Demosthenes' Game

Three Reasons

2008-02-23T04:15:00.002+08:00

Three Reasons I've Tuned Out the Opposition

They've cried wolf too many times. For all I know, the opposition may be right this time. For all I care; they no longer hold any claim on my credulity. Excluding Lozada, their credibility is zilch.
Extreme skepticism that any regime change would actually bring about meaningful, systemic reform (cue Neri).
A genuine loathing for the people the opposition is composed of -- trapos and starry-eyed idealists, Maoists, would-be fascists, and Chavez wannabes. Greater than any loathing I now feel for the administration.

Three Reasons I'm Loath to Defend the Administration

Thanks to our economy decoupling from politics, there hasn't been any major damage. As long as the opposition does not spook the administration enough to go all out and spend mucho moolah once more to hang on, all is good. Keeps her and hers on their toes. Might actually give her an excuse to renege on, or at least defer, some other 'deals'.
I like de Venecia, actually voted for him in that insane election back in '98 that put Erap in power. I think he would've made a good PM. So Malacanang easing him out has me considering my position. As FVR once said, my support for the administration is waning, waning. However, since Ramos himself won't support regime change sans a better alternative, I'm still waiting, waiting.
Like a growing number of people these days, I personally do not benefit from a strong peso. It devalues my income, and I've yet to see its upside. Gasoline prices have risen faster here than in the US, God knows why, and consumer goods haven't gotten any cheaper, thanks to local protectionists like our onion growers. Seriously, why hasn't China or Taiwan complained about us yet to the WTO? So fuck that. The opposition is doing me a favor by doing all they can to prevent the peso rising any further. Not that they're having much effect, but it's the thought that counts.

Hot or Not?

2008-02-12T22:31:00.000+08:00

A few posts ago, I'd commented on how our voting system was inherently flawed and dangerously predisposed towards electing leaders without a broad base of acceptance (witness Erap on one hand, GMA on the other). I'd also started to delve into the various alternative voting systems that sought to eliminate, or at least minimize, the current system's disadvantages. I had intended to write comparisons of one-man-one-vote plurality voting, runoffs, instant-runoffs, approval voting, and my own pet theory, net-approval voting. However, work and my inherent laziness got the better of me, and I never got beyond run-offs.

Fortunately, voting systems are also a perennial topic in the states, and whenever their elections draw near, the theorists come out of the woodwork. This article on Salon touches on most of what I had originally planned to write, with the added mention of range voting. This particular system, in the off chance you were wondering, has already proved its worth in the real world, as demonstrated quite enjoyably by this website.

I, for one, would welcome the day we can upmod or downmod candidates as if they were entries in Reddit.

Too Menny People

2007-11-09T02:07:00.000+08:00

MLQ3's post tonight on the death of Mariannet Amper, including excerpts from Thomas Hardy that, disregarding details and trivialities, recount almost exactly her unfortunate fate.

All best summed up by little Jude's last pencilled note:
DONE BECAUSE WE ARE TOO MENNY.

Too menny people, and more added each day, that even decent GDP growth can barely keep up; the country's been treading water for decades.

Too menny priests and bishops opposing contraception, burdening us with too menny unwanted babies and, later on, too menny desperate adults fighting for too few jobs.

Too menny well-meaning people only too willing to give the Church a free pass despite its too unreasonable stand.

Too menny people, period. Doesn't matter if you divide the pie equally. If there are just too menny people, then everyone just starves.

I blame the Catholic Church for this. Had we been able to stabilize our population early on, then our past modest growth might have been enough to give most people jobs and a modicum of dignity. But no, they had to have their souls. And for too long they made it political suicide to promote effective birth control. Now they reap what they've sown.

Every priest and bishop should carry a picture of Mariannet, a memento of the death they've caused.

More Fodder for the Language Wars

2007-08-13T23:22:00.000+08:00

English for Everyone, an article in Newsweek that will surely enrage our cultural politburo...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20216718/site/newsweek/page/0/

Some choice quotes:

"... From Brussels to Beijing, English is now the common language spoken in multinational firms, top universities and the scientific community. A recent survey by the San Francisco-based firm GlobalEnglish found that 91 percent of employees at multinationals in Latin America, Europe and Asia believed English was "critical" or "important" to their current positions. And the consulting group McKinsey warned China in 2005 that fewer than 10 percent of its college graduates were suitable for employment at multinationals—primarily because they couldn't speak English..."

"... In recognition of this fact, numerous countries are starting to teach their kids English at ever younger ages. According to the British Council, the prevailing model is to ensure that students gain basic English proficiency in primary school and then use it as a language of study in secondary school. This model is much evident in Europe; Eurydice (an EU education unit) reports that more than 90 percent of primary-school students in Austria and Norway study English, as do more than 80 percent in Spain..."

"... In 2001, Beijing ordered that English classes start in the third grade, rather than in high school as before. In big cities like Beijing and Shanghai, such instruction now begins in grade one. And many Chinese parents try to accelerate the process by sticking their kids into English buxiban—cram schools—as early as possible..."

"... Asians who work at multinationals but speak broken English are likely to bump up against a linguistic "glass ceiling" and be passed over for promotions..."

"... last year Tokyo created 100 "super English high schools," where core classes are taught exclusively in English..."

"... If study patterns are any guide, even many Chinese agree. More and more of them are heading to English classes wherever they can find them: voting with their feet in the great language election..."

Which is something we've been doing here for ages, voting with our feet I mean. After all, no private school here can remain in business very long without giving English pre-eminent position in its curriculum. No, the issue here is the failure of our so-called democracy for the past two decades to heed the will of the people, instead paying obeisance to the all-knowing 'nationalist' academicians of our cultural politburo. Look where that got us. Only now is the situation being rectified, and none too soon. No, the issue was never which was the better curriculum. The issue was always about choice. And that those who had none should have the same as those who could, and did, vote with their feet.

Hehe, it gets better. Another article in the same issue talks about how private schools and school vouchers might actually be a viable alternative to the public school system. Hope they read it with their morning coffee, the better for them to choke on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226757/site/newsweek/page/0/

Run-Off Voting: Marginally Better

2007-06-14T01:39:00.000+08:00

Certain quarters, including mlq3, have called for a switch to run-off voting in order to ensure that incoming presidents have majorities and therefore stronger mandates. The main drawback here is cost: depending on the particular variant used, we'll be holding at least two elections every time we choose a president. Considering the costs involved in just a single election, and considering that we'll probably end up having two campaign periods as well, this would be very difficult to justify, more so since the advantages of a stronger mandate are hard to quantify. Should this proposal come up for serious consideration, political and economic conservatives would likely oppose it.

As cost is unfortunately an object, the variant we'll probably be considering is the top-two runoff method. In this, only two elections are required, with the top two candidates from the first round going on to the second round. The other two variants, elimination and exhaustive runoffs, often require more than two elections, with the former depending on the number of candidates to be eliminated, and the latter depending on the candidates' coalition building and/or poaching skills.

Still, there's a problem with the top-two runoff method. Essentially, the voters are being asked to decide between the top two first-choice candidates; no consideration is given for getting lower-preference votes (second choice onwards). Thus, there is a significant possibility that a candidate, although not very popular as a first choice, is overwhelmingly popular as a second choice compared to the rest of the field. Such a candidate then could conceivably defeat either of the top two candidates in a two-way race. The rules, however, would eliminate him in the first round, which is a pity since it would be more likely he's a moderate acceptable to a large majority of the electorate, and would probably be able to work more productively with the legislature.

The elimination method, which removes the lowest scoring candidate in successive rounds, would be better in selecting a winner, as it takes into account lower-preference votes. Indeed, it could select a different winner from the top-two method, one more likely to defeat all other candidates in a two-way race. The caveat, as I mentioned above, is that it would require more than two elections. In fact, the number of elections needed is equal to the total number of candidates minus one. Given the number of candidates fielded in recent elections, this method, despite its advantages, is not really economically feasible.

------------------------------------------------------

To illustrate these two methods, consider a hypothetical race with four candidates: FPJ, Lacson, Roco, and GMA. They get 35%, 25%, 21%, and 19% of first-choice votes respectively. Using the top-two runoff method, Roco and GMA are immediately eliminated, and voters are forced to choose between FPJ and Lacson. Of the 40% total who voted for Roco and GMA, assume 18% are willing to support Lacson either as second or third choice, 9% would vote for FPJ, and 13% would abstain. Results for the second round would thus be 44% for FPJ and 43% for Lacson. If we don't count the 13% who abstained, that would be 50.6% for FPJ and 49.4% for Lacson. Using the top-two method, FPJ wins.

The elimination method yields a different result. In the first round, GMA is eliminated. It's not farfetched to assume that most of her supporters would have Roco as their second choice. Thus we can postulate that of her 19% base, 15% would go to Roco, 2% to Lacson, 1% to FPJ, and 1% would abstain. The second round results would thus be 36% for FPJ, 27% for Lacson, and 36% for Roco, eliminating Lacson. Of Lacson's 27% total, perhaps 2% would abstain, 13% would go to Roco, and 12% would go to FPJ. Final round results would thus be 48% FPJ and 49% Roco. Leaving out the 3% total who abstained, we'd have 49.5% FPJ vs 50.5% Roco. With the elimination method, Roco wins after three rounds. This is arguably a more accurate reading of the electorate's collective intent.

------------------------------------------------------

The top-two runoff method is unfortunately only marginally better compared to plurality voting. The sole advantage gained is the certainty of a majority for the winner. As we noted, it fails to take into account voters' second and third choices (as well as all subsequent preferences). By combining an emphasis on first-choice votes with a high cutoff requirement (as only the top two are selected for the second round), candidates are rewarded for staking out relatively extreme positions that appeal to a sufficient portion of the electorate who can give them their first-choice votes. Moderates, while acceptable to a larger portion of the electorate (as second or third choice candidate), would lack a large enough base of first-choice votes to advance to the second round. They are inherently disadvantaged by this system.

In any case, the advantage of a majority is dubious anyway if turnout for the second round falls significantly. Is it still a strong mandate if a large number of voters found both top-two choices unacceptable?

The elimination method, by getting rid of only one candidate at a time, allows a greater range of voter preferences to come into play. Second and third choices, even fourth or fifth, can affect the outcome significantly. There is a relatively higher tendency for the more moderate, more generally acceptable candidates to be selected. If we consider that such people would likely be able to work with Congress more effectively, then this may be the better method. Unfortunately, there's the cost. If only there was a way to do this more cheaply...

Next, we look at instant run-off voting...

Plurality Voting: Has It Outlived Its Usefulness?

2007-06-11T04:33:00.000+08:00

The current voting system we use is called plurality voting. It's the most widely used system in the world at the present time. Its main advantage is simplicity: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how it works. And it works fine most of the time, IF there are only two candidates. Unfortunately, that's the exception rather than the rule in recent Philippine presidential elections. When there are three candidates or more, the limitations of plurality voting become readily apparent.

In a two-way contest, one candidate would always get the majority of the votes. He or she comes into office with an unquestioned mandate: it can't be disputed that more than half the citizens who voted preferred this particular candidate for this position. When you add another candidate to the mix, however, things can get sticky. Imagine an election in which FPJ, GMA and Raul Roco all ran for president. Suppose FPJ got 45%, GMA got 35%, and Roco got 20%. Under the rules of plurality voting, FPJ would be proclaimed president even if he didn't get a majority. A plurality (45% in this case) is all that's required. Consider what this means: 45% prefer FPJ as president, but 55% would prefer somebody else first. Clearly, this mandate won't be as strong as one accompanied by a majority.

Consider further if, hypothetically, 90% of those who voted Roco had GMA as their second choice while 10% had FPJ. Thus, if Roco were not to run, his votes would be split between FPJ and GMA, with most going to the latter. In a two-way race, GMA would have gotten 53% [35% + (20% x 90%)] while FPJ would've gotten 47% [45% + (20% x 10%)]. Given a simple choice between FPJ and GMA, the voters would choose GMA, but the addition of a third candidate to the race (Roco) sufficiently alters the dynamic to allow an FPJ victory. The result is an outcome unacceptable to 53% of the electorate, a paradoxical result.

In a real world example you might be familiar with, the 2000 U.S. presidential elections, there was a third candidate, Ralph Nader, appealing mostly to Democrats who would otherwise have gone for Al Gore. Nader was able to garner enough Democratic votes that Gore lost narrowly to G. W. Bush. If Nader hadn't run, Gore would easly have won the presidency, and with a majority at that.

Closer to home, the 1998 presidential elections saw de Venecia, Roco, Osmena, Lim, de Villa, Defensor-Santiago and Erap, among others, contesting the presidency. Erap won with 39.6% of the vote. De Venecia got 15.9%; none of the others got more than 14%. Conventional wisdom at the time had it that the same demographic was being courted by all the major candidates except Erap (who relied on his "masa") and Osmena (who represented the Cebuano vote). Had de Venecia been able to count on the votes that went instead to Roco (13.6%), Lim (8.7%), de Villa (4.8%), and Defensor-Santiago (2.9%), Erap might never have become president. As it was, Estrada was sworn in with 60.4% of the electorate preferring someone else. More importantly, perhaps as much as 45.9% (combined total of de Venecia, Roco, Lim, de Villa and Defensor-Santiago votes) thought him unacceptable for the post. Might this have contributed to his downfall three years later? Possibly.

Perhaps plurality voting is not the ideal system to use in a polity such as ours. Numerous interests as well as personal ambitions conspire to erode the influence of parties, and restoring the de facto two-party system of the pre-Marcos years remains a pipe dream. Indeed, special interest groups are quite happy with the multi-party circus we have now, and some quarters are even calling for a partyless democracy. Without political duopolies to focus diverse contending interests into two-way races, we will continue to have multiple candidacies for each election, and we will continue to run the risk of our plurality voting system producing paradoxical results.

Next, we look at run-off voting...

Remembrance of Things Past

2007-06-10T21:35:00.000+08:00

Surfing the net looking for data on past presidential elections, I came across this archived article from December 1997 in Asiaweek. It's a primer on the run-up to the '98 elections. Reading it, I was struck by all the names still in the game today. A few interesting quotes...

"Ramos's choice was hailed by many Lakas members. 'Joe will make a good president,' says Manuel Villar, congressman for Las Piñas. 'He has vast experience in economics, foreign affairs, even security. He has shown his skill in handling talks with [Muslim and Communist insurgents].' Fellow congressman Gary Teves agrees: 'Joe has talent interacting with people. He's very patient and a very good conciliator.'"

"Other potentially tough opponents for de Venecia include Senators Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Miriam Defensor Santiago (the latter was narrowly defeated by Ramos in 1992), who rank No. 2 and No. 3 respectively in popularity surveys. De Venecia's rating has largely languished in single digits, though one recent Metro Manila poll put him ahead. He sees an advantage in the number of opposition hopefuls. 'The opposition will be split,' he reckons. 'In that event, we are sure to win.'"

Wishful thinking, Joe.

Hard to believe it was almost 10 years ago. We're still living the aftermath of that particular electoral exercise.

Net Approval Voting

2007-05-26T23:11:00.000+08:00

In my previous post I had advocated instant-runoff voting and a form of net approval rating as alternatives to our current voting system, which is plurality voting. I also mentioned run-off voting (the regular kind), which is what mlq3 advocates. Though the current system has the virtue of simplicity, it often results in the selection of a winner with no absolute majority in races where there are three or more candidates. It also does not address voter dislikes, just their preferences (and only first preferences at that). For example, in 2004 a voter might have preferred Lacson to Arroyo, and under no circumstances wanted FPJ in office. As the ballot provides only one space for the voter's first preference, the voter then could either vote 'honestly' and choose Lacson, or join in an attempt to game the system and vote Arroyo (to keep FPJ out, even if GMA's just second preference). Neither case fully captures the entirety of the voter's wishes. Nuance is lost.

The ideal system should be able to capture a voter's preferences (note plural) and also his dislikes (or negative preferences, if you will).

Perhaps a Way Out

2007-05-26T01:18:00.000+08:00

mlq3 points to an interesting post by Chasing Sass on the absence of absolute majorities in our recent presidential elections. Mr. Quezon of course has long pushed for run-off elections to avoid minority presidencies. As it is now, a candidate who wins by a plurality, while good enough for our constitution, is apparently not good enough to provide effective governance.

It's a function of support: While 40% may be enough to win in a multi-candidate race, it also means 60% of voters would have preferred somebody else. It means more than half the electorate would be disposed in varying degrees to oppose the winner. Thus, only a consummate coalition builder (like Ramos) might weather a term intact. His successor as we know wasn't as lucky. And the current occupant, who has at times been exceedingly inept and at times exceedingly adept, still has 3 years to go with an opposition screaming for her blood.

No doubt an absolute majority is still to be preferred.

As it might prove well-nigh impossible to reconstruct the pre-Marcos two-party system, we have to explore other methods of producing absolute majorities. Run-off elections come first to mind. It's the simplest but costliest solution, requiring another election (the 'run-off') to determine the winner between the top 2 candidates. An alternative would be the instant-runoff, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference, and low-scoring candidates are systematically eliminated in successive rounds of counting. A good article explaining instant-runoffs can be found in Wikipedia.

Though they might produce absolute majorities, run-offs, whether regular or instant, still fail to take voters' dislikes into account, just their preferences. Even if a candidate has an absolute majority, there might still be a significant bloc of people (though less than 50%) vehemently opposed to him. If persistent and consistent enough, such a bloc could impede the candidate's ability to govern well (or in Erap's case, to govern at all). Alternatively, the candidate might use his absolute majority to bully his agenda through, without any regard for the legitimate interests of those opposed to him. It might serve better then to select for a candidate not quite as popular but more acceptable to the erstwhile opposition.

My own preference is for something akin to the 'net approval rating' so beloved of survey firms and pollsters. Just two lines in the ballot: who you're for, and who you're against. The difference between 'for' and 'against' votes gives the candidate's net approval vote. Highest net approval vote wins. Striking a balance between most popular and least offensive, the candidate then would be the most acceptable to the electorate.

There's a good article on Wikipedia that discusses voting systems. Excellent food for thought.

Selected Quotes

2007-05-25T16:15:00.000+08:00

From the comment threads in Mr. Quezon's blog.

This one from UP n student, in response to the usual rant about why, if GMA is innocent, does she keep doing her darnedest to avoid impeachment:

"... Foolish that person who, being taunted with '… if you’re innocent, what are you to be scared of?', volunteers to take a lie detector test or a DNA test. Foolish that person who, being taunted with '… if you’re innocent, what are you to be scared of?', volunteers to be arraigned before a court, whether or not TV cameras are whirring.

"Do you not know how many innocent people have been convicted and tossed into jail?"

Makes quite a point. In any case, as even mlq3 knows, impeachment is an inherently political exercise, one which values numbers above all. It was designed to be so, for what reason you'll have to ask the designers themselves. And who might they be? Why, the framers of the 1986 constitution, those paragons of 'nationalist' and socialist thought culled from the ranks of academia, 'national democrats', and (gasp) civil society, a lot of whom are now at the forefront of the mob clamoring for the midget's head. Yes, these people are the ones who designed impeachment to be a political process, a numbers game to see how many congresspersons a president can retain. These same people who were endorsed by and wrote the constitution under the aegis of the widow in yellow. So to all the commenters whining about the requirements for impeachment and the "tyranny of numbers" I can only say, blame Cory!

Of course now they'll say that the impeachment process itself is inherently flawed, and that it would be impossible to impeach a sitting president because patronage forever ensures the loyalty of a large majority of congresspeople. They conveniently forget that Erap had the same power of patronage before being unceremoniouly freighted off to Tanay. What they now say is that a special prosecutor is needed, and perhaps a 'neutral venue' for trying the case. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but wouldn't this require (hehe) Charter Change? Well, in that case I'm all for it.

The incorrigible cvj, on answering a post by Bencard disproving any 'havoc' inflicted on the economy by GMA, writes:

"... since you seem to think in purely economic terms, you might be interested to know that manufacturing output for March fell by 7.6 percent as measured by the National Statistics Office ..."

I won't dispute that fact, but keep in mind that the Philippines has among the highest manufacturing costs in the region, while China continues to have the lowest. It is much, much cheaper now to import goods from China than to manufacture them locally. It's not just our high labor costs, though that is definitely a significant part of it. The local market simply does not have the economies of scale that might allow our manufacturers to remain competitive. A Chinese company for example has an immediate market of 1 billion people on which to distribute its overhead and development costs, while a Philippine company has only 80 million. That's more than 12x the overhead on a per unit basis. Of course we can export, but even if it takes care of the overhead disadvantage, competition would still (eventually) force us to compete on cost. Sooner or later, even our companies would be forced to move their manufacturing operations to China.

Even if we move up the value chain, it's no refuge since China is already making giant strides in that direction (helped in no small way by American companies that had already been pressured to move operations to the Chinese mainland by retailers like WalMart). In any case, the capital requirements are too large, and the rewards are uncertain. What then is left? Niche markets and handicrafts, hardly industries that can sustain a nation of 80 million.

My point here is that the entire manufacturing sector of the national economy is a sunset sector, given that manufacturing costs in China won't be going up anytime soon (and by soon I mean the next decade or two). It is also extremely unlikely that our own labor costs would be going down in the near future, since even current wages are hardly enough to keep body and soul together. It is useless then to beat our breasts about the declining state of the manufacturing sector. Pouring money on the problem won't do much good either, as the fundamental facts remain. Regulatory solutions, or even a return to protectionism, would be futile since our 7000+ islands and very long coastline make smuggling easy as pie -- we'd just lose revenue.

The 7.6 percent decline in March manufacturing output should hardly be surprising.

I'm surprised it hasn't declined more sharply.

The most that any administration can do is slow down the decline of manufacturing. Whatever we do, manufacturing will eventually dwindle down until only a few niche players and handicrafts workshops remain. Sad, but inevitable. It would be best to just concentrate our limited resources on the sectors where we still have a competitive advantage, and which are safe from China's low-cost clutches for at least a couple more decades. I'm talking here of human resource export (yes, I think it should be an economic sector on its own) and BPO. So what if call-centers aren't as sexy (to the socialist mind) as factories? At least it will pay the rent until a knowledge economy matures and comes into its own.

The Occupation, Not the War

2007-05-24T23:20:00.000+08:00

It's very easy to get so caught up on our local politics that one forgets we live in a wider world community. A community that couldn't care less about our pointless shadow plays of little men, disingenuous analysis, and desperate spin. Events and issues of greater import absorb the world's attention, and of these, none has loomed larger the past few years than America's (mis)adventures in Iraq.

It's quite fashionable these days to call the Iraq War a mistake, even among those who used to support it. Not so Christopher Hitchens. The Slate columnist sticks to his guns (pun intended) and succinctly recapitulates the reasons the invasion had to take place. On reading them, one can't help but agree. So it seems it was never the Iraq War that was a mistake. It was only the Occupation that was botched, and for that we can rightly blame Bush and Rumsfeld.

What Big Teeth You Have

2007-05-24T17:58:00.000+08:00

The opposition groupthinkers who frequent mlq3's blog have gotten more vicious of late. Perhaps the rabies has entered a terminal stage. Or perhaps the bone they were thrown last election (i.e., the senate) only whetted their appetites for something actually more substantial. Sadly for them, their prey has managed to remain one step ahead. If this keeps up, we might soon witness their turning on each other in a fit of intellectual cannibalism. Not too far-fetched, and one could always hope.

In any case, there are still a few gems to be found in that putrid dumpster full of dreck. Here's two, posted by jude and Bencard.

draft: Your senators

2007-05-18T01:45:00.000+08:00

(title) The Politics of Disgust

Prior to the last election there was a running discussion on Inquirer Current between John Nery and Manuel Quezon III about the likelihood of a middle class veto.

(latest)
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/28/turning-out-the-vote/#more-137

(The relevant posts)
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/14/and-now-for-the-difficult-part/
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/12/making-our-choices/
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/10/i-could-be-wrong/
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/08/confusing-the-issue/

(other posts)
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/05/02/a-difference-of-opinion/
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/04/26/three-hypotheses/
http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/04/27/weekend-readings/

Well, the election's come and gone. Does anyone know if the boycott actually happened?

(What I think)
much less middle class participation this time round
only incorrigibles of the enteng romano type voted --> higher than usual proportion going to opposition
so: no middle class mandate for senate
middle class may not care if senate is abolished?
better prospects for charter change?

Exit poll data?
Registration data?
breakdown by demographics
historic data

Other columns to write:

Why your vote doesn't matter
The illegitimacy of the new senate
The need for a new voting system
-- something like the net approval rating in surveys?
The London election system
-- something like that for makati? for the country?
-- at least one vote per person
-- bonus votes for eductional attainment? years as taxpayer?
-- some proxy votes for corporations/investors? tied to number of employees / total investment?
-- principle: the larger the stake, the higher the weight
The utility of the state
-- the state exists for the convenience of the individual, not as an end in itself
-- ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you
-- country shopping perfectly legitimate
-- nations nothing more than brands
-- patrioism == brand loyalty --> irrational
Persona Ingrata
-- rebut jester's piece The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile: Here's to You, Jude Cross (the idiot formerly known as Judas dela Cruz)
The Fall of Pacquiao
-- of two minds
-- good that voters do not automatically choose the celebrity
-- bad that custodio is going back to the House
Blame Cory
-- ref blog comment: http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1390#comment-489443
-- the impeachment process is inherently political
-- it's a numbers game by design
-- who designed it?
-- the framers of the 1986 constitution!
-- so: blame cory and her cohorts
The Tyranny of Numbers
-- why is the tyranny of numbers so persistent?
-- choices at the local level
-- two decisions for the voter:
-- A. would he/she like arroyo impeached?
-- B. would he/she let (A) trump local issues?
-- *** packaging of issues (local with national)
-- *** vote as a package / issues are "linked"
-- local issues more important apparently
-- even if preference for impeachment, preference not strong enough to affect local issues
-- local issues favorable to admin by default --> advantage of incumbency
-- task for arroyo: linking to local issue?
-- dilemma for oppo: increasing preference for impeachment --> but: impeachment fatigue
-- so: current spin control just that, spin

The Inutility of the senate

2007-05-15T11:49:00.000+08:00

Apparently, the email of which I posted last time also has the chattering classes abuzz and thinking hard about the senate. Here are views from baratillo@cubao and Sassy Lawyer. Also a column by Jarius Bondoc. Sen. Miriam Santiago, too, makes her views well known, for what they're worth.

Is this the spark that would start a serious debate on the subject? One can only hope. Personally, my views haven't changed since the salonga senate. Even if divorced from the Arroyo issue, the senate is still useless.

The Buwaya Manifesto

2007-05-14T21:54:00.000+08:00

There's a piquant little email floating around about the senate. I don't know if it was too late to affect voter turnout significantly this election. A pity, since it could have had the same effect as Bong Austero's open letter during the height of the crisis last year. Regardless, it's worthwhile reading even if you've already voted. Every little bit that chips away at the legitimacy of an institution that might soon harbor the likes of Cheese Escudero and Alan 'Compuñeta' Cayetano helps. Personally, the only institution I'd like to see them in is the one on Nueve de Febrero. Anyway, you can read the email below...

"Maganda rin naman ang naidudulot ng pagiging prangka ni Senador Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Ayon kay Santiago, marami ang tumatakbong Senador dahil sa laki ng budget na ibinibigay sa kanila kada buwan.

"Lumalabas na P35,000 suweldo nila kada buwan ay pakitang-tao lang sa milyun-milyong budget ng bawat senador. Kada buwan ay may Fixed Monthly Budget ang bawat Senador ng humigit-kumulang P2 Milyon.

"Sa opisina pa lang nila ay humigit-kumulang P500,000 and budget nila sa Maintenance and Operating Expenses (Rental, Utilities, Supplies at Domestic Travels) at P500,000 para sa Staff at Personal expenses. Kaya para makatipid ang ibang Senador, kaunti lang ang staff na kinukuha nila. Nagtataka ka pa kung bakit mayroong mga Ghost Employee?

"Bukod diyan, may P760,000 allowance pa sila kada buwan para naman sa Foreign Travel. At ang masakit pa nito, hindi na kailngan i-liquidate ang mga resibo ng mga gastusin ‘yan kundi Certification lang ang Requirement.

"Heto pa, lahat sila ay Chairman ng mg Komite sa Senado. Ang Committee Chairman ay tumatanggap din ng budget na sinlaki ng tinatanggap ng mga Senador na humigit-kumulang P1 Milyon din! Hindi sila mawawalan ng Komite dahil 24 lang ang ating mga Senador at 37 naman ang Committee sa Senado. There’s food for everybody ‘ika nga! Lumalabas na doble ang kanilang benepesiyo at kita kapag sila ay nabiyayaan ng Committee Chairmanship.

"Sa P200 milyon na Budget para sa Pork Barrel ng mga Senador bawat taon, awtomatikong may 10% na S.O.P. o kita ng Senador na P20 milyon. Ito ang porsiyento na ibinibigay ng mga kontratista sa mga Senador na nagbibigay sa kanila ng mga Infrastructure at Livelihood Project.
"Bago matapos ang termino ng isang Senador, kumita na siya ng P100 milyon sa Pork Barrel pa lang. Yung ibang Senador mas gahaman, hindi lang 10% kundi 20 - 30% ang komisyon hinihingi sa mga kontratista.

"Pansinin niyo na lang ang pagbabago ng buhay ng ilan sa ating mga Senador simula nang manungkulan sa puwesto. Kung dati ay simple lang ang kanilang pamumuhay ngayon ay nakatira na sila sa mga eksklusibong subdivision, maraming bahay sa Pilipinas at abroad at mahigit lima ang sasakyan.

"Ngayon nagtataka ka pa ba kung bakit gumagastos ng daan-daang milyong piso ang mga Senador sa kampanya para sa isang posisyon na P35,000 lang ang suweldo kada buwan? Bawing-bawi pala ang gastos kapag naupo na!

"PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS AND LET THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNOW THAT ELECTION IS MORE OF PUTTING AMBITIOUS PEOPLE IN POSITION WHO ARE GREEDY IN POWER, WEALTH & PRESTIGE THAN OF PUBLIC SERVICE… ANG MASAKIT PA PERA NG BAYAN PARIN GAGAMITIN SA ELEKSYON MALUKLOK LANG ANG MGA BUWAYA SA PWESTO."

Do you think we can ever get rid of pork barrel and kickbacks? Not as long as a legislative branch is around. It's in their nature -- they go hand in hand. Happens in the US Congress. Happened in Quezon's Commonwealth. Will keep on happening so long as they have the power of the purse, which of course is the only real power they have. Short of taking away this power or doing away with the legislative branch altogether (not an entirely unpopular option), the best thing we can do is reduce the number of legislators. Do we really need two houses? Can we still afford two houses? This is the more important choice, the more crucial election, than the rather expensive, rather pointless exercise that ended earlier today. And based on cost vs performance, I'm pretty sure which chamber I'd rather retain. Loser: senate.

Let's Move On

2006-04-29T16:47:00.000+08:00

Yes, the title of this post is deliberately meant to rile those in the opposition, in the hope of increasing their chances of developing strokes, heart attacks, or at the very least, atherosclerosis. But wishful thinking aside, I'm posting this to call attention to the latest SWS survey, which finds that 58% of our countrymen want, as you may have already surmised, to move on.

Of course, the oppo already has that covered, having pre-emptively come out with analyses disputing the reliability of surveys, just when the tide of public opinion was turning decisively against their favor. It's a double-edged sword, one that I'll be more than happy to use should circumstances ever reverse themselves, so I won't begrudge them what little consolation they can get. Still, whether you prefer your polls with grains of salt on the side or not, this one will either perk you up or pull you down, depending on your political persuasion. Or maybe not; as some in the opposition have amply demonstrated, they just don't give a damn what the rest of their fellow citizens think.

As the Philippine Star doesn't have permalinks, here are the relevant excerpts from the report:

"More than half of Filipinos want the country to move forward from the political crisis hounding President Arroyo since last year over accusations of electoral fraud, according to a commissioned opinion poll.

Fifty-eight percent said they agreed that the opposition 'should start helping the country and stop too much politics,' according to a survey by pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS).

Fifteen percent of the 1,200 people questioned said they disagreed, 24 percent were undecided and three percent were unaware of the issues or refused to answer.

Fifty-one percent said it was time to forgo bitterness over the May 2004 presidential elections, in which Mrs. Arroyo allegedly cheated her way to victory, and let her 'focus on the real problems of the nation.'

Twenty-three percent disagreed, 24 percent were undecided and two percent had no answer.

Forty-two percent agreed that Mrs. Arroyo 'has the right plan for the nation and the economy but it is not moving fast enough as expected by the average citizen.'

Twenty-six percent disagreed and 29 percent were undecided. Three percent were unaware of the issues or refused to answer."

If you haven't already done so, feel free to start ostracizing those who are obdurately in the opposition. Do not invite them to social gatherings, do not fraternize with them, put them in your Snubster list, make them feel that they are dead to you. Perhaps we'll get lucky and they'll all leave the country. Let them go to Venezuela or Cuba or wherever they think they'll be appreciated. Then we can finally get some work done.

Analyses on the reliability of surveys, among other things, can be found in Philippine Commentary:

Public Opinion Polling as a Genre of Journalism
How the Surveys Have Lost Their Sting
"SWS" Survey: Fallacy of the Leading Question In Aid of Propaganda

SWS' media release of their March 2006 survey can also be found in their website.

Never Again

2006-04-21T02:23:00.000+08:00

An essay by inveterate opposition internet denizen M. Buencamino in Business Mirror castigates the middle-classes' cravenness to their upper-class masters (yawn) and questions their continued relevance to national issues. My initial reaction was 'here we go again, they can't enlist any support from the middle for their agenda, so they resort to casting aspersions on its collective character and asking if it is even needed'. Well of course the middle class isn't necessary; the opposition has been courting it assidiously for almost a year now, just for the pure heck of it.

But back to his essay. On reading it again, I thought Buencamino did make at least one good point, only he may not have realized it. Thus, in the spirit of amity and reconciliation, I've decided to focus on that particular point of agreement, so that, using everyone's favorite phrase du jour, we can all move on. Here's the choice excerpt:

"The middle values stability. Their biggest fear is slipping off the ladder and falling back into the masa’s arms. They will not take chances."

Agreed. Stability is such an underrated virtue these days, especially among certain quarters. Glad to know the middle still values it. And rightly so that they are apprehensive of falling back into penury. Really, we already have enough poor people in this country as it is; creating any more would be downright immoral. This distaste for ill-considered adventurism moved by well-justified fear of possible consequences would in saner societies be called prudence; over here, it's yet another underrated virtue.

As for the chances we are asked to take... What exactly would be gained? More uncertainty? Another bad precedent? Another bad president? No, thank you, but we'd rather not have any more political instability and capital flight than is absolutely necessary. We'd rather not have the possibility of another Erap assuming the throne. One more of him and we're done for. Seriously. IMHO, that's what the middle classes had in mind when they marched in EDSA Dos and chanted "Never again!" But, of course, you already knew that.

Having disdainfully dismissed the middle class, Buencamino then goes on to take the poor for granted, before finally devoting the major part of his essay to a pathetic attempt to sow dissension in the ranks, ostensibly by warning the rich that the erstwhile parvenu living by the Pasig can quite easily bite the hands that feed her. Of course, from his tone, he probably couldn't care less if that happened, if only it wasn't the detested midget doing the biting.

I know that what passes for the opposition's brain trust is starved for ideas, fixated as they are on pretermination like pit bulls to a scrawny leg. But really, is this the best they can do?

Other more rational, thoughtful and, yes, moderate reactions to the essay can be had elsewhere on the interweb, if you'd prefer something other than this rather bilious take at it. Two I particularly like are posted by baratillo books cinema @ cubao and Out of my mind.

Driving Opportunity Away

2006-04-15T19:17:00.000+08:00

Today's piece in Alex Magno's column in the Philippine Star perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on the so-called brain drain currently being decried by the usual opportunistic politicos, greedy (yet inefficient) pseudo-nationalist businessmen, and (of course) our unexportable state-university intelligentsia. To wit, instead of looking at it as a problem, we need to look at it as an opportunity. If we find the supply drying up, the solution is NOT to bottle it up and hide it in the cupboard, thereby creating a huge class of pissed-off, underpaid professionals. Rather, the solution lies in taking advantage of the demand and, more importantly, expanding the supply. As Magno notes, the private sector is doing exactly that, moving swiftly to expand the supply of pilots, nurses, IT personnel, etc. This is being done even without any government support or incentives, though thankfully there isn't any government interference either.

Increasing the supply is the only solution equitable to all parties concerned. Being based on market forces, it's also the most stable and thus the most suited for the long-term. To take the perverse path being peddled by the usual suspects would not only be equivalent to creating a new indentured caste, but would also be tantamount to driving a great opportunity away.

N.B. The Philippine Star has a problem with permalinks, and articles posted on their servers have a habit of disappearing after a few days. Such, unfortunately, is the case here. Copyright concerns prevent me from reproducing the entire article, and laziness precludes me from producing a suitable summary. If you have access to the Star's archives, then you can find Mr. Magno's piece in the April 13, 2006 issue. The title is Cameroon.

Stay the Course

2006-04-14T03:35:00.000+08:00

Recent developments in fellow Third World economies, particularly in Latin America, indicate a reaction setting in, a swing of the pendulum if you will, against globalization, what with the rise of left-leaning politicians in these countries. We should welcome this development with open arms, if not with glee, and encourage it to the utmost. Why so, you ask? Because, if nothing else, a widespread backlash against globalization would effectively reduce the number of economies receptive to foreign direct investment. In other words, it would effectively reduce our competition. One reason among others why growth has been relatively sluggish in the SEA region the past decade is that most of the world had seen the error of their ways during the 90s and have since been hewing strictly to economic orthodoxy. Though this doubtless makes the TNCs happy, it means more work for economies like us to compete in luring them. With our inability to get our political act together, our focus and performance have been spotty at best. So anything that could diminish the competition would be very welcome. We must thus do our utmost to encourage this new wave of socialist reaction, to the extent of encouraging these would-be Chavezes and latter-day Castros diplomatically, if discreetly. If possible, we must encourage our national democratic comrades to go abroad and help these neo-Sandinistas in their struggles against the running dogs of capitalism, preferably on a permanent basis. We must export our anti-globalization and anti-Davos types to foreign capitals, to foment the locals into rejecting WTO membership and picketing the TNC offices. If we succeed in this, a new Iron Curtain should soon descend in the different places we've targeted. And all we'd have to do then is just stay the orthodox economic course and wait for the capital to pour in.

Replies to Responses

2006-04-08T16:25:00.000+08:00

Recently browsing the comment thread in Mr. Quezon's blog, I came across someone who was hoping for an embargo by foreign powers in response to "gluemac’s undemocratic ways". Now something like that happening is, as we know, highly unlikely, but what got my goat was his attitude (I'll assume the poster was male) that anything was acceptable, just so Midgie is kicked out of Malacanang. What the hell, it's my pocketbook, not to mention the pocketbooks of millions of other citizens, he's talking about when he daydreams of embargoes. Though it's a policy of mine to comment in other blogs as little as possible (not because I can't stand the arguments, but because I'm too lazy to write replies to any responses, and I don't want my silence misconstrued as assent or surrender), I felt I had to put pen-to-paper / fingers-to-keyboard on this one, for the sole fact that it was really quite upsetting. Against my better judgment, I clicked 'Submit' and sent my comment.

a de brux was quick to the defense, and the original commenter, in a pig's eye, clarified his position. My replies:

adb,

i’m afraid the irony in your reply is lost on me. it’s not really very funny when one’s prospects is bound inextricably to the local economy, and held hostage by scorched-earth politics. though to some extent i am insulated (as i believe you are, too), not everyone is so fortunate. without even taking into account the opportunity costs, the real economic costs alone of almost one year of continuous political war is already too much to bear. as it is now, it’s almost like mutually assured destruction, with the caveat that one can no longer count on the other side being rational, and thus have to assume they will indeed push the red button. that the economy had performed as well as it had was the surprising thing. imagine the growth we’d have had if the political climate had remained fairly stable.

in any case, such an embargo could never happen. my main objection is the attitude that anything’s acceptable, even if it adversely affects the national economy ON WHICH MOST OF OUR CITIZENS STILL DEPEND, just as long as the midget’s booted out. an attitude that cavalierly disregards other citizens’ economic well-being, property, and even lives for this particular crusade.

opposition need not be destructive. witness the Black and White Movement, which goes out of its way not to inconvenience fellow citizens or negatively affect the business climate. i’m sure a lot of people like me who are otherwise opposed to their views still appreciate their consideration (even if i can’t resist making fun of them at times).

we’re already in a hole. let’s not dig ourselves in any deeper.

in a pig’s eye,

“the desire to see the least of our brethren well schooled, clothed, housed, respected and able to stand first among equals amongst people of other nations” is probably shared by 99.99% of our countrymen. we differ in the ways that we think best in achieving it. i merely believe an embargo, or anything to damage the economy for that matter, is not the best way to go about it.

Yes, I am such a linkwhore indeed. My apologies to MLQ3.

Non-event

2006-04-08T03:31:00.000+08:00

It's pathetic and rather sad how the oppo is trying to make the most mileage out of the critical NYT editorial that came out last Wednesday. For one thing, does it matter what the Times thinks? Last I checked, the Republicans are still in power, and the likelihood that the current US administration will give a flying f**k what some liberal East Coast journalist-types write about is roughly the same as the chance that Arroyo would take her cue from Cacho-Olivares' Daily Tribune. Needless to say, what goes for the NYT does not necessarily go for the US government. Far from it; for what it's worth, it's more likely to do the opposite of whatever the Times suggests.

Having said that, it's also pathetic and rather sad how the palace people went all into crisis mode (ok, semi-crisis mode) when the editorial came out, when it would have been much more dignified to just ignore it. At most, they could've released a statement acknowledging it as opinion from a private entity (which it is), that relations with the US remained strong and friendly (which they are, for those who take their cue from Uncle Sam), and that democracy, for better or worse, is hardly in any danger (PDI is still around, right?). But no, they got their panties all bunched up about a non-event, and sent Romulo and company demanding satisfaction from the Times, among other things. Très uncool.

Enjoy the holidays.

Rain on Their Parade

2006-04-05T05:50:00.000+08:00

Thaksin resigns, and our own oppo is sure to follow up with their "Why can't Gloria be like that?" chest-beatings all through today and perhaps through the entire week. But before they start expressing admiration for PM Shinawatra, and envy for the 'democratic' hordes in Bangkok, perhaps they should read first these two articles in Newsweek, to put things in proper perspective:

Why Thaksin Is Tanking by Ruchir Sharma
A 'Fragile Foundation' by George Wehrfritz and Joe Cochrane

I don't see what these could do but rain on their parade.

[More on comparisons between Arroyo and Shinawatra in my previous post, After the Fall.]

After the Fall

2006-04-05T05:24:00.000+08:00

If anything, what's happened to Shinawatra is more like EDSA Dos, rather than the first incarnation of people power in 1986. As Ruchir Sharma writes, "[Thailand] is in the midst of an elitist uprising, centered in Bangkok, home to 6 million of its 65 million people and most of its real wealth. There thousands of middle- and upper-class Thais are angered by, among other things, the economy's poor performance; Thailand has been among the worst performing emerging markets for two years running."

Sound familiar? Take a look at the stock exchange and the peso in the waning days of the previous administration. Take a look at GDP growth (or non-growth) for the final three years of the Marcos era. Further evidence that what drives revolutions and regime change alike is economics, the citizens' collective pocketbook. Freedom fighters and idealists make a lot of noise and drama, and often get themselves killed in the process. Quite romantic, if you're the sort, and not really a bad way to die, into the breach and all. But in the final analysis, they are window-dressing. They provide the rationalizations and weave the myths that the victors write into the history books. But the decisions that matter most are determined by the soulless indicators and indices trending implacably downwards. Decisions by moguls to withhold investments and finance the opposition. Decisions by middle managers to follow their bosses. Decisions by ordinary people, feeling the pinch in their thinned-out wallets, to join the protests in hopes it will get better after the fall. At best, the true believers are merely catalysts. And as anyone who has studied any chemistry knows, catalysts can only hasten, but can never drive, the inevitable reaction. Meaningful, significant change is driven by, yes Virginia, the cold hard cash of self-interest.

But I digress. As I was saying, Thaksin is more similar to Erap than to Arroyo, and not just because he is a fellow populist with overwhelming support among the poor. The campaign to unseat him, like the one to oust Erap, was driven mainly by the middle and upper classes, and smells faintly of class war. Alas, as Wehrfritz and Cochrane note, "the middle-class protesters furious at Thaksin simply don't trust elections to produce good leaders." Oh dear, and these were the very champions of democracy. More from the same article: "Sondhi Limthongkul, a key member of the anti-Thaksin alliance, believes the rural Thais who form the backbone of Thaksin's support are too uneducated and easily manipulated to be allowed to choose the country's next leader." Tut tut and tsk tsk, I'm speechless. At least over here we still pay lip service to democracy. And yet there are those in our own oppo falling all over themselves in Bangkok envy, extolling the brave Thai opposition, or praising Mr. Shinawatra for his consideration. Were they to apply the same standard here, they'd all be going rah-rah for Cha-Cha, and thanking Erap profusely for having given way to Arroyo.

My fearless prediction: the Thais will soon find themselves defending their little revolution from the same criticisms we had to endure after EDSA Dos. Perhaps Ms. Arroyo should send a congratulatory telegram to whomever succeeds Mr. Shinawatra, forthwith and with much haste. It's only fitting.

Eat for Democracy

2006-03-30T13:03:00.000+08:00

The Black Friday Protest Movement's activity for tomorrow is Breakfast for Democracy. No kidding. How I wish I had a stake in a Jollibee franchise just now. Then again, it would probably have a miniscule impact on sales.

Though it is very difficult not to make fun of them because of the pathetic depths they've been reduced to, still, we have to respect them for their consideration in not inconveniencing the rest of us. No traffic-inducing rallies during rush-hour, for example, a big improvement. Or maybe they just ran out of funds for hakot. Regardless, let them eat their Chickenjoy in peace.

Feel free to join them, if you're so inclined, or you can just Breathe for Democracy.

Take Back Black!

2006-03-22T01:35:00.000+08:00

Goddamit, I can't wear black anymore without seeming to be a comrade of Dinky's. Fingering privileges aside, it's like when a political party drapes itself with the flag, only worse -- they've appropriated half my entire wardrobe!

Two can play at that game, though. Henceforth, from this day forward, I do hereby declare khaki as the official color of the administration. All artifacts of this color, including but not limited to clothing, banners, furniture, fruit, dirt and bare skin, shall hereafter be considered as signifying approval, support, or at least sufferance for the current occupant of Malacanang and/or her policies.

Take that, fashion thieves!

Wear khaki if you support Arroyo, or oppose the opposition.

What the hell, wear it with black if you want to.

Screwed

2006-03-22T00:28:00.000+08:00

One comment I recently came across in Mr. Quezon's blog:

"Wonder if Gloria is feeling jittery?
I bet she will be holding boodles and picnic parties with the military.
She’ll be using them as her sword of Damocles.
Not a good political tack but definitely an advantage for the anti-Arroyo forces (civilian and military). Gloria is giving them a tool of PASSION to strike back at her with double PASSION.
Hah! That should keep her busy as a bee from governing."
[emphasis mine]

The last line in particular pretty much sums up some of these people's attitudes. Nevermind if they screw the country, as long as they get to screw her.

So it's no surprise really when the rest of the country tells them to screw themselves.

Wolf

2006-03-21T23:59:00.000+08:00

Opposition legislators planning to file impeachment case again. Ho hum. This is starting to become normal and routine. Like the boy who cried wolf, and like those who issue American homeland security alerts, they've managed to inure the public to their dire warnings and protestations. Pity when the time comes that they're actually right.

Still, I suppose it's a blessing. The legislative antics put us firmly in the league of contemporary South Korea and Taiwan. That this also passes for normalcy in those places should convince investors it's not that scary to put their money here after all.

Franchises, Diversity of Views

2006-03-15T22:31:00.000+08:00

cvj comments on my previous post, and is thankful i've given voice and form to the "21st century Filipino middle class variant of fascism". quite flattered, my initial instinct was to accept this gracefully and just rest on my laurels, content to wait for the near future when i'd be receiving royalties for my own little version of Mein Kampf. but courtesy demands a reply, and creature of habit that i am, i have no choice but to set aside my complacent laziness, and start typing my response.

but first, what indeed is fascism? almost always, the term is never self-descriptive; it is so loaded and has been so misappropriated that often its only use arises when one party wants to tar-and-feather another. by supporting the current administration, we'd long ago been called fascists by those dedicated to its downfall, way way before i supposedly confessed to being one. it is useless to object to and contest their definition, as useless as it is to argue with most of them. they think we are fascists? very well then, we will embrace it as a badge of honor. they profess to abhorr fascism? very well then, it must have some redeeming qualities, and we will consider its aspects more seriously. they call us fascists to our face? very well then, fascism can't be too bad.

let us look at 'A'.

in my original post i expressed a reluctance to give more weight to the opinions of those more passionate about their causes. i stand by my belief that passion, or the lack of it, is irrelevant to the worth of one's political position. it does not automatically confer correctness, logic, or even clarity. its only contribution is drama. indeed, it was to guard against such passions that the founding fathers of the US designed a representative (some would say restrictive) rather than a more direct type of democracy. they were as wary of democracy run amuck with emotions as they were of tyrants.

yet there are those who would insist that their views are more valid, just because they take the time to march on the streets. they denigrate those who refuse to participate in that way, and call them apathetic, a state of mind they would have no way of knowing. do they realize how that appears to the rest of us? what it looks like is that just because the opposition does not have the numbers, they now have to claim a greater worth for the few who are with them. a selective application, if any, of the democracy that they so profess to espouse.

i agreed with torn's statement that there would be violent reaction from those wedded to the 'one-man-one-vote' principle. i myself have my doubts about the principle. as i've posted before, i think a minimum educational qualification would, um, 'improve' the electorate, if you'll forgive the newspeak. so my opposition to torn's statement has less to do with defending that principle, than with an objection to his particular basis for restricting the franchise. still, whether you're wedded to that principle, or take the more extreme view i espouse, i think you'll find it an objectionable idea. after all, those who are truly not interested wouldn't even bother going to the polls. why force the issue and second-guess who these people would be?

with regard to 'D', i affirm the parenthetical statement. unlike in the physical world, diversity of views is to be commended in weblogs, where they do not hinder economic progress. lest there be any mistake, i say this unironically. in plummy tones and with as much gravitas i can manage, even. i do hope cvj was not in any way belittling this vibrant virtual marketplace of ideas. even if it is not as disruptive or dramatic as actual rallies, it is a lot more constructive and useful, the occasional flame war notwithstanding. and in any case, he is part of it.

gah, i've already spent too much time on this. back to work. next, some other time, when i feel like it, we'll look at 'B' and 'C', and maybe construct a theoretical underpinning for the Philippine middle class' will to power. then again, maybe not; as torn notes, perhaps we have neither the energy nor the principles to ever truly achieve fascism.

my thanks to mr. jugo for challenging me to synthesize these disparate musings into something resembling a consistent, systematic school of thought. i assure him, i'm working on it. if i finally get around to writing it down in a book or propaganda pamphlet, it will be dedicated to him, whether he likes it or not.

Annotations

2006-03-10T18:05:00.000+08:00

Annotations to Torn & Frayed's post on the suitability of democracy for Southeast Asia:

"Aglionby’s interpretation (in common with that of Arroyo’s supporters) seems to rest on quite a narrow interpretation of representative democracy more suited to 'mature' democracies than the more volatile polities of the developing world."

Indeed, this is exactly what we want for the Philippines and what we think is what the country badly needs.

"I do think that the person who gets off his/her ass to stand on Ayala or Edsa has a greater right to political recognition than Johnny Stay-at-Home who is prepared to put up with almost anything (of course I am not talking about a hakot crowd here)."

So you're talking about restricting the franchise, eh? And not just basing it on some form of qualification, but making it proportional to what you perceive is the voter's passion on a particular issue. So, for example, if I were prepared to die for, say, (choose any silly or not-so-silly issue to put here) and everyone else is lukewarm against it, my vote would count far more than ten of theirs? By your logic, die-hard communists would have more rights to see their views through than the numerically superior but lukewarm bourgeoisie. By the same token, a enraged middle class up in arms against Estrada had more weight than the hordes of unwashed masses supporting him. Oh wait, that was what I've been arguing all along. Yeah. Thank you for proving my point :)

"If you are not prepared to participate, should we really heed you?"

And how the hell do we pro-ad people participate? By staging mass rallies and demonstrations? Please, we've already decried the opposition doing that. It would be hypocritical of us to inconvenience you in turn. Besides, unless one lives in Cuba or North Korea, one does not go to rallies and demonstrations to display support for a sitting administration. In western democracies, I think, one would read the papers and just keep a stiff upper lip. And when elections come, vote to keep the current dispensation in power. That is the time-honored way for the majority to participate.

"Of course, one could go on about these matters all night..."

Amen.

Annotation to cvj's comment in mlq3's blog:

"Democratic and other such values aside, if i wanted to look only after my own middle class interest, i would certainly look the other way when GMA does what she can to remain in power. In the meantime, i’ll support moves to change the Constitution so that the Head of State would never depend upon direct voting by the population. In that way, the trauma Erap presidency and the specter of an FPJ candidacy or a Noli Vice presidency would never be repeated. This is how the fascist framework fits so neatly with middle class aspirations. These are the new middle class values, post EDSA2."

Indeed, I totally agree with everything you said. Just a few things I'd like to add. First is, what's good for the middle class is good for the country. Yeah. That's right. Let that sink in. We don't want a larger share of the pie. What we want is a bigger pie for all. And a bigger middle class too. Preferably through upward mobility of the lower class, not downward mobility of the upper class.

Second is, what's wrong with fascism? Yup. Let that sink in, too. As long as we don't invade other countries and don't commit any Holocausts, I'd sure like to see our trains run on time (figuratively speaking, since our actual trains already do). Without taking into account institutional racism, and without considering hostilities with other countries, which are really different issues, I'd like to know what the disadvantages of fascism are. Just asking.

Annotation to mlq3's reaction to my reaction to his reaction:

A clarification of my position: Democracy, like other institutions, has to have a usefulness to the societies that employ them. It does not exist for its own sake. Its usefulness is also what ensures its persistence in the societies that enjoy it. The moment it ceases to be useful to the national consensus is the moment it becomes vulnerable to being swept away into the dustbin of history. Such may have been the case in the runup to martial law, when the majority stood by while Marcos instituted his New Society in the name of Ordnung. In the years that followed, the usefulness of what was lost became more apparent. Democracy, after all, functions best in removing incompetent leaders. As Marcos became more and more incompetent, the imperative for democracy to be reinstituted grew. So we had EDSA. An incompetent leader was removed, and democracy proved its worth. Now, however, it has become a hindrance to economic progress, which I think is a priority to the national consensus. It has become, in its present form, useless.

A slavish devotion to democracy, turning a blind eye to the flaws of its particular implementation, does our polity a disservice. I am not against democracy per se, since it has its uses. I just want people to turn a critical eye to it, and think of ways to implement it without hindering, nevermind helping, economic progress. Indeed, retaining democracy would ensure the long-term stability of the polity, and thus provide the foundations for long-term growth. It is this simple: Make democracy useful, and it will not lack for support.

It is when democracy is worshipped mindlessly, flaws, warts and all, that I fear. That is when everything else will be sacrificed to its altar, demagogues and populists reign supreme, and the time to flee has come.

Micketymoc has a blog. I didn't know that.

Missed this guy in mlq3's comment threads. With adb and company making groupthink almost inevitable, micketymoc was a breath of fresh air. Highly recommended.

To be fair, though, some oppo posters like karl and cvj are more discerning, but are evidently a minority. Pro-ad comments now are likely to get one accused of being in (hehe) Luli Arroyo's Internet Brigade. I wish. Taking up the cudgels for this administration is a thankless job!

Will be out of town till Monday. To everyone, readers, friends, and critics alike, happy weekend :)

The Original Polemic

2006-03-10T12:23:00.000+08:00

Just found out today the author of the most widely circulated open letter on the current crisis, a certain Bong Austero. Mr. Austero is more civilized and holds views that, I think, are more mainstream than mine, but he blogs and his posts are definitely worth reading. For those who've been under a rock the past few weeks, his open letter can be found here.

Vote With Your Feet

2006-03-09T18:45:00.000+08:00

Mr. Quezon's blog post today asks what the silent majority would do if the tables were turned and found itself the minority. I can only say, I would hope we'd enjoy the same amount of freedom and license that the noisy minority is thoroughly enjoying today. But apart from that, the hypothetical concept that we're a minority necessarily assumes that most people have by then accepted that the economy is no longer paramount, and that democracy, malfunctioning or not, is already an end in itself. In which case, it may no longer be feasible to mount an EDSA uprising, either because the numbers would be lacking, or the opposition of a larger segment of society would make the resulting government unsustainable. In which case, I'd advise all who are still sane to liquidate all their assets and look for a new country. The time when we're no longer the majority is the time when the Philippines has begun its final descent.

Democracy is a Function of the Economy

2006-03-09T04:00:00.000+08:00

One of the most discerning epistles on the current crisis I've recently found is in Edwin Lacierda's website. Now Mr. Lacierda, from what I've gleaned from his other posts, seems determinedly against the current occupant of Malacanang. Nonetheless, his letter, although apparently intended to explain and recruit support for Arroyo's ouster, would (taken another way) confirm and support the positions held by those he opposes. I've therefore taken the liberty of quoting and commenting on his assertions, for the purpose of further clarifying where both camps stand. As the chances of ever reaching a consensus diminish by the day, this will I hope give an understanding of why that is so.

"...democracy is more than putting food on the table or seeing the peso appreciate against the dollar..."

This is a fundamental statement of values and priorities. Some would beg to differ. In which case it would be useless to argue any further.

"If it were so, Cuba would have been one of the best democracies in the world, since it is reputed to have one of the best health care systems in the Southern Hemisphere."

Wrong example. Cuba may excel in healthcare but does well in nothing else. (Ok, cigars. But that's it!) As it is, they've sacrificed democracy for nothing*. The model we're looking at is more along the lines of Singapore, or Hong Kong before Chris Patten, or Taiwan under the Kuomintang, or South Korea under Park and Company, or Augusto Pinochet's Chile. Even Mahathir Mohammad's Malaysia, or the so-called People's Republic of China. But please, not Cuba!

* There are Cubans who would dispute this, and claim their "democratic socialist revolution has achieved the workers' paradise", or somesuch communist, er, national democratic drivel. Indeed, it could be argued that Castro's victory was populism's triumph.

"If your friend's child was murdered and you know who murdered the child, do you tell your friend, 'think positive and move forward'? Will your friend not go the extra mile and see that the murderer be brought to justice?"

Without further flogging the dead horse that a murderer must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and without going into the fact that the prescribed process for removing a sitting president (impeachment) is essentially political and meant to be so (so it's no use crying over its result), I think the difference between us is the degree in which we are affected by the supposed misdeed.

You compare it to murder. Heavy stuff. That's your prerogative. I see it as something just a little bit more serious than Totoy looking at a codigo during the finals. I'm really not prepared to give Totoy the death penalty for this. In fact, I might even forgive him for it if it was to forestall a 'greater evil' (say, his dad was going to flog him or something for failing the exam). More even, if it was on my behalf (like keeping Erap or FPJ from the presidency). There, I've said it. Again, a unbridgeable difference in values and priorities. Useless to argue.

"If the country is doing badly economically, will one agree with those who go out to the streets, justify the political noise, and pray for her reign in government to end?"

Oh yeah, definitely! We'll beat you to the barricades, even! And if you want proof, just look at Edsa Dos. Don't get any ideas, though. We can smell economic sabotage a mile away.

"...who is the greater fool? The fool who insists on the truth, or the fool who puts blinders on his eyes and trusts this present government to do what is morally right?"

We do not trust this government to do what is morally right. We trust this government to do what would ensure its self-preservation. Namely, to manage the economy competently. Sort of like China, where the ruling class' legitimacy derives from its being able to maintain a high growth rate. That would be the ideal. If ever Arroyo (or any other President, for that matter) falters, through her own fault and not through circumstances beyond her control (like oil prices and opposition stunts), then I'm quite prepared to eat my words and, as I've said, march in the barricades.

"In essence, to summarize the position of the silent majority, democracy has become a function of the economy..."

Thank you for acknowledging our position as the majority's. Very generous of you.

Personally, I view democracy as a means to an end, which is economic progress and, consequently, a decent standard of living for everyone. It is also, when judiciously implemented, generally the best mechanism to ensure a political economy's long-term stability and, therefore, its long-term growth. However, I suspect its local implementation, reflected by our political culture, has long ago turned malignant, and its current manifestations hinder rather than help the end for which it exists. In other words, the exercise of our version of democracy prevents rather than facilitates our economic progress. As I do not support democracy as an end in itself, it means either that it must be totally replaced, or radically revamped (read: Chacha). I'd rather we do a radical revamp instead of junking it entirely, for the purpose of long-term stability. But that's just me.

"Sounds very practical but, unfortunately, very amoral. What does that teach our children? And, again unfortunately, what does that speak of our values?"

Our values, and our children's values, have been changing since even before Arroyo came into Malacanang. Look at how many have voted with their feet and left the country. Look at their preferred destinations: vibrant economies with jobs aplenty. Some of them are even functional democracies. But ask the would-be emigre why he or she chose that particular country. Chances are, it's not because of the right of suffrage, or the lively parliamentary debates, or the multitude of political parties. It's because of the strong economy. "Mataas ang sweldo!" Fact: People vote with their pocketbooks. Bill Clinton got this. "It's the economy, stupid!" he said. His Georgetown classmate, and a lot of her countrymen, apparently get it too.

Arroyo is the product of our values, not the other way around.

As for myself, all I can say is, I wasn't alive when Japan left us in the dust. I was too young to care when Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea overtook us. I've seen Thailand and Malaysia pull away further and further in my lifetime. But I'll be damned if see Vietnam or, heaven forbid, Cambodia do it as well. Hell, no!

"Indeed, apathy and indifference, former sins, are the new virtues of this age. They are the weapons of mass distraction foisted by the government. That notwithstanding, Dante has reserved the apathetic and the indifferent to one of the lowest rungs of hell."

It would be foolish to misconstrue support for this government as mere apathy and indifference. I think quite a lot of people are going in with their eyes wide open, and casting their lot with her nonetheless.

As for Dante, I think he placed those who were neither for nor against God (which JFK very liberally interpreted as neutrality, not apathy or indifference) in a special region near the mouth of Hell. The lowest part of Hell, if I'm not mistaken, was specifically reserved for traitors.

So there. It could be just me, but the overall effect I got on reading it was a clearer enunciation of my own position, and its affirmation as well. It also convinced me there was little or no chance for compromise, as fundamental differences in values and priorities are evident. At least hostilities are confined to polemics. That's something.

Selective Vision

2006-03-07T00:40:00.000+08:00

Big to-do in the blogosphere over what mlq3 calls "The Battle of the Epistles". Lively discussion also going on in the comments thread of Ricky Carandang's site. Posters have pretty much covered the issues, both pro and con. The only thing I want to add is this:

Everytime someone decides to forward a particular email for or against the administration, that person tacitly endorses it. That person, in effect, votes for it. How and when this tacit vote acquires a lesser value than, say, hanging around a Starbucks wearing black and sipping lattes (snicker), I do not know. But that's basically what Enteng Romano implies at the end of his very own epistle. So what if we registered our approval or disapproval electronically by forwarding an email? For that matter, so what if we showed our displeasure with these people by not getting off our asses on Feb. 25, or by not getting orange mocha frappucinos last Friday? By exercising our right to remain silent? Who is Enteng to judge the worthiness of our means of expression? Lest he forget, mockery works both ways :)

Having said that, I think the opposition deserves kudos for their new tack. Say what you will about their Starbucks gimmicks, but at least they're no longer causing traffic jams or scaring away investments. Now, if only something can replace their coup-mongering, we might even have here the beginnings of a loyal opposition.

Thanks to mlq3 for mentioning this blog. This guy really does check his referrers list. Amazing. Unfortunately, I still have to keep him in The Freezer. My apologies, mlq3, if you're reading this, but it's a matter of principle. I'm pretty sure, though, that you'll take it more as a mark of distinction. In which case, you're welcome.

Traditional Telcos Running Scared

2006-03-04T22:56:00.000+08:00

A couple of stories these past few days seem to indicate this. First is on inq7.net, and involves a major Philippine telco. Another was featured just a while ago on the ABS-CBN program, XXX. A reporter accompanied NTC operatives to arrest a distributor of VoIP phones and services which allow users to call landlines in the US and elsewhere for just PhP1.00 per minute (that's PhP60.00/hour). Obviously this would devastate the telcos' international long-distance business if it becomes more popular. It could even devastate their local long-distance profits. Which is why they're panicking. Of course, the NTC raid was ostensibly because of the multi-level marketing scheme of the VoIP start-up, with some distibutors complaining of not getting their cuts. Everything the telcos and the NTC did is, of course, legal and above-board. Still, my conspiracy-prone mind thinks there might be more happening behind the scenes. I'm not accusing anyone of anything; heavens, no, this is just opinion. You go figure for yourself.

My personal view on this is that VoIP should be thoroughly deregulated for it to provide the maximum benefit to Filipino consumers. Declaring it a value-added service (which allows non-telcos to offer it) was a step in the right direction, but then the NTC put up regulatory roadblocks that unfairly favor the traditional telcos. Capitalization and performance bond requirements of PhP10-million and PhP5-million, respectively, discriminate against non-telco players, while the telcos (which could easily afford these) are exempt. Even worse, service providers are required to enter into an agreement with the telcos before offering VoIP. This means that, to quote Disini, "The telcos can simply set terms and conditions for VoIP VAS providers, and if the latter don't want to accept them, then they can't offer the service even if those terms and conditions are unreasonable." This means there's little chance of consumers getting the lowest rate. Whatever we pay for VoIP, a substantial chunk of it will still go to the traditional telcos, at little or no cost to them. Chances are, it's the telcos themselves that will provide VoIP, and we'll have no choice at all.

Cheap international and even national long-distance phone calls are against the interests of the traditional telcos, burdened as they are by their legacy networks, from which they'd prefer to wring out every last drop of profit. So for them to provide VoIP, which can drastically lower the costs of these calls, is very much counterproductive to them. They would rather pervert the service. They'd make it expensive enough to keep their profits. Even independent VoIP providers are required to negotiate agreements with the telcos, so we can't expect them to be any cheaper. Result: instead of PhP1.00/minute, we have PLDT's PhP5.00/minute -- five times more expensive than VoIP could, and should, be! Instead of protecting consumers, the NTC is further driving them to fly-by-night VoIP providers, since only they could provide its real benefits.

It is not the state's duty to ensure that large corporations do not go bankrupt. They made their bets on these old technologies, they should face the consequences. It is not the state's role to hold back technological progress. It is not the state's role to force consumers to subsidize unimaginative corporate decision-making. Deregulate VoIP as it should have been deregulated. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the big telcos take the hit as they should. That's the least the NTC could do.

The Franchise Isn't for Everyone

2006-03-04T22:10:00.000+08:00

Recent (and not so recent) events have convinced me more and more that a limitation of the franchise would be beneficial to the Philippines. The concept of "one equal vote per adult" after all was not generally accepted in democracies until the middle of the last century. Prior to that, the right to vote in most democracies was contingent on financial situation, landholdings, sex, race, or other factors.

While I certainly don't advocate using any of these qualifications again, it might be worth considering limiting the franchise to those who have finished high school, who are at least more likely to think for themselves and less prone (I hope) to the blandishments of populists. Since education is provided by the state up to the high school level, everyone is given the chance to be enfranchised. One side benefit, too, is that the powers-that-be will have even more incentive to improve the state education system. We have an age qualification for voters, why not (a very basic) educational qualification as well?

Given the difficulty, though, of taking back the franchise, the next best thing is to make our democracy less of a direct type and more of a representative type. Instead of a directly elected head of government (one level of representation removed), having a PM elected by elected MPs (two levels removed) would provide more insulation. The executive won't have to pander to populist passions, and opportunistic populists won't be elected to the executive. And to those who would say this setup is less democratic, I don't hear the British, or Canadians, or Australians, or Germans complaining. You don't like how your MPs voted, then don't re-elect them. Democracy isn't diminished, only its worse excesses tamed.

Self-Appointed Guardians

2006-03-04T04:22:00.000+08:00

Came across this comment in mlq3's site a couple of days ago. Though I don't agree with all that the poster said, it pretty much captures what I, and I think a lot of other people, feel. As it is an open letter, I am reproducing it here, and I intend to email it to everyone I know as well. If you agree with it, I would suggest you do the same...

Open Letter to Our Leaders

Dear Tita Cory, Senators, Congressmen, Businessmen, Media people, Leftists, and all Bleeding Hearts Out There:

I am angry. And I know that there are many out there who are angrier than I am for the same reason. And that reason is simple. I am sick and tired of all you guys claiming to speak for me and many Filipinos. I feel like screaming every time you mouth words about fighting for my freedom and my rights, when you obviously are just thinking about yours. You tell me that the essence of democracy is providing every citizen the right to speak his or her mind and make his or her own informed judgments, but you yourselves do not respect my silence and the choices I and many others have made. In other words, your concept of democracy is limited to having your rights and your freedoms respected, at the expense of ours.

I am utterly flabbergasted that you still do not get it: we already responded to your calls, and our response has been very clear - we chose not to heed your calls to go to EDSA or to Fort Bonifacio not because we do not love our country or our freedoms or our rights, but precisely because we love our country even more. Because quite frankly, we are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward. You may think that is not correct, you can tell me all the dire warnings about the evils of authoritarian rule, but quite frankly all we see is your pathetic efforts to prop up your cause. You tell me that you are simply protecting my freedoms and my rights, but who told you to do that? I assure you that when I feel that my rights and my freedoms are at a peril, I will stand up and fight for them myself.

You tell us that GMA is not the right person to lead this country because she has done immoral acts. As someone who sees immorality being committed wantonly in many ways every day and by everyone (yes, including the ones you do), I may have become jaded. But you have not been able to offer me any viable alternative, while GMA has bent over backwards many times to accommodate you while continuing to work hard despite all the obstacles and the brickbats you have thrown her way. From where I sit, she is the one who has been working really hard to move this country forward while all of you have been so busy with one and only one thing: to make sure she does not succeed. So forgive me if I do not want to join you in your moral pissing contest. Forgive me if I have chosen to see things from another perspective. You say she is the problem. I say, we are the problem, more to the point, I think you are a bigger problem than she is. Taking her out may solve part of the problem, but that leaves us with a bigger problem: you. That is right, YOU!

While I felt outraged that she called a Comelec official during the elections and that she may have rigged the elections, I have since then taken the higher moral ground and forgiven her. Yes my dear bishops, I have done what you have told me to do since I was a child, which you say is the Christian and moral thing to do: forgive. Especially since she has asked for forgiveness and has tried to make amends for it. Erap certainly has not apologized and continues to be defiant, continuing to insult us everyday with his protestations. Cory has not apologized for her incompetence but we have forgiven her just the same because like GMA, she has worked hard after all.

I know you do not think that GMA’s apology was not enough, or that she was insincere, or that that apology should not be the end of it, but please spare me the hypocrisy of telling me that you do so for the sake of protecting the moral fiber of society. The real reason is because you smell blood and wants to go for the kill.

Well, I have news for you. I do not like her too. I did not even vote for her. I voted for Raul Roco. But as much as I do not like her, I do not like you even more. I may not trust her, but guess what; I do not trust you even more.

You know why? Because all you do is whine and sabotage this country. You belittle every little progress we make; conveniently forgetting that it is not just GMA who has been working so hard to achieve them. Every single day, we keep the faith burning in our hearts that this country will finally pull itself out of the mess and we work so hard to do that. Every little progress is the result of our collective effort, we who toil hard everyday in our jobs. Yet, you persist in one and only thing: making GMA look bad in the eyes of the world and making sure that this country continues to suffer to prove your sorry point. In the process, you continue to destroy what we painstakingly try to build. So please do not be surprised that I do not share your cause. Do not be surprised that we have become contemptuous of your antics. You have moved heaven and earth to destroy her credibility, you have convened all kinds of fora and hearings and all you have done is test our patience to the core. For all your effort, you have only succeeded in dragging us further down. I say enough.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not asking that we take immorality lying down, or that we let the President get away with anything illegal. But you have tried to prove your accusations all these time and you have not succeeded, so it is time to let things be. Besides, you are doing something immoral as well if not utterly unforgivable. The Magdalo soldiers are consorting with the communists - the same people who have been trying to kill democracy for years. Cory has been consorting with Erap and the Marcoses.

So please wake up and take a reality check. In the absence of true and genuine moral leadership, many of us have decided to cast our lot with the President, even if we do not like her. A flawed leader is better than scheming power hungry fools who can not even stand up for their convictions in the face of an impending arrest.

Your coup attempts and the denials that you have consequently made only underscore what we think is true: you are spineless and unreliable people whose only defense is to cry suppression when your ruse do not work. You are like bullies who taunt and provoke, but cry oppression when taken to task for your cruelty.

I would have respected you if you took the consequences of your actions like real heroes: calmly and responsibly instead of kicking and screaming and making lame excuses. You say you are willing to die for us, that you do all these things for the country and the Filipino, but you are not even willing to go to jail for us.

Come on, you really think we believe that you did not want to bring down the government when that is the one and only thing you have been trying to do in the last many months?

We love this country and we want peace and progress. Many among us do not give a f**k who sits at Malacanang because we will work hard and do our share to make things work. If you only do your jobs, the ones that we elected you to do, things would be a lot simpler and easier for every one.

The events during the weekend only proved one thing. You are more dangerous and a serious threat to this country than GMA is. We have seen what you are capable of doing - you are ready to burn this country and reduce everything to ashes just to prove your point. If there is something that we need protection from, it is protection from you.

SC Austero

That pretty much sums it up.

Hit and Run No More

2006-03-04T03:18:00.000+08:00

Finally got tired of hit-and-run blogging. Yep, squatting on other bloggers' comments threads can get tiresome after a while. So I'm striking out on my own. Can finally post whenever I want to. No need to reply to comments that contradict me. In fact, no comments here at all. Too lazy to correct those who disagree, hehe. Got a problem with that? Start yer own blog!