The Philippine social media is full of rants about laws being violated and rules not being followed; that there is a general breakdown in discipline and we need a leader who’d whip us into shape. I’ve “theorized” that we Filipinos are like Jews waiting for a messiah, that we Filipinos have serious daddy issues; these are the only explanations that I can think of regarding this “clamor” for a tough leader.
Change in mindset. What is there to change?
As I’ve said, I believe discipline is a mindset, and it is personal. Self-discipline is the key, but as every retreat master, psychotherapist, educator, and correction officer will tell you, it is hard. Ask someone who, through hard work and self-discipline lost a significant amount of body weight. Ask someone who, through diligent studies passed the board exams. Ask someone who, through tremendous self-control has stopped smoking.
So, it is hard. It is tough. We know at one point in our life we tried changing something in ourselves, but failed. And failed. And failed. And because we failed, we stopped. We become lazy.
We become lazy. We cross the street even if there is a pedestrian overpass. We throw our cigarette butts everywhere just because. And heaven knows in what multitude of ways we manifest our laziness.
So we can’t discipline ourselves. We become lazy in the end. And some of us want a leader to whip us into discipline?
Yes, because we are too lazy, we are willing to abdicate from our own personal responsibility and let others discipline us. We are longing for a mystical and forceful leader that will force us magically to become disciplined citizens.
The problem with such a leadership is that it is only effective because of fear. You will only comply with the laws and follow the rules because you are afraid of jail time. Or worse, be made food for the fishes.
Has anyone thought of complying with the laws and following the rules because doing so will benefit ourselves, our fellow Filipinos, and our country?
Again, we go back to change of mindset. It is time we begin to follow rules because doing so is for our own benefit, and our country’s. We need to start instilling discipline unto ourselves, for our common good. We need to unshackle ourselves from the chains of laziness and start working on our self-discipline.
No one can save us from laziness and lack of discipline but ourselves. And that starts with a change of mindset.
“Matiisin tayo. Inaabuso na, tanggap pa rin. Ilang oras sa pila. Araw-araw sa traffic. Wala pa sa trabaho o eskwela, pagod ka na. Bakit pag serbisyo-publiko, pahirapan? Dapat maayos,at maaasahang transportasyon para sa lahat. Wag tayong mag-iwanan. Opo, tayo mismo. Ayusin natin ang Pilipinas.”
So goes the latest ad of Grace Poe, who is gunning for the post of the president of the Republic. This is just a short note to highlight some things.
One, it is very disingenuous and timing is perfect. Hello, didn’t she just have a Senate hearing on the MRT3 a week ago? And now everyone is#APECtado ng #trAPEC? Poe, through her ad, is adding incendiary barbs to the raging farts to not only antagonize the Aquino administration but to tell the raging netizens “I told you so.”
So, she’s like, a prophet now? Kudos to her PR team, such timing is impeccable.
Yet we have to ask: after all those hearings, has Senator Poe produced any report, any findings, any concrete solutions at all? When all she could crow about are elevators, escalators, and bathrooms – Houston, we have a problem.
Yes, the real problem that we all can see is that the MRT3 is operating way beyond capacity, brought about by wrong design assumptions, and Joseph Estrada’s populist idea of lowering the fare, thus making more people take the trains, way more than what was the designed capacity. And if you operate beyond capacity, the trains suffer, they carry more than what they were designed to do, so they conk out later on, rails break because the trains passing through are heavier than expected. That’s where we are now. We’ll talk about trains in a bit.
Two, it is not honest at all. Infrastructure projects take time. They are not straight-from-the-shelf things that you can take out, put somewhere, and voila! What the ad won’t tell you is that projects that are designed precisely to alleviate problems that her ad has stated are already either underway or to be started.
The Skyway Stage 3 connecting SLEX to NLEX is being built, so trucks from Batangas ports and Laguna industrial parks no longer have to take EDSA, C-5, and South Superhighway to deliver goods to the north. Another component, once started, will go directly towards the North Harbor.
LRT1 is to be extended up to Bacoor in Cavite, and new trains will be procured from Japanese companies (because the new train acquisition is to be funded through Japan overseas development assistance or ODA loans, only Japanese companies can bid). LRT2 is being extended up to Masinag so that people of Antipolo have another alternative mode of transportation. LRT7 is just waiting for some financing closing before they begin construction.
And the much maligned MRT3 will get new trains (to be honest, not enough but will alleviate current overloaded situation). Yes, we need more trains. But why only now? From the first time I blogged about it to now, it is a seven year span. Why did it take so long? While this was discussed in the Senate hearings, no emphasis was given on the complicated build-lease-transfer agreement between the owners of the MRT3 and the Philippine government. Yes, we don’t “own” the MRT3 – we are leasing it from the private owners, we pay them GUARANTEED payments regardless if the MRT3 earns or not (hence the yearly government subsidies running into tens of billions of pesos), and government maintains the system at government’s expense. So, where do trains come in the picture? The private owners are the ones who are supposed to provide new trains! What happened? They didn’t. They only expressed their willingness to do so when Poe had her first hearing. There was even a legal issue if the government can buy new trains, all because the government doesn’t own the MRT3. The government decided to get new trains, and we can expect new ones next year.
That’s just 2 major projects. They will take time, they are not instant-noodle solutions. They take time because the government wants to do it right: projects untainted with corruption; projects that are not ad hoc, not piecemeal, but part of a holistic solution. Projects that are carefully planned. Don’t we want that?
The next administration will have to make sure these are continued, especially projects that are in the pipeline. But if we elect someone who is averse or will tend to scrap everything, we are not back to zero, we are back to the Stone Age.
Aside: Mar Roxas intends to reform our bus system so that drivers are paid per day and make routes more profitable. I hope he’d take on the taxi system as well, since it is similar to how buses are operated.
Another aside: for this local problem, only one candidate has proposed solutions – only Roxas. Others we got I-promise-you statements.
Lastly, as someone who is aspiring for a national post, she keeps on harping on a rather local issue, specifically Metro Manila. Well, this is not surprising, given this:
It’s all for votes, obviously, but kind of pandering as well. Parang bahala na kayo, people outside of Metro Manila.
I have been a resident of Metro Manila my entire life; I’ve been taking the MRT for more than 8 years now; I’d seen how horrible the traffic was when Skyway phase 1 was started and the Libis Flyover-Katipunan Underpass was started. I’ve been through that hell that everyone is raging about. I want solutions that are sound, better planned, and untainted with corruption. I look forward to a time when government plans can be executed without ten million cases and more controversies.
We keep on hearing complaints about Imperial Manila and yet we have a candidate who props it more! Enough of that! Now we have five years where everyone is getting their fair share of resources. I have to wait for more than 10 years for a better MRT. In so many places they have had to wait 30 to 50 years for a bridge and a road and improvement. They got it now. That’s fair to me. And thats what we should expect from a good government that does not pander for votes: a country that grows together and not have one part spoiled in an irresponsible way. That’s the real cause of the hell that is being fixed. And we won’t get that, apparently, from Grace Poe.
To reiterate: the ad was made to make her appear prophetic and to raise antagonism against the Aquino administration; to allege, through omission of facts, that nothing’s being done about infrastructure problems; and to pander more to her core constituency – the angry netizens of Metro Manila, disregarding the rest of the country.
At one point, we complained that his answer to the traffic question during the live interview was too long. He quipped: “But otherwise I’m just giving you two-second sound bites. What’s the point?”
Rappler published an assessment of Mar Roxas before the official start of the campaign for the 2016 elections (see Mar Roxas: His own enemy). This part of the article struck me:
But campaigns are basically passionate, emotional endeavors. Brave and admirable is the man who decides not to dumb down and merely entertain his audience. But woe to the man who will defy the wisdom of the crowd: it’s all about connection – in words and in gestures. To put it simply, Roxas has yet to connect.
I find it odd that Glenda Gloria made that conclusion – that Roxas has yet to connect. Odd because the same article said before July Roxas was only getting like 3% in surveys, and jumped to 20% in very recent surveys. How do you explain the jump? A connection must have been made somewhere, right?
Second, we keep on hearing complaints that campaigns are just entertainment gigs, that we should elevate the quality of our political campaigns. Yet here we have a journalist who thinks what Roxas is doing won’t win him elections. Is Gloria basically telling Mar to dumb his thoughts down? Here is a candidate who is willing to elevate the quality of campaigning by explaining what he thinks needs to be done, that he has a plan, and he’s being told to dial down things? I think it’s time that things change. It is ok to be emotional, but we should be more rational, now.
Third, is there an implicit claim that the general public does not and will not understand what Mar Roxas is saying? Is it a reinforcement of the common theme being shared in social media, that the general public are basically “bobotantes?” I refuse to believe that. The public will understand, if they want and choose to understand. No amount of song-and-dance nor policy speeches would convince a voter who has already decided.
I am for candidates explaining their plans. Enough of platitudes. Enough of pandering. Time to decide on what’s the best for the country, not what’s best for our pockets. Or, enough with That’s Entertainment of Politics.
It’s election season again. It is a colorful, enervating, annoying, tiring, and confusing time for every Filipino. Everyday, the news is all about candidates and campaigns and scandals and intrigues, with substantial news like campaign platforms buried or lamentably unreported.
Social media is an interesting addition to the quagmire that is election season. Its simplicity, ubiquity, and pervasiveness can add more to the noise. Every news organization utilize social media to spread the news and gather feedback. Every campaign team use social media for propaganda. And the netizen is left to his wits to sort through the mess.
Social media is best suited for propaganda. All it takes is a catchy post, a funny image, and a believable story for a propaganda item to be liked and shared. Propaganda expressed through memes are mabenta to the masa. All propagandists need is basic knowledge of social engineering to make a propaganda viral.
Unfortunately, black and negative propaganda are almost as indistinguishable as news. Yes, sometimes news are written as propaganda. That’s how hoaxes are usually written – as news. I am sure you have relatives who had unwittingly shared something that turned out to be false. Expect a lot of those during election season.
First, it is best to know that black propaganda is not as we know it. There is a difference with black propaganda with negative propaganda ( which is sometimes known as mudslinging). When one side claims that the other side said something false and attributes it to someone, that is black propaganda. Or when a political party puts out information and ascribes it to the opposing party, with the end goal of humiliating or putting the opposite party in bad light, that’s black propaganda. For example:
There’s gray propaganda: source is unknown and accuracy is questionable. White propaganda is clearly sourced, clearly attributable to someone, and purpose is clear. This tweet is an example of gray propaganda:
Once passed, the new salary standardization law will not benefit the incumbent elected officials. So to say that Aquino’s getting a Php280000 increase is just plain wrong. The goal of this tweet is to either make you click the link so that you’d read the article (therefore increasing page view and hopefully will lead to earnings) or make you angry and retweet. This is what I call meme-ification of news (see The meme-ification of news). It can also be negative propaganda, but it’s up to you to decide.
So, you saw something on Facebook. It’s too good to be true. So how do you check if it’s true or not?
Check who shared it. If it is shared by a news organization, it might be true. Might, because what was shared can be false, too. A social media manager is human, after all. And apparently you can manipulate the title of a news post when you share it on Facebook, like this one:
The PDI report is titled ‘Wrong to fault Mar for Yolanda housing’. When you click on that link, the title is way different. So if the post purports to be from a news org but shared by someone not connected to that news org, check and read. The above example is an obvious negative propaganda.
If it is shared by an organization, and the post makes a claim, you might have to search online for verification. For example, this one:
You can check the Senate web site to see all the bills filed by Senator Marcos. If you don’t find any bill pertaining to contractualization, then the Akbayan claim must be true.
If it is posted by a relative or friend, check if they really posted it. Did they take the photo themselves? Did they really experience what they described? Even here you have to be careful. Take this one, for example.
Mag ingat po sa vigil taxi na nasa pic ang plate no. Kagabi lng oct.29 muntik ng madali ang kasamahan kung seaman…
The problem here is that we can never verify this experience. First, he said he reported the taxi and taxi driver to LTFRB, but the LTFRB has just absolved the taxi driver and cited the Facebook user cited above in contempt (see Seaman in hot water over ‘tanim-bala’ claim on Facebook). Second, he claimed he reported the matter to the police, but he failed to state if he did by calling the hotline or going to a police station. Whether it really happened or not, we cannot tell.
So you saw one infographic/meme being shared. How to check if black propaganda or not? Check the source. Check if quote is attributed. Check if you can find the source and verify the claim yourself. If the source is dubious, or source not stated, beware.
If the source is a politician, beware. Period.
I subscribe to a simple code of ethics when I am online: THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK. I suggest all netizens to do the same. So if you found something that you want to share, think first before clicking that Share/Retweet button.
Earlier today, Rappler issued the tweet above. There was some minor issues yesterday when Rappler tweeted an image with a quote from Mar Roxas, which, according to supporters, were taken out of context. It is not my intent to argue about whether the quote as shown and understood was taken out of context. What was surprising was the poisonous and toxic reaction AGAINST the Rappler apology. It is very rare for a news outfit to apologize for an editorial decision. For decent broadsheets, they usually publish errata but those are almost always never published on the front page; they usually place errata on the inner pages, and sometimes, in small font. Some broadsheets even have internal ombudsmen where readers can complain about news reports. But never has any organization apologized in such an upfront manner, and for that Rappler should be commended.
It’s very rare for a news outfit to apologize for an error. They usually just publish an erratum deep inside pages. Kudos to @rapplerdotcom — Arbet Bernardo (@ArbetBernardo) November 6, 2015
The detractors of Roxas, as expected, zeroed in on the apology, alleging that Roxas and/or the Aquino III administration twisted arms so that Rappler would apologize. In an election season, that would be tantamount to suicide. No news organization with respectable reputation would allow itself to be censored, and such actions would only cement the resolve of the target news outfit to continue reporting. Nothing ignites the imagination of a David fighting a Goliath. Also, Rappler said it was an editorial decision to apologize, and I take it as it is.
The problem stems from the tendency of netizens to pay attention to memes instead of reading. Nothing attracts the attention of people with short attention span than a spiffy graphic with pithy text. And with Twitter and its character limitation and again the tendency of people with short attention spans to not click, you need to express in 140 characters what you need readers to understand. To somehow overcome the character limit, social media managers use graphics to show more information, and hopefully entice readers to click on the link.
It’s plain social engineering. You want page views and impressions, so you design your social media post so that people will click on your link and hopefully read your long post/news report. With shrinking bottomlines, news orgs now have social media teams to design their social media posts to earn page views and clicks, which will hopefully lead to ad clicks.
Here is a good example: P3.8-B MRT deal awarded without public bidding. By reading that title alone, you might cry “ANOMALY!” But if you read the content it states that there were previous failed biddings, and the procurement law allows the government to negotiate a contract without bidding due to emergency and failure of bidding. You have to read the news otherwise you will be misled.
With the limits of social media, news orgs have to adapt. In the process, something has to give. And that is context.
The problem is simple. Netizens do not really like to click links. If they agree with what they had seen (graphics) or read (tweet), they’d automatically share without reading the news. If they are rankled by what they had read/seen, they’d automatically share with rage-filled texts of their own. Things can be taken out of context – what was quoted can be incendiary but might actually be benign if the story is read.
It’s the nature of the Internet beast, and the adage “Think before you click” is relevant more than ever. But based on what’s happening, we’re quite trigger happy. Or should I say button click happy?
And with a loooooong election season, expect more #MeltdownCity moments, all because someone made a rather controversial tweet without context, and netizens react with such fury that even barbarians would stay away. Brace yourselves.
It’s been (insert adjective here) Halloween for Filipinos.
The ghost that haunted the country is known as “tanim-bala.” Basically, it’s a way for extortionist to forcibly take money from travelers by planting bullets into their bags/luggages to make it appear that the bullet has been there before inspection. The governing law regarding unauthorized carry of live ammunition is Republic Act 10591 (full text), and the punishment is rather severe. Scammers take advantage of the law and the fact that the victim might miss his or her flight.
In a press conference, Department of Transportation and Communications Secretary Jun Abaya, Office for Transportation Security Administrator Roland Recomono, Manila International Airport Authority General Manager Angel Honrado, and PNP Aviation Security Group Chief Francisco Balagtas presented relevant data on number of incidents of ammunition detected and cases filed. (Read the full transcript here.)
The data shows that, relative to the number of passengers who flew out of NAIA, the total number of cases is only 0.008%, making Abaya state that “it appears that cases have been blown out of proportion.” Abaya took pains to state that despite the small number, “a single case of any passenger wrongly charged, extorted upon, victimized by planting, unjustly charged in court, is unjust.”
Most of the netizens reacted negatively to the presented data. The presentation, netizens said, is just a way of belittling and downplaying the issue. Some strident netizens even asserted that contextualizing through data just shows that the government is callous and insensitive.
All that without even taking a minute to analyze the data.
So. Because data isn’t sexy and “irrelavant” to most people, the goal post has been moved.
Now the netizens are crying “Callous!” “Insensitive!” Like the people when Pontius Pilate presented persons to be let go.
Has the government not done anything at all? OTS says they’ve changed procedure. Screeners won’t touch your bags. They will take pictures/snap shot of the x-ray. Bag will only be opened by passenger in the presence of lawyer/third party or OTS supervisor.
For those cases of extortion, screeners involved were relieved (as due process dictates) and are being investigated. NBI is already involved in the investigation.
Netizens are not impressed. They were calling for heads to roll, like people chose Bar… OK never mind. Bongbong Marcos told the Palace by the Pasig to sack the NAIA GM (Marcos: NAIA chief accountable on Tanim Bala). The senator and the people betray gross ignorance of the organizational structure and airport operations. All the cases involved x-ray screeners, who are all under OTS. MIAA is only involved in management of the airport and is no way involved in security screening.
While Senators Grace Poe, Bongbong Marcos, and Ralph Recto called for investigations, Senator Bam Aquino and Representative Leni Robredo filed bills to decrimininalize carrying limited amount of bullets (see Leni Robredo Files Measure vs ‘Tanim Bala’ Gang, Robredo wants to decriminalize possession of bullet). While no one called the calls made by the 3 senators as grandstanding, the Aquino and Robredo bills are not yet even available online as of this writing yet the idea is already being criticized. People did not get the brilliance of the filing of bills.
Poe, Marcos, and Recto called for an investigation “in aid of legislation,” hopefully with the end goal of amending or drafting a new law. The cynical me says ASA KA PA. Aquino and Robredo filed bills. And if you know the legislative process, you know that committees will conduct hearings about the proposed bills. You already have the end goal, and you only need to refine it by conducting hearings and investigation. But that brilliance is lost on many.
Again, I refer you to Kuya Bodjie’s tweet.
So in the end, we Filipinos created a fire out of farts started by friction from all that orgiastic rage, and then the world noticed, and we wept that the world noticed. We shot ourselves in the foot but we pretend there’s no wound.
What should Abaya and others do? Aside from what they had said, to build trust and establish accountability they should:
Give a timeline for each action.
Identify persons who will complete such task.
State the expected results and how to determine success or failure.
Specify how to hold government people accountable.
Citizens, for their part, should:
Report all violators of the law immediately, specially if victimized by unscrupulous people at the airport. Nope, making a Facebook post is not reporting.
Stop adding to the problem by posting unverified social media posts and sharing incendiary memes. Humor is OK but if memes make untrue assertions in guise of humor, they are not helping.
Know your rights. Know the process during screening at the airport. Arrive way ahead of your scheduled departure time.
It’s time for rationality to return and decency to govern our discussion of the topic. Let us let the government do its job, bring justice for the victims and jail the guilty. Netizens should be more circumspect of what they post and share, but should also remain vigilant and call the government to task if it fails to clean up its act.
Now that the grand circus that is Philippine elections is over, we know who won and who lost. Who are the big losers in this election?
1. The Enriles – The United Nationalist Alliance (or UNA) is composed of so-called three kingmakers – Vice President Jejomar Binay Sr., Senator Juan Ponce Enrile Sr., and former President Joseph Estrada Sr. Each of the kingmakers fielded their children in this year’s Senate race – Binay’s daughter, Nancy; Enrile’s son, Jack; and Erap’s son JV. We all know that Nancy and JV won, but Jack didn’t make it.
Framing this in terms of 2016, Enrile will have a hard time spending his political capital. This election proves that his name is not enough to bring his son to the Senate (though the negative propaganda against Jack and the Senate budget scandal last December may have helped cost him a Senate seat), and so his political capital might not be enough to influence the 2016 elections. It is now important for Enrile Senior to retain his position as Senate President in order to increase his political capital. Sure, he can make sure he’s relevant as leader of opposition, but with so many senators with political ambitions, he has to fight 22 of them – including the children of his pragmatic allies Binay and Erap.
As for Jack: he has a lot of options at this point. He can return to the House by 2016, or take another shot at the Senate, or run for governor of Cagayan. The House is the safest bet.
2. The Liberal Party – As much as most media people and pundits call this election as a victory for Team PNoy, I have to disagree a wee bit and call this a loss for the Liberal Party.
The 2010 elections was probably the first elections since 1986 where no major coalitions were formed to carry candidates. Each of the major political parties at that time fielded their own candidates on national level. This time, two major coalitions were formed to battle for 12 Senate seats. The Aquino Administration framed this election as a referendum on the current administration, banking on the unprecedented popularity of the President. The field of candidates was so thin that neither of the two coalitions could form a complete slate – both had “guest candidates.” However, due to pressure on both sides, the guest candidates were forced to exclusively join Team PNoy, while UNA had to make do with 9 candidates.
In the Team PNoy coalition, three candidates came from the Liberal Party, and only one made it to the winner’s list (all the Nacionalistas in Team PNoy won, BTW). As the majority party this is a blow to the Liberals. Bam Aquino will join Franklin Drilon, Ralph Recto, and Teofisto Guingona III as the Senate, making 4 Liberals – definitely not enough to gain the leadership without coalescing with other parties. As these coalitions tend to be fragile, the Liberals cannot afford to antagonize its partners or else it loses control of the Senate.
If the NP decides to field a candidate for president in 2016, I don’t expect the current coalition to last.
3. Mar Roxas – While LP retains majority of the House, and its coalition about to take control of the Senate, Binay has one advantage against Roxas – Binay has made his daughter win. This election validates that the Binay brand is bankable and durable, and his grassroots network can deliver.
Roxas, on the other hand, seems to be drifting. He has nothing to show in his stint at the DOTC, and his performance at DILG lackluster. He tends to be slow, indecisive, and too careful, hence after three years all infra projects under DOTC have yet to be started. If this continue, and Binay becomes more aggressive, Roxas can kiss 2016 goodbye.
4. Isko Moreno and the city of Manila – Isko scored a landslide win against Lou Veloso for the post of Manila’s vice mayor, so why is he a big loser? Because once again he will have to break with the would-be incumbent mayor in order to fulfill his ambition to be mayor of Manila. Why? What made him think Joseph Estrada will honor his word that he will only serve one term? This, coming from someone who promised never to run again for any public office only to run twice? Erap can either run again or field one of his children (some are already salivating on the idea of Jake Ejercito as mayor of Manila).
The city of Manila is the biggest loser here, because it now has a convicted plunderer as mayor. Erap may be able to improve the physical condition of the city, but a single term will not have any long term effect on the development of the city. If Erap is seeking redemption, he did so at the expense of the city. If he is really sincere, then he has no choice but to seek reelection and continue with his plans to make Manila a great city. This convinces me that Moreno has no choice but to do to Erap what he did to Fred Lim. I wish both of them luck.
5. Echiverri and the city of Caloocan – It seems that any attempt to establish a dynasty in Caloocan always fails. Rey Malonzo tried it years ago, fielding his common law wife and his son for mayor and councilor, respectively, while he ran for a House seat. All of them lost.
Then Recom Echiverri tried to build a dynasty by making his son RJ run as congressman – RJ lost. And as Recom’s term limit came, he made RJ run as mayor this year. RJ lost again. Recom will return to the House to represent the first district.
Echiverri must be so pissed off. After Oca Malapitan was proclaimed incoming mayor, all the blue boys (the Reformed Department of Public Safety and Traffic Management) are gone from the streets of Caloocan, as if telling the residents of Caloocan that they made the wrong choice. Now the residents of Caloocan have to pay the price – just look what a mess of a traffic jam is Rizal Avenue Extension from 2nd Avenue up to Monumento. Temporary vengeance, but a cruel one.
Funny thing is, the survey statement that the respondents were asked to react to is “Sometimes I think I might leave the Catholic Church.” But then again, in the eyes of a pastor, 1 out of 11 is large enough number to cause worry.
A true pastor would ask why, investigate, talk to parishioners, and implement programs so that people won’t leave. Unfortunately, the hierarchy has chosen to live in denial.
The best way to refute the survey result is to bring out data. Unfortunately, what Peachy Yamsuan said were generalized information, like:
“The Diocese of Imus has more new parishes created in the past 10 years or so… which begs the question, why create parishes if the number of Mass-goers is dwindling?”
How many parishes were created in the Diocese of Imus in the past 10 years? We don’t know.
There is a way to rebut the statement that the Churches are full.
Let’s take the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan. According to its web site, there are around 900,000 inhabitants in the archdiocese, 90% of whom are Catholics (around 810,000). There are 30 parish churches, and around 67 priests (including retired ones). Assuming all parishes have equal number of parishioners, that means in Lingayen-Dagupan, there are around 27,000 parishioners to a parish. A priest has to minister to around 12,000 parishioners.
No wonder the churches are full. (And the hierarchy being disingenuous.)
Nine percent of 810,000 is 72,900; assume that 72,900 is equally spread in the diocese, that makes 2,430 parishioners who have thoughts of leaving the Church. Assuming that all of the 2,430 decided to leave, it’s a negligible amount.
No wonder the bishops are in disbelief.
How many parishes will be created in the near future? How many seminarians will be ordained as priests in the future? These numbers are important, but the Church will not give us these information. And these official, verifiable numbers will help the Church show that it is going strong. Just show us the numbers, dear bishops.
Solita Monsod is right – the Church should stop playing ostrich (BTW read it for she has better numbers than I do). Instead of trumpeting numbers, the Church has to address the fact that members of its flock are thinking of leaving.
As for me, the reason people are thinking of leaving is that the clergy has become politicized. I know someone who has decided to leave the Church. The straw that broke the camel’s back? The Church’s use of the pulpit to denounce the RH law and its proponents. God knows how many Catholics like her have already made the decision to leave. Reports of dioceses calling pro-RH candidates as Team Patay, and a lay group forming the so called White Vote, will not help the Church retain its followers.
There are more reasons, and they deserve a separate discussion. Just to name a few: disgust over liturgical decay; resistance to top-down, centralized governance; Church doctrine that are out of touch with reality (contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, ordination of women, optional celibacy).
No one questions Nancy Binay’s qualification to run as a senator. The question is whether Binay is qualified to be a senator. That single question must have hurt Nancy Binay so badly that her only retort is for her critics to file a disqualification case against her in Comelec. If this is the quality of thinking that she is bringing to the table, then as voters it is our duty to refuse her offering by not voting for her this May.
An employer, in seeking a new employee, conducts due diligence by investigating the background of the prospective employee. It is the same for us voters.
Her resume is unimpressive. She has no experience in private and public enterprise that can show she can handle the job of a senator. Her only exposure in government is being her father, Jejomar Binay’s, personal assistant. In terms of experience, it would have been logical if Binay fielded his other, more experienced children Junjun and Abigail. (Then again, as I have said before, Nancy’s campaign is dry run for her father’s 2016 bid for the presidency.) Heck, a three-term councilor would have been more than qualified compared to Nancy.
If an employer considers a candidate even if the resume is unimpressive, the employer may interview the applicant. For us voters, one way we can learn about a candidate’s thoughts, plans, and vision is by watching him speak in a debate or a forum. Unfortunately, Nancy Binay would not indulge us. Risa Hontiveros, one of the better candidates with something to show in her government work, said she is ready to exchange opinions with Binay in a debate; Binay chose to campaign instead, she just doesn’t have time, she said. Yes, it is like a job applicant telling the employer to shove it up his ass.
Her obstinate refusal to debate and her ominous absence in TV forums are, for me, signs that she is afraid that her unfitness to be a senator would show. The irony here is that a senator must be ready to engage in a debate in the Senate floor, and here we have a candidate who wants to be a senator but is afraid of engaging in a debate! It’s like a cadet aspiring to be a soldier but afraid to shoot a gun.
Why I am not voting for Nancy Binay? One, she is not qualified to be a senator since she doesn’t have the experience that will show she can handle the task. Two, she refuses to share to us her platform and vision, and refuses to engage with other candidates in a debate.
Third, her stand on some issues are not compatible with mine:
“I have an issue with the budgetary requirements of the bill, the budget to buy contraceptives. A 4-year-old child died of meningococcemia which is preventable through immunization. Why can’t we allot a bigger budget for immunization, day care centers?”
Which only shows her ignorance of law making, because if that’s her concern, the answer to her question is to increase the Department of Health’s budget on immunization. Besides, most of the functions of the DOH are already devolved to the local government units. She should ask her brother Junjun and her sister Abigail – they should know.
But the ultimate reason why I am not voting for her: arrogance. She is relying on the name, popularity, and extensive campaign network of his father, thereby excusing her (she thinks) from telling us voters why she deserves our vote. She is qualified to be a senator because not only she is a Binay (it’s a birth right, and it’s her edge against the other candidates, says the daddy), her father tells us so. Jojo Binay even compared Nancy to Margaret Thatcher, so his daughter is very much qualified. All these show that the Binays are too sure and too full of themselves.
And that, my friends, is why I am not voting for her.
She’ll dance, she’ll wave, she’ll throw Binay candies and t-shirts and fans; she won’t talk because if she opens her mouth her ignorance will be discovered.
Is it because she is a Binay? Partly, but how do you explain Jackie Enrile’s sliding survey numbers? Enrile used to rate highly but during the campaign his numbers slid. I think the people thought before the campaign started that it was the senior Enrile who’s going to run. It is also possible that Jackie’s numbers were affected by his father’s drop in satisfaction survey ratings in the aftermath of the MOEE issue in the Senate.
On the other hand, the elder Binay’s survey numbers are impressive, and in fact, even better than the President’s. These figures surely won’t hurt Nancy’s chances, and may even help come May 13. So her being a Binay is plausible.