, family planning, and responsible sexuality, among others. It does not, however, state that all who receive this education should apply it in their daily lives. The choice is implicitly given to the individuals. Even the much-debated Section 16, which designates two as the ideal number of children, explicitly state that it is neither mandatory nor compulsory, and reassures that no punitive action shall be imposed on parents who decide to have more children.
From my standpoint, no right is violated and no morals have been downgraded. The people have the right to know what these methods of contraception are, so that they can make an informed choice. By blocking this bill, women will continue to conceive unwanted children which they won’t be able to provide for properly, all because they didn’t know that there are more effective ways of contraception.
In the end, it all comes down to a choice between morality and prosperity. The Church obviously advocates the former, opposing even the slightest hint of immorality in all laws that are passed. On the other hand, the Filipino people have long been suffering from poverty and all its related problems. While it may be argued that graft and corruption are the tyrants that rob the people of their hard-earned money, the high population growth rate certainly doesn’t help either. Are we willing to give one up in favor of the other? The individual should be free to choose; not the Church, not the State.
As for The Varsitarian, I suggest a brush-up on current economic development theories is in order. Simon Kuznets died in 1985 and certainly didn’t have the power of foresight to predict current trends in economics. Economics professors in UP, however, do. If indeed their research was funded by the government, then I applaud them for putting the taxes we pay to good use. Or would the editors of The Varsitarian rather have it channeled to political campaigns? Do not question other people’s credibility without establishing your own.
(The Varsitarian's September 2008 editorial can be read here.)
A Nation of Liars
(originally published in the July 2008 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)
Boarding the southbound Light Rail Transit (LRT) at Blumentritt station, I overheard a barong-clad man (the type of barong that lawyers usually wear) talking on his cell phone. He was really loud and everyone could hear him, but what caught my attention was not just the way he talked, but more so what he said. “Nasa MoA na po ako” (I’m already at the Mall of Asia). He said this while on the train in Blumentritt, Sta. Cruz, Manila, ten stations and a passenger van ride away from the mall at the south end of EDSA in Pasay City, more or less an hour-long commute. He said it so naturally, as if he really was there, not even thinking twice before saying it. He didn’t even mind the other people who were there. As I was hearing his end of the conversation, I remembered a hundred other similar instances – my relatives, my friends, my classmates – a lot of them do the same thing. This led me to ask myself: how many Filipinos casually lie about where they actually are? What else do we lie about? Does truth have any value at all these days? Does anyone ever feel guilty anymore?
It’s shocking how casually we lie, even to the closest of people. It doesn’t even seem wrong anymore. Of course, in the case I cited above, it simply means that our punctual friends are going to have to wait a lot longer than they expected. But everyone knows that the lying doesn’t stop there. It trickles down, or should I say up, to lying to your parents about where you went last night, to lying to the traffic enforcer about connections with high-ranking officers, to the top government officials denying they got a cut from a shady deal. Yes, indeed, we are a nation of liars, and no one seems to mind.
It would seem that we already forgot the all time best policy – honesty. What’s so sad about it is that we metaphorically crucify our leaders for doing the exact same thing, when really, we are all guilty. One person may have a bigger sphere of influence than the other, but it’s all the same. Each time we tell something contrary or a deviation of the truth, we contribute to this twisted culture. It all adds up until each one becomes a veteran. Suddenly, it’s no surprise that politicians can tell the people untruths with a straight face. Lying permeated our culture and it became as much a part of it as adobo.
We complain left and right about the government, about all the money they have stolen, about all the lies they used to cover them up, but in the end, how different are we civilians? Yes, they steal, yes they leave a massive trail of evidence, and yes, they still have the audacity to deny it. What we can’t deny however is the fact that this happens practically anywhere in one form or the other. Whether it’s treating your professor to his favorite restaurant for a higher grade, manipulating income statements, using substandard raw materials for manufacturing, we are all corrupt in one way or the other. We do it as openly as they do, even talking about it as if there’s nothing wrong with it.
Now, how can we blame others for lying upfront when we do it ourselves? We can’t. If we want them to stop, we must stop ourselves as well from lying, and its dark derivative: corruption. While some may argue that this is merely a case of moral degradation which is happening all over the world, it affects the country to a much greater extent. The nation’s poverty is worsening, and the line separating them from the rich is broader than ever. Those who have nothing continue to have nothing while the chosen few at the top of the social pyramid do little to alleviate it. We all want things to change, but only a few, if anyone at all, seems to be taking the initiative. We all want our country to progress, but we are the ones hindering it.
While a revolution is not likely to arise from reading this column, at least we can take a few little steps towards it: maybe you can start telling your friend who’s waiting for you he’s going to have to occupy himself for a while.
 |
| Photo taken from Wikipedia |
Boarding the southbound Light Rail Transit (LRT) at Blumentritt station, I overheard a barong-clad man (the type of barong that lawyers usually wear) talking on his cell phone. He was really loud and everyone could hear him, but what caught my attention was not just the way he talked, but more so what he said. “Nasa MoA na po ako” (I’m already at the Mall of Asia). He said this while on the train in Blumentritt, Sta. Cruz, Manila, ten stations and a passenger van ride away from the mall at the south end of EDSA in Pasay City, more or less an hour-long commute. He said it so naturally, as if he really was there, not even thinking twice before saying it. He didn’t even mind the other people who were there. As I was hearing his end of the conversation, I remembered a hundred other similar instances – my relatives, my friends, my classmates – a lot of them do the same thing. This led me to ask myself: how many Filipinos casually lie about where they actually are? What else do we lie about? Does truth have any value at all these days? Does anyone ever feel guilty anymore?
It’s shocking how casually we lie, even to the closest of people. It doesn’t even seem wrong anymore. Of course, in the case I cited above, it simply means that our punctual friends are going to have to wait a lot longer than they expected. But everyone knows that the lying doesn’t stop there. It trickles down, or should I say up, to lying to your parents about where you went last night, to lying to the traffic enforcer about connections with high-ranking officers, to the top government officials denying they got a cut from a shady deal. Yes, indeed, we are a nation of liars, and no one seems to mind.
It would seem that we already forgot the all time best policy – honesty. What’s so sad about it is that we metaphorically crucify our leaders for doing the exact same thing, when really, we are all guilty. One person may have a bigger sphere of influence than the other, but it’s all the same. Each time we tell something contrary or a deviation of the truth, we contribute to this twisted culture. It all adds up until each one becomes a veteran. Suddenly, it’s no surprise that politicians can tell the people untruths with a straight face. Lying permeated our culture and it became as much a part of it as adobo.
We complain left and right about the government, about all the money they have stolen, about all the lies they used to cover them up, but in the end, how different are we civilians? Yes, they steal, yes they leave a massive trail of evidence, and yes, they still have the audacity to deny it. What we can’t deny however is the fact that this happens practically anywhere in one form or the other. Whether it’s treating your professor to his favorite restaurant for a higher grade, manipulating income statements, using substandard raw materials for manufacturing, we are all corrupt in one way or the other. We do it as openly as they do, even talking about it as if there’s nothing wrong with it.
Now, how can we blame others for lying upfront when we do it ourselves? We can’t. If we want them to stop, we must stop ourselves as well from lying, and its dark derivative: corruption. While some may argue that this is merely a case of moral degradation which is happening all over the world, it affects the country to a much greater extent. The nation’s poverty is worsening, and the line separating them from the rich is broader than ever. Those who have nothing continue to have nothing while the chosen few at the top of the social pyramid do little to alleviate it. We all want things to change, but only a few, if anyone at all, seems to be taking the initiative. We all want our country to progress, but we are the ones hindering it.
While a revolution is not likely to arise from reading this column, at least we can take a few little steps towards it: maybe you can start telling your friend who’s waiting for you he’s going to have to occupy himself for a while.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Overheard on the news vol. 2: Flooding concerns
A school principal from the CAMANAVA district, where flooding is a huge concern, was being interviewed on the news about the constant suspension of classes because of floods:
"pag nakalubog ang paa ng mga bata, delikado yan. Kasi mayroon tayong tinatawag na... ihi ng daga"
(if the students' feet are submerged in the flood, it can be dangerous. Because we have what we call... rats' urine)
Uhmmm... What else would you call rats' urine?
"pag nakalubog ang paa ng mga bata, delikado yan. Kasi mayroon tayong tinatawag na... ihi ng daga"
(if the students' feet are submerged in the flood, it can be dangerous. Because we have what we call... rats' urine)
Uhmmm... What else would you call rats' urine?
Monday, August 3, 2009
On the passing of Cory Aquino
For the most part, I've been quite apathetic about former Philippine president Cory Aquino. There were, after all, some things that she didn't do right during her term. Her passing and the heavy media coverage, however, has caused me to re-evaluate my stand. It has reminded me, along with the millions of Filipinos around the world mourning her death, of how she stood up to the Marcos dictatorship, and how she brought democracy back to the Philippines. Sure, it happened after Senator Ninoy Aquino's death, and she only continued the fight that her husband started, but the simple fact remains: she led the nation to reclaim our freedom. Without her, we would have been left without a leader. Marcos would have stayed in his position, without a strong opposition to challenge Marcos' claim to the country's top position. She stepped up, despite her lack of political leverage, and became the hope of the nation. After Ninoy's death, Cory stood up and gave the Philippines a fighting chance against an oppressive administration. Now, after her death, the Filipino people is once again united, thanking Cory for her valuable contribution to the history of this country. We remember her courage, her leadership, her legacy which forever changed the face of this nation. We owe a lot to her, and it is only right that we acknowledge her leadership as we mourn. She will always be the symbol of hope and unity for the country. In these times, may we not only remember Cory, but be inspired and renewed, that despite adversity from the very institution that is supposed to uphold it, we must always value and fight for our freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)