How to understand Gloria’s survival tactics
By William Esposo
THERE is a world of difference between what President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo says and what she does. Anyone who wants to understand what is really going on – whether she is staying on or on her way out – must learn to read beyond the sound bytes and be able to interpret the hidden messages conveyed by body language and actions.
In many cases, the confusion of many Filipinos can’t be helped – they are not privy to the unprintable and unmentionable in media coverage nor do they have access to the sources and developments that will help them form the big picture. It takes experience, political savvy and the insight of a political analyst to sift through the lies and half-truths and see the big picture.
Filipinos who have lived overseas for quite a while are most vulnerable to misreading developments happening back home. They get their news from websites and friends who are more often than not also victims of speculative and sensational information, not to mention outright propaganda designed to suit a political objective. From the feedback I get from immigrant Filipinos it is very easy to detect how little they know about goings on in their homeland. Not being able to have an accurate scan of the terrain, they tend to form their thinking from other people’s reactions to official statements.
If we draw our conclusions on the likely fate of President Arroyo on the basis of what the newspapers say, it is easy to be misled into thinking that she will hold on to the presidency. But the more discerning observer in the home front will not fail to read the disturbing signals transmitted by her more recent moves. The promulgation of Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR), EO 464 and those ‘shoot-to-kill’ orders for coup plot recruiters reflect actions of the desperate, validating the conclusion that Ms Arroyo is hanging by the thread.
The military genius Napoleon Bonaparte taught his generals that the enemy concentrates his forces in the very spot where he feels most vulnerable. Even earlier than Napoleon, Sun Tzu prescribed that one must try to appear bigger when one is small and appear small when one is actually enjoying the advantage. That is exactly what Ms Arroyo has been trying to convey lately – that she is winning and will stay the course. In reality, she is exactly what Sun Tzu would describe as the small force whose existence is endangered.
What Ms Arroyo is desperately trying to do is to:
1. Rally the morale of her troops in order to stop the erosion of her support base. By troops, I mean both the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) who are still loyal to her as well as her political supporters. She knows only too well how disintegration of support had led to the fall of Marcos and Estrada. To survive the political jungle, one must keep one’s support base intact – let it crumble and you fall into the abyss.
2. Demoralize the forces of the opposition. By opposition, I do not just refer to the pathetic political opposition parties who lost the respect of the middle class when they rallied behind an unproven movie actor – Fernando Poe, Jr. I refer to the public at large, the close to 80% who think that Ms Arroyo stole the 2004 elections and now want her to vacate the presidency.
3. Discourage key sectors and power players, notably the military, from challenging her continued stay in office. The AFP and the US are examples of power blocks who are supposed to be non-aligned in these political struggles. But as we saw with the 1986 People Power Revolt, both were key players that tilted the outcome in favor of Cory Aquino.
It does not take a political savant to figure out Ms Arroyo’s recent moves as political suicide, a major step towards alienating herself from her own supporters. Take the case for instance of CPR and EO 464. When these measures were announced, her own allies in both congress and the senate distanced themselves from it. Only the likes of Donald Dee, who has earned the ‘distinction’ for being the most loyal to whoever sits in Malacanang, supported CPR and EO 464.
Even the predictably servile Joe de Venecia, the master executioner of the impeachment case massacre in congress – was quick to state his opposition to EO 464 when it was announced. Having lost the support of Senate President Frank Drilon who has joined the call for her resignation, Ms Arroyo was already desperate to win senate allies. But EO 464 practically turned the entire senate against her. There were 16 senators who signed the legal documents that challenged EO 464 in the Supreme Court.
The President and her strategists could not have miscalculated the fallout from CPR and EO 464. We know she has clowns who give us comic relief now and then but the likes of Ronnie Puno, Eddie Ermita and Avelino Cruz are certainly not the type of people who could have overlooked the negative repercussions of CPR and EO 464.
Coming fresh from the quashing of the impeachment case in congress, these moves come like combination punches deliberately delivered to keep the truth from inflicting its damage. These measures further erode that small segment of the nation who still gives Ms Arroyo the benefit of the doubt that she is the legitimate president.
So what made them spring these most uncharacteristic and apparently imprudent courses of action? The answer is simple: they perceive the downfall to be so precariously close, they have ran out of credible ammunition for defense – so now, they throw in the entire cannon, hoping this will arrest any further threat. Survival is everything at this point and it takes precedence over image and relationships.
So what’s there to fear when there aren’t many people protesting in the streets? Again the answer is simple: they are aware of close to 80% who want Ms Arroyo removed and the threat of military junior officers taking action behind popular indignation, the way they did in EDSA I and II.
In EDSA I, we never even had any inkling about military participation until it happened. In EDSA II, Estrada chief of staff Angie Reyes stage-managed the appearance of a constant parade of generals to suggest all was well with the chain of command. Of course, the next thing we saw was Angie Reyes on stage at the EDSA Shrine to express his switch of allegiance to Ms Arroyo come January 21, 2001.
This is not the case now. Over the past two months, we have been reading about statements from the YOUng expressing their demand for the President to step down. Over the past three weeks, no less than Senators Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay and Rodolfo “Pong” Biazon have warned about the real threat of the junior officers taking a direct hand in the political stalemate. Magsaysay and Biazon are not your usual ‘cry wolf’ hysteria breeders who would shoot off their mouths even if they did not have solid grounds for their expressed concerns.
Former RAM stalwarts Rex Robles, Billy Bibit and Proceso Maligalig have aired similar concerns about wide scale restiveness in the military over the absence of closure on the issue of fraud in the 2004 elections and questions raised on President Arroyo’s legitimacy as commander in chief of the armed forces. Even known Fidel Ramos man, Gen. Ramon Montano (Ret.), openly asserted that the majority of officers and soldiers in the AFP are poised to remove Ms Arroyo. Likewise, the retired generals, who have traditionally been the conduit for active officers, confirm the same.
Not only that – recent communications conveyed by the YOUng have never been this impassioned and purposeful. They do not only question the legitimacy of Ms Arroyo’s presidency, they also want her out. This never happened before.
How about that other power player, the United States, who has historically denied involvement in our affairs but whose influential hand is always felt just the same – whose side do they appear to be on? Ms Arroyo went on the offensive and tried to make it appear that the indictment of former police Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino was a favor done for her by the US. Well, is it?
It is not. The US did it for the US and not as a favor for the President. It is a matter of top priority for them to monitor and immediately plug any information leaks, especially in the highest and most sensitive offices of the US government. I subscribe to what former retired Commodore Rex Robles commented that the White House spying expose may in effect be the US way of indirectly conveying to the military here (who will always take the cue from the US) what the US thinks of Ms Arroyo. The contents of those documents are very damaging to her. Coming from reports submitted to the US president and vice-president, these reports appear to have the equivalent of ‘Papal infallibility’, having been processed and validated by the CIA and State Department.
I’ve said it time and again in this column that if the US will take a stand in this crisis, it will be to secure their interests with whoever will succeed Ms Arroyo. US policy is conducted in a no-nonsense, business-like manner. There are no personalities, only and strictly bottom line considerations. If personal relationships were to matter, Ronald Reagan would never have dropped Marcos in 1986. But he did because Marcos was finished politically and US interests dictated a switch to the new Cory Aquino regime.
Believe me; I have it on good authority that US officialdom is not particularly enamored with President Arroyo – especially after the Angelo de la Cruz incident when she caved in to the demands of the Iraqi insurgents to pull out Philippine troops in Iraq. On the contrary, she is considered the weakest link in Asia. There is good reason to believe that Ms Arroyo’s cozying up to China of late is another survival tactic to offset the loss of US support. Switching partners has always been her favorite game.
Now ask yourself: Is Ms Arroyo winning or losing this political battle? Do you think her actions indicate that she is coming or going? Do these actions show strength or panic?
10/18/2005
8/15/2005
Why I quit gov’t and asked my boss to resign as well
Why I quit gov’t and asked my boss to resign as well
By Dinky Juliano-Soliman
This essay was first brought to my attention by the blog of editor John Nery.
I JOINED government as a member of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Cabinet because of the principles I have believed in and fought for in the last 30 years of my life. Justice, good governance, equality, empowerment of the poor and marginalized, truth, freedom and love are values and principles that have anchored my involvement in the struggle to transform society. It is because of these same principles that I resigned from government service last July 8, 2005, exactly a month ago.
Most of you have journeyed with me in the struggle to keep DSWD as I found it – insulated from politics. I admit to some actions that were politically motivated. I asked my colleagues in DSWD to implement projects for political accommodation. I now apologize for those instructions.
It was always a struggle between good and evil: old habits of traditional politics versus alternative new politics, with communities asserting their power. The first three years proved that the reforms far outweighed the political accommodation – especially when we were able to launch KALAHI-CIDSS; deliver on commitments on the Early Childhood Development program; install performance management systems; set-up the standards for DSWD institutions like Golden Acres as centers of excellence; start the Bright Child campaign for early childhood education, and many more enhancements of our on-going social welfare programs.
These outweighed my discomfort with the Balikatan exercise (I do not believe in foreign troops in our country) and other activities that I felt compromised my principles. I was conscious that compromises allowed me to protect the gains of the reform we were undertaking.
The period after the 2004 elections became very challenging. Thinking that the President had a clear mandate, I anticipated less political accommodation and that we could zoom ahead on reforms.
Most of you were witness to the series of accommodations that included the DSWD. Appointments of Cabinet members and heads of revenue-generating agencies were influenced by the factor of “those who helped in the campaign.” The last three months were particularly difficult in emerging scandal. Most disturbing was a “jueteng” scandal involving the highest levels of government (that’s the perception) after we threw out former President Joseph Estrada on the same issue. While we do not prejudge the outcome of the investigation, the tapes definitely cast doubt on the President’s integrity and electoral mandate.
I have discussed these issues with her many times – alone, with the whole Cabinet, with the lady Cabinet members, especially in the last three months. We discussed ideas on how to win back credibility from a high distrustful people. There were two schools of thought: 1} political survival at all costs 2} swift and credible action of reforms to survive politically and govern effectively and efficiently.
Last June 27, the President broke her silence on the tape. I felt hope and was very encouraged because that was the signal to begin the swift and credible actions of reform. Yes, I did sing and meant every word I sang. Then the same pattern of non-action or slow action set in, especially when it would affect people to whom she owes debts of gratitude. The July 5, 2005 Cabinet meeting was a tipping point, where it became clear that the frame of action is really survival at all costs.
On a personal note, the questions of my children regarding what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false in all this made me realize that the only thing of real value I can leave them is a sense of right and wrong. I made up my mind that I needed to resign; I also asked her to resign for the sake of the country and our future.
Credibility and leadership
The reforms necessary to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty require sacrifice from all sectors. There are those who need to give up a significant amount of power and prestige; there are those who will have to tighten their belts. To raise revenues for poverty reduction programs of government, we need to discipline ourselves and raise tax collection. This has impact on the working class who must also sacrifice over and above their current difficult struggle.
To move the country forward, we need a leader who can unite the country and undertake these difficult reforms. Unfortunately the President herself is the cause of division. While we are still struggling to ferret out the truth from all the scandals, she introduces another issue causing more division -- Charter change. And yet she also agreed to have a Truth Commission, which she will organize to investigate her actions. Over the past four weeks, however, we have seen the resources of government brought to bear on a media blitz to recover her image. The time and energy of Cabinet members have been used to defend the President and do things other than their work in their own departments. This is a President fighting for survival.
Mea culpa
One question that has been often asked of me is, since I stayed four years and a half, was I not part of the mistake? I was. I believe that Arroyo is a product of her own personal history. She was exposed to and has accepted the practices of traditional politics like paybacks, pay-ups and dirty tricks, at the same time also believing in instituting reforms in the economic, social and governance spheres using principles of transparency, accountability, and service to the people. She believed both worlds could exist in one person, that the dissonance and disconnect would not clash in her and her actions.
On hindsight, the same thing happened to me. I was able to develop a team in DSWD that crafted and implemented a community-driven development program funded by the government through a 100-million-dollar loan from the World Bank. It brought the most marginalized communities the opportunity to use their power to analyze the situation and develop solutions implemented by them, for which resources would be made available to them. It was an empowerment program on a scale matched by resources. It was consistent with my vision of power to the people and it covered 5,000 barangay.
To get support for this program, I had to work with the rest of the Cabinet and Arroyo. I had to be and was a team player. So on the many times that protesters and critics of the administration were mobilized, I was to be part of the team, if not leading the effort, of what I now call “domesticating tactics.”
I had directed my colleagues in DSWD to prepare packages of goodies for the urban poor communities either as part of raffle draws, food for work and family day activities to keep them from joining the rallies. We even had medical civic action with circumcision as part of the package. I admit I was one of those who crafted that strategy; I thought that rather than getting the urban poor out in the rally with the potential of getting pounced upon or even violently dispersed, it was better for them to stay in the community.
In the meantime, most of those who wanted numbers on the street began giving cash incentives for the people to stand an hour or two for their rally. The sacred right to stand up for your voice and be heard in the street, the right many of my friends had died for was now a commercial transaction. Truly, this has led to the commoditization of rights. This to me is the height of insult to the poor --we know they need the money so we bought their time. But it was not only their time we bought, we bought their soul, too, and in the process destroyed our own. Sadly, this was being done by both the opposition and government.
So as I was undertaking the empowerment processes in the KALAHI-CIDSS area, I was part of the domesticating process of the urban poor communities. The urban poor organizations I was relating with began to see me as their patron handing out favors or first information on benefits from government.
I was living two sets of values now. I was like Arroyo -- contradicting myself and counteracting my programs the way Arroyo proclaims transparency and accountability but with several parallel operations on an issue.
We were buying the people’s loyalty. Instead of serving them as part of government’s responsibility, instead of recognizing that the services we were providing were the rights of the citizenry. We invoked the utang-na-loob syndrome, exacting loyalty instead of recognizing that it is the right of the citizen and taxpayer to exact such services and programs from government.
We used our power and resources to domesticate the urban poor. I violated a basic principle that I had fought for, for so long – people empowerment. I had become a party to their disempowerment.
On loyalty
One of the strongest criticisms hurled against me was my disloyalty. How could a Cabinet member, a perceived close friend of the President, have the gumption to ask her boss to resign? Even some of my friends silently believe I could have made a mistake on this one. I have been reflecting on this point. It was not an easy decision, as I have narrated. It was a long and agonizing process. It was to wake up everyday and ask whether I was still consistent with my principles and the people I vowed to serve.
Arroyo, then VP, knew about Dinky only in October 2000. Contrary to popular belief, I am neither a classmate nor a long-time associate. We had a common vision for good governance born in the struggle against the Estrada government. Over the four years and six months we worked together, we developed a bond of mutual respect and got pleasantly surprised that we had some shared values, even common personal likes and dislikes of certain people. I treasure the relationship and would have wished I did not have to do what I did. I know it hurt her; it pains me that I had to do what I had to do.
It was clear to me that I was in government because of the principles and vision I believed we shared. The source of her authority emanates from the people by virtue of the mandate they gave her, both in EDSA II and the 2004 election. While it’s true that Arroyo appointed me to my post, my loyalty to the people is higher than my loyalty to her because we are all ultimately accountable to the people. I believed that the reforms and the truth were compromised because she has lost credibility and leadership.
It would have been easier had I just resigned and carried on with my life in development work. But then I would not have only been party to disempowering the poor, I, too, would have been disempowered. Some of you might say, “Hello, wake up. Government is all about compromise.” I say the people deserve more. If we want our democracy to work for all, especially the disempowered and oppressed, we all have to lay our stake and get involved in making it work as active citizens of this democracy. We have to speak up and act now.
Today’s Gospel spoke of the time when Jesus walked on water towards the apostles in a boat. Most of them were frightened and thought Jesus was a ghost. But Peter was inspired. He jumped the boat and walked in the water, too. Pummeled by the waves and the lightning, he wavered, but ultimately kept the faith and did not sink.
We too have taken our “walk in the water.” We too have been at the eye of a storm; we have been called traitors and have suffered much humiliation. But we believe our children deserve a truthful society and leadership with integrity. I have not taken an easy path, but we hope to keep the faith and our heads above the waters of despair and indifference.
By Dinky Juliano-Soliman
This essay was first brought to my attention by the blog of editor John Nery.
I JOINED government as a member of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Cabinet because of the principles I have believed in and fought for in the last 30 years of my life. Justice, good governance, equality, empowerment of the poor and marginalized, truth, freedom and love are values and principles that have anchored my involvement in the struggle to transform society. It is because of these same principles that I resigned from government service last July 8, 2005, exactly a month ago.
Most of you have journeyed with me in the struggle to keep DSWD as I found it – insulated from politics. I admit to some actions that were politically motivated. I asked my colleagues in DSWD to implement projects for political accommodation. I now apologize for those instructions.
It was always a struggle between good and evil: old habits of traditional politics versus alternative new politics, with communities asserting their power. The first three years proved that the reforms far outweighed the political accommodation – especially when we were able to launch KALAHI-CIDSS; deliver on commitments on the Early Childhood Development program; install performance management systems; set-up the standards for DSWD institutions like Golden Acres as centers of excellence; start the Bright Child campaign for early childhood education, and many more enhancements of our on-going social welfare programs.
These outweighed my discomfort with the Balikatan exercise (I do not believe in foreign troops in our country) and other activities that I felt compromised my principles. I was conscious that compromises allowed me to protect the gains of the reform we were undertaking.
The period after the 2004 elections became very challenging. Thinking that the President had a clear mandate, I anticipated less political accommodation and that we could zoom ahead on reforms.
Most of you were witness to the series of accommodations that included the DSWD. Appointments of Cabinet members and heads of revenue-generating agencies were influenced by the factor of “those who helped in the campaign.” The last three months were particularly difficult in emerging scandal. Most disturbing was a “jueteng” scandal involving the highest levels of government (that’s the perception) after we threw out former President Joseph Estrada on the same issue. While we do not prejudge the outcome of the investigation, the tapes definitely cast doubt on the President’s integrity and electoral mandate.
I have discussed these issues with her many times – alone, with the whole Cabinet, with the lady Cabinet members, especially in the last three months. We discussed ideas on how to win back credibility from a high distrustful people. There were two schools of thought: 1} political survival at all costs 2} swift and credible action of reforms to survive politically and govern effectively and efficiently.
Last June 27, the President broke her silence on the tape. I felt hope and was very encouraged because that was the signal to begin the swift and credible actions of reform. Yes, I did sing and meant every word I sang. Then the same pattern of non-action or slow action set in, especially when it would affect people to whom she owes debts of gratitude. The July 5, 2005 Cabinet meeting was a tipping point, where it became clear that the frame of action is really survival at all costs.
On a personal note, the questions of my children regarding what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false in all this made me realize that the only thing of real value I can leave them is a sense of right and wrong. I made up my mind that I needed to resign; I also asked her to resign for the sake of the country and our future.
Credibility and leadership
The reforms necessary to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty require sacrifice from all sectors. There are those who need to give up a significant amount of power and prestige; there are those who will have to tighten their belts. To raise revenues for poverty reduction programs of government, we need to discipline ourselves and raise tax collection. This has impact on the working class who must also sacrifice over and above their current difficult struggle.
To move the country forward, we need a leader who can unite the country and undertake these difficult reforms. Unfortunately the President herself is the cause of division. While we are still struggling to ferret out the truth from all the scandals, she introduces another issue causing more division -- Charter change. And yet she also agreed to have a Truth Commission, which she will organize to investigate her actions. Over the past four weeks, however, we have seen the resources of government brought to bear on a media blitz to recover her image. The time and energy of Cabinet members have been used to defend the President and do things other than their work in their own departments. This is a President fighting for survival.
Mea culpa
One question that has been often asked of me is, since I stayed four years and a half, was I not part of the mistake? I was. I believe that Arroyo is a product of her own personal history. She was exposed to and has accepted the practices of traditional politics like paybacks, pay-ups and dirty tricks, at the same time also believing in instituting reforms in the economic, social and governance spheres using principles of transparency, accountability, and service to the people. She believed both worlds could exist in one person, that the dissonance and disconnect would not clash in her and her actions.
On hindsight, the same thing happened to me. I was able to develop a team in DSWD that crafted and implemented a community-driven development program funded by the government through a 100-million-dollar loan from the World Bank. It brought the most marginalized communities the opportunity to use their power to analyze the situation and develop solutions implemented by them, for which resources would be made available to them. It was an empowerment program on a scale matched by resources. It was consistent with my vision of power to the people and it covered 5,000 barangay.
To get support for this program, I had to work with the rest of the Cabinet and Arroyo. I had to be and was a team player. So on the many times that protesters and critics of the administration were mobilized, I was to be part of the team, if not leading the effort, of what I now call “domesticating tactics.”
I had directed my colleagues in DSWD to prepare packages of goodies for the urban poor communities either as part of raffle draws, food for work and family day activities to keep them from joining the rallies. We even had medical civic action with circumcision as part of the package. I admit I was one of those who crafted that strategy; I thought that rather than getting the urban poor out in the rally with the potential of getting pounced upon or even violently dispersed, it was better for them to stay in the community.
In the meantime, most of those who wanted numbers on the street began giving cash incentives for the people to stand an hour or two for their rally. The sacred right to stand up for your voice and be heard in the street, the right many of my friends had died for was now a commercial transaction. Truly, this has led to the commoditization of rights. This to me is the height of insult to the poor --we know they need the money so we bought their time. But it was not only their time we bought, we bought their soul, too, and in the process destroyed our own. Sadly, this was being done by both the opposition and government.
So as I was undertaking the empowerment processes in the KALAHI-CIDSS area, I was part of the domesticating process of the urban poor communities. The urban poor organizations I was relating with began to see me as their patron handing out favors or first information on benefits from government.
I was living two sets of values now. I was like Arroyo -- contradicting myself and counteracting my programs the way Arroyo proclaims transparency and accountability but with several parallel operations on an issue.
We were buying the people’s loyalty. Instead of serving them as part of government’s responsibility, instead of recognizing that the services we were providing were the rights of the citizenry. We invoked the utang-na-loob syndrome, exacting loyalty instead of recognizing that it is the right of the citizen and taxpayer to exact such services and programs from government.
We used our power and resources to domesticate the urban poor. I violated a basic principle that I had fought for, for so long – people empowerment. I had become a party to their disempowerment.
On loyalty
One of the strongest criticisms hurled against me was my disloyalty. How could a Cabinet member, a perceived close friend of the President, have the gumption to ask her boss to resign? Even some of my friends silently believe I could have made a mistake on this one. I have been reflecting on this point. It was not an easy decision, as I have narrated. It was a long and agonizing process. It was to wake up everyday and ask whether I was still consistent with my principles and the people I vowed to serve.
Arroyo, then VP, knew about Dinky only in October 2000. Contrary to popular belief, I am neither a classmate nor a long-time associate. We had a common vision for good governance born in the struggle against the Estrada government. Over the four years and six months we worked together, we developed a bond of mutual respect and got pleasantly surprised that we had some shared values, even common personal likes and dislikes of certain people. I treasure the relationship and would have wished I did not have to do what I did. I know it hurt her; it pains me that I had to do what I had to do.
It was clear to me that I was in government because of the principles and vision I believed we shared. The source of her authority emanates from the people by virtue of the mandate they gave her, both in EDSA II and the 2004 election. While it’s true that Arroyo appointed me to my post, my loyalty to the people is higher than my loyalty to her because we are all ultimately accountable to the people. I believed that the reforms and the truth were compromised because she has lost credibility and leadership.
It would have been easier had I just resigned and carried on with my life in development work. But then I would not have only been party to disempowering the poor, I, too, would have been disempowered. Some of you might say, “Hello, wake up. Government is all about compromise.” I say the people deserve more. If we want our democracy to work for all, especially the disempowered and oppressed, we all have to lay our stake and get involved in making it work as active citizens of this democracy. We have to speak up and act now.
Today’s Gospel spoke of the time when Jesus walked on water towards the apostles in a boat. Most of them were frightened and thought Jesus was a ghost. But Peter was inspired. He jumped the boat and walked in the water, too. Pummeled by the waves and the lightning, he wavered, but ultimately kept the faith and did not sink.
We too have taken our “walk in the water.” We too have been at the eye of a storm; we have been called traitors and have suffered much humiliation. But we believe our children deserve a truthful society and leadership with integrity. I have not taken an easy path, but we hope to keep the faith and our heads above the waters of despair and indifference.
7/25/2005
Why Gloria was doomed to fail from the start
I’m saddened by the unfolding tragedy that is the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presidency. I have seen it fit to be the critic of her presidency but in truth, there had been a few good times between Gloria M. Arroyo and me.
In 1996, news about Gloria’s intention to run for the 1998 presidential race brought relief to those who dreaded the thought of Joseph ‘Erap’ Estrada becoming president. For those who cared about nurturing the fragile post-EDSA democracy to healthier stability, the thought of having Erap take control was indeed frightening.
As the topnotcher in the 1995 senatorial elections, Gloria indeed had what it takes to beat Erap. In early 1996, at the Intercon Hotel in Makati, Cherry Zapanta, a common friend, arranged the first meeting. Cherry was one of those who operated the reception area of the Cory Aquino Media Bureau for the 1985-86 Snap Elections which I headed. Cherry is also a Kabalen of Gloria and one of the closest friends of the president.
In that meeting which included then Senator Arroyo, Dona Eva Macapagal, Cherry Zapanta, Mike Arroyo and two former Diosdado Macapagal stalwarts in the Liberal Party, Mike Arroyo did most of the talking. Although what was offered to me was the general management of the campaign, I opted to be a simple media adviser because I was then running two businesses even as my kidneys at that time were already starting to deteriorate. Eventually I had to undergo hemodialysis for 25 months leading to an eventual successful kidney transplant in January 9, 2002 at the Makati Medical Center. Gloria gave me a surprise visit on January 12, 2002 at the hospital, not knowing that the day was also my 53rd birthday.
I served in the campaign team for about 20 months and formally resigned in November 1997. Those 20 months I spent with the campaign team gave me rare insights into the personality and character of both Gloria and Mike Arroyo. Even that early, I was convinced that Gloria did not have what it takes to be regarded as the ‘hope of the country’.
Notwithstanding her dismal track record and the endless chain of scandals, Gloria M. Arroyo must have pursued positive goals for our country. Why, even Ferdinand Marcos had lofty dreams for the Philippines and had wanted to leave behind a good legacy. Perhaps, Gloria even outperforms all other previous presidents in terms of the number of hours she puts in the job. When I was in her campaign team in 1996 and 1997, I would get calls from Gloria as early as 6 am – a most ungodly hour for me – whenever she wanted my assessment of an issue that was just raised against her the previous day.
Alas, it is true what they say that the road to hell is full of good intentions. History validates the fact that all the good intentions of rulers really depend on the methods they choose and the ideals they pursue. Looking back, this is where I see the failure and the tragedy of the Gloria M. Arroyo presidency. The roads that she chose to take, coupled with her inadequate moorings blended a lethal concoction leading to what is to be a failed presidency.
Trapo politics
Given all the kind of choices she had made and tends to make, Gloria M. Arroyo’s much-touted reforms can never happen. Reform and traditional politics (trapo) run counter to each other. Traditional politics in our country has mutated into the failed system that perpetuates the exploitation and virtual monopoly of the national wealth. Either you go for reforms or you embrace trapo politics. Macapagal-Arroyo preferred to play the trapo game.
How can reform be possible with traditional politicians who want only to preserve the status quo for the elite 5% or so who control over 85% of the national wealth? Reform must involve the more equitable distribution of wealth and the opportunities to create wealth. The 95% of Filipinos who do not have that wealth will want that reform. The 5% who have it will resist the reform. For instance, who did Gloria M. Arroyo get as her closest allies? Check the list and you’ll find the elite 5%, as represented by the famous Triple A of Aboitiz, Ayala and Alcantara.
Look at that ad of Makati Business Club (MBC) members who protested the earlier MBC position asking Macapagal-Arroyo to resign and you will see the complete list, from A to Y, from Aboitiz to Yuchengco, who happen to be beneficiaries of the regime. Remember how she had unceremoniously junked good members of her cabinet after the 2004 elections for the sake of political accommodation? That’s the trapo patronage system at work for you.
Can you see reform at that time when she replaced Dinky Soliman with Noli de Castro as DSWD secretary? She backtracked only after she saw the negative backlash. Can you see reform when she replaced an able marketing man like Obet Pagdanganan in Tourism with someone as clueless about the requirements of the post as Ramon Durano? Are we surprised that up to now tourism remains in the category of a “potential” revenue earner while the same sector in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand has grown by leaps and bounds? Where is the reform in the appointment of Ramon Revilla as PEA Chairman? Where is the reform in giving a frontline development agency like the DOTC to an ex-cop, Leandro Mendoza? In this information age, we need someone who is techno-savvy for the DOTC post. And she chooses to get an ex-cop? The list goes on.
Lack of proper moorings
The great leaders of the world, especially those who shone during periods of national crisis, had something in common – they were well anchored on a powerful ideal, moral code or political ideology. The new ideal of love for the least of one’s brethren provided the moorings for Christian faith. The new classless order in society provided the political moorings for Lenin and Mao in revolutionizing Russia and China. These are great examples of the power of ideas whose time has come. Communism may no longer be the fire that it was in the early 20th century but there is no denying its effect on contemporary world history.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo never caught on with any of those great earth-moving, powerful ideas. Living in the past, she cannot move forward, and, of course, neither can the country. She peddles decision-making the way a Madame runs a brothel – flesh for sale at the right price. Trapo politics in this country is long overdue for burying six feet under. Yet it sticks out like slime on all our lives because of presidential patrons like Macapagal-Arroyo and all the teeming millions that make up most of the country’s citizens who are unable to perform their proper roles as citizens of a democracy.
The ease by which Macapagal-Arroyo could lose friends and co-opt enemies shows someone utterly bereft of proper moorings. Miriam D. Santiago is a classic case in point. In the three days of rallies leading to the May 1, 2001 assault on Malacanang, Miriam D. Santiago was one of those who primed the ‘mob’ for that assault. Come December 2003, Miriam D. Santiago jumped to Arroyo’s side without even trying to come to terms with reconciling the disparity in principle.
During the time when I was her campaign adviser, I was shocked when she visited convicted rapist, Rep. Romy Jalosjos, in jail. Here was a woman who was being positioned for the presidency and she totally missed out the implication of the message that the visit to Jalosjos delivered. This is not just a simple ‘lapse in judgment’ as she fondly excuses herself. This is an insight into a psyche that lives and swears by the credo of trapo politics. Damn female delicadeza – she, a woman, would condone the crime against womanhood, as long as the rapist can deliver her the votes from his province. Someone who would move heaven and earth and even go to hell for the almighty trapo vote can surely have the gall to steal an election.
In another instance during the campaign for the 1998 presidency, Gloria consulted the campaign team on our thoughts about her co-hosting a showbiz talk show with Boy Abunda. I immediately put my foot down. It would be like positioning a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wanting to out-showbiz Erap, the showbiz president wannabe, when in fact she had all the qualities that Erap did not possess for the presidency. That incident added to the many other troubling insights I had gleaned on the character of our candidate and her decision-making process.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo topped the 1995 senatorial election as a member of the LDP. Because she was competing with then LDP president Ed Angara for the party’s presidential nomination in 1998, she was forced to put up Kampi in 1996. Then she ran under the banner of Lakas and Kampi for the 1998 vice-presidential race which she won with a comfortable margin over a respectable field that included former Pangasinan Governor Oca Orbos, Sen. Serge Osmena and Sen. Ed Angara (who agreed to become Erap’s Vice Presidential running mate). When she became president after EDSA II, she led a coalition for the 2001 elections under the banner of the now defunct People Power Coalition. Come 2004, Macapagal-Arroyo led the K-4 Coalition in the election that she is now widely-perceived as having ‘stolen’. At the same time, she is the titular head of Lakas. That is a total of five political parties and coalitions that she used for four consecutive elections.
I am no big fan of the present White House resident in America. But compared to our Gloria, George W. Bush believes in a political ideology – the tenets of Conservative Politics. You have a guide as to how President Bush will likely react to certain issues. Not quite the same with Macapagal-Arroyo who changes parties and loyalties with every wind.
This is why I can only consider those who claim to ‘genuinely’ believe in her as truly pathetic. Even more pathetic are those who are willing to go along with the rape and abuse of the democratic process so long as a showbiz president does not get installed. They truly deserve her and to be part of her ‘Harlot Politics’ – as I like to equate all this to cause and flesh trading in the Macapagal-Arroyo era. How can anyone believe someone whose entire political career underscores the fact that she does not really believe in anything?
You are better off believing in Santa Claus than in those Macapagal-Arroyo catch phrases like ‘fiscal reform’ and ‘new politics’.
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer
In 1996, news about Gloria’s intention to run for the 1998 presidential race brought relief to those who dreaded the thought of Joseph ‘Erap’ Estrada becoming president. For those who cared about nurturing the fragile post-EDSA democracy to healthier stability, the thought of having Erap take control was indeed frightening.
As the topnotcher in the 1995 senatorial elections, Gloria indeed had what it takes to beat Erap. In early 1996, at the Intercon Hotel in Makati, Cherry Zapanta, a common friend, arranged the first meeting. Cherry was one of those who operated the reception area of the Cory Aquino Media Bureau for the 1985-86 Snap Elections which I headed. Cherry is also a Kabalen of Gloria and one of the closest friends of the president.
In that meeting which included then Senator Arroyo, Dona Eva Macapagal, Cherry Zapanta, Mike Arroyo and two former Diosdado Macapagal stalwarts in the Liberal Party, Mike Arroyo did most of the talking. Although what was offered to me was the general management of the campaign, I opted to be a simple media adviser because I was then running two businesses even as my kidneys at that time were already starting to deteriorate. Eventually I had to undergo hemodialysis for 25 months leading to an eventual successful kidney transplant in January 9, 2002 at the Makati Medical Center. Gloria gave me a surprise visit on January 12, 2002 at the hospital, not knowing that the day was also my 53rd birthday.
I served in the campaign team for about 20 months and formally resigned in November 1997. Those 20 months I spent with the campaign team gave me rare insights into the personality and character of both Gloria and Mike Arroyo. Even that early, I was convinced that Gloria did not have what it takes to be regarded as the ‘hope of the country’.
Notwithstanding her dismal track record and the endless chain of scandals, Gloria M. Arroyo must have pursued positive goals for our country. Why, even Ferdinand Marcos had lofty dreams for the Philippines and had wanted to leave behind a good legacy. Perhaps, Gloria even outperforms all other previous presidents in terms of the number of hours she puts in the job. When I was in her campaign team in 1996 and 1997, I would get calls from Gloria as early as 6 am – a most ungodly hour for me – whenever she wanted my assessment of an issue that was just raised against her the previous day.
Alas, it is true what they say that the road to hell is full of good intentions. History validates the fact that all the good intentions of rulers really depend on the methods they choose and the ideals they pursue. Looking back, this is where I see the failure and the tragedy of the Gloria M. Arroyo presidency. The roads that she chose to take, coupled with her inadequate moorings blended a lethal concoction leading to what is to be a failed presidency.
Trapo politics
Given all the kind of choices she had made and tends to make, Gloria M. Arroyo’s much-touted reforms can never happen. Reform and traditional politics (trapo) run counter to each other. Traditional politics in our country has mutated into the failed system that perpetuates the exploitation and virtual monopoly of the national wealth. Either you go for reforms or you embrace trapo politics. Macapagal-Arroyo preferred to play the trapo game.
How can reform be possible with traditional politicians who want only to preserve the status quo for the elite 5% or so who control over 85% of the national wealth? Reform must involve the more equitable distribution of wealth and the opportunities to create wealth. The 95% of Filipinos who do not have that wealth will want that reform. The 5% who have it will resist the reform. For instance, who did Gloria M. Arroyo get as her closest allies? Check the list and you’ll find the elite 5%, as represented by the famous Triple A of Aboitiz, Ayala and Alcantara.
Look at that ad of Makati Business Club (MBC) members who protested the earlier MBC position asking Macapagal-Arroyo to resign and you will see the complete list, from A to Y, from Aboitiz to Yuchengco, who happen to be beneficiaries of the regime. Remember how she had unceremoniously junked good members of her cabinet after the 2004 elections for the sake of political accommodation? That’s the trapo patronage system at work for you.
Can you see reform at that time when she replaced Dinky Soliman with Noli de Castro as DSWD secretary? She backtracked only after she saw the negative backlash. Can you see reform when she replaced an able marketing man like Obet Pagdanganan in Tourism with someone as clueless about the requirements of the post as Ramon Durano? Are we surprised that up to now tourism remains in the category of a “potential” revenue earner while the same sector in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand has grown by leaps and bounds? Where is the reform in the appointment of Ramon Revilla as PEA Chairman? Where is the reform in giving a frontline development agency like the DOTC to an ex-cop, Leandro Mendoza? In this information age, we need someone who is techno-savvy for the DOTC post. And she chooses to get an ex-cop? The list goes on.
Lack of proper moorings
The great leaders of the world, especially those who shone during periods of national crisis, had something in common – they were well anchored on a powerful ideal, moral code or political ideology. The new ideal of love for the least of one’s brethren provided the moorings for Christian faith. The new classless order in society provided the political moorings for Lenin and Mao in revolutionizing Russia and China. These are great examples of the power of ideas whose time has come. Communism may no longer be the fire that it was in the early 20th century but there is no denying its effect on contemporary world history.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo never caught on with any of those great earth-moving, powerful ideas. Living in the past, she cannot move forward, and, of course, neither can the country. She peddles decision-making the way a Madame runs a brothel – flesh for sale at the right price. Trapo politics in this country is long overdue for burying six feet under. Yet it sticks out like slime on all our lives because of presidential patrons like Macapagal-Arroyo and all the teeming millions that make up most of the country’s citizens who are unable to perform their proper roles as citizens of a democracy.
The ease by which Macapagal-Arroyo could lose friends and co-opt enemies shows someone utterly bereft of proper moorings. Miriam D. Santiago is a classic case in point. In the three days of rallies leading to the May 1, 2001 assault on Malacanang, Miriam D. Santiago was one of those who primed the ‘mob’ for that assault. Come December 2003, Miriam D. Santiago jumped to Arroyo’s side without even trying to come to terms with reconciling the disparity in principle.
During the time when I was her campaign adviser, I was shocked when she visited convicted rapist, Rep. Romy Jalosjos, in jail. Here was a woman who was being positioned for the presidency and she totally missed out the implication of the message that the visit to Jalosjos delivered. This is not just a simple ‘lapse in judgment’ as she fondly excuses herself. This is an insight into a psyche that lives and swears by the credo of trapo politics. Damn female delicadeza – she, a woman, would condone the crime against womanhood, as long as the rapist can deliver her the votes from his province. Someone who would move heaven and earth and even go to hell for the almighty trapo vote can surely have the gall to steal an election.
In another instance during the campaign for the 1998 presidency, Gloria consulted the campaign team on our thoughts about her co-hosting a showbiz talk show with Boy Abunda. I immediately put my foot down. It would be like positioning a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wanting to out-showbiz Erap, the showbiz president wannabe, when in fact she had all the qualities that Erap did not possess for the presidency. That incident added to the many other troubling insights I had gleaned on the character of our candidate and her decision-making process.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo topped the 1995 senatorial election as a member of the LDP. Because she was competing with then LDP president Ed Angara for the party’s presidential nomination in 1998, she was forced to put up Kampi in 1996. Then she ran under the banner of Lakas and Kampi for the 1998 vice-presidential race which she won with a comfortable margin over a respectable field that included former Pangasinan Governor Oca Orbos, Sen. Serge Osmena and Sen. Ed Angara (who agreed to become Erap’s Vice Presidential running mate). When she became president after EDSA II, she led a coalition for the 2001 elections under the banner of the now defunct People Power Coalition. Come 2004, Macapagal-Arroyo led the K-4 Coalition in the election that she is now widely-perceived as having ‘stolen’. At the same time, she is the titular head of Lakas. That is a total of five political parties and coalitions that she used for four consecutive elections.
I am no big fan of the present White House resident in America. But compared to our Gloria, George W. Bush believes in a political ideology – the tenets of Conservative Politics. You have a guide as to how President Bush will likely react to certain issues. Not quite the same with Macapagal-Arroyo who changes parties and loyalties with every wind.
This is why I can only consider those who claim to ‘genuinely’ believe in her as truly pathetic. Even more pathetic are those who are willing to go along with the rape and abuse of the democratic process so long as a showbiz president does not get installed. They truly deserve her and to be part of her ‘Harlot Politics’ – as I like to equate all this to cause and flesh trading in the Macapagal-Arroyo era. How can anyone believe someone whose entire political career underscores the fact that she does not really believe in anything?
You are better off believing in Santa Claus than in those Macapagal-Arroyo catch phrases like ‘fiscal reform’ and ‘new politics’.
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer
7/14/2005
Character Flaw
Unfortunately, SELFISH Gloria just don't get it.... she has no more will and credibility and has already caused too much harrassment to the office of the presidency. She should step down. She has caused our culture much harm.
"What is at stake now is not only the presidency ... but the survival of our institutions," he said.
A Union Bank employee, who did not wish to be identified, said his company closed its offices and the employees told to go home, indicating it wanted its employees to attend the rally. He said he was in favor of Ms Arroyo resigning: "How can I explain to my children that you can commit something wrong and you only have to apologize?" (quoted: PDI. Image from PDI.)
7/10/2005
Arroyo is putting the country in the abyss
Some letters wrote to the editors of Inquirer. Nobody could have said it better....
-----
source: the inquirer
Focus on job creation, not on OFW deployment
I HAVE just read the article "Number of OFWs in '05 breaches 500,000 mark." I want to make a response to the following comment made by Acting Labor SecretaryDanilo Cruz: "We are confident that our goal to deploy a million OFWs globally continues on a firm and stable track."
My response is: Why does Cruz and the Department of Labor continue to focus so much of their time and effort on making sure there are more OFWs abroad rather than on the more important tasks of attracting more industries and creating new jobs in thePhilippines?
It seems to me that the Philippines government should try to encourage the creation of more industries and jobs in the Philippines itself so that the country's economy will improve on its own, rather than have to rely on the help of OFWs, who go overseas to find a better life for themselves. The whole OFW policy is misguided and short sighted and is more of a bandage
solution to a much bigger problem.
It's time for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her government to come up with better ways to improve the Philippine economy without having to depend on the income remittances of Filipinos working overseas or raising taxes on everyone, which Arroyo wants to do.
Otherwise, Philippine sovereignty will erode, as the country becomes an economic dependent led by an impotent president who is chiefly concerned about saving herself and her family from
scandals.
KYE PARSONS, 2002 Huntsman Drive, Salisbury, Maryland,USA
Regain lost honor
PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo finally confessed what the public has suspected or known all along --that it was she who was in a wiretapped phone conversation about an alleged conspiracy to rig the 2004 presidential election results. The President’sadmission, however,
fell extremely short of unraveling the truth about the widely circulated taped conversation. She merely opened the Pandora’s box of damning questions on her culpability for election fraud. Whatever she might have admitted, the confession and her apology rang hollow and was bereft of sincerity with which one could empathize.
For one, Ms Arroyo refused to admit to any wrongdoing. For another, the confession was incomplete and apparently legally calculated.
While everybody knew who “Garci" was, the President chose to play coy by merely referring to him as a certain Commission on Elections official -- a move that was undoubtedly a legal precaution. Relevant details were left hanging, simply because mentioning them might incriminate and might be used against her.
It may have been out of legal prudence that the President took that tack, but it did not augur well for the people. When Ms Arroyo adamantly refused to admit the authenticity of the tapes, the people did not like it, because they hate to be lied to. Now that she has admitted it is her
voice on the tape, and that what she did was merely a “lapse of judgment,” they feel they are being taken for a ride. That’s worse, because people doubly hate having their intelligence insulted.
Ms Arroyo’s television address was a production that played a poor script and poorer acting. She attempted to appeal to people’s emotions and counted on the Filipinos’ being quick to forgive and forget, but her forgettable but not forgivable performance came out as what it was --
rehearsed and contrived. Comedian Ate Glow could have performed better.
And speaking of screen presence, Ms Arroyo is a far cry from Susan Roces, not because Susan is a better actress (definitely) but because when Susan speaks or displays righteous indignation (as she has done recently following Arroyo’s tape disclosure) it is heartfelt.
The President utterly lacks the dignified bearing of a Susan Roces. Pound for pound (not to mention height against height) "Ate Glo" is no match against "Manang Inday" in public credibility.
President Arroyo, a professed devout Catholic, should take counsel from the famed running priest, Fr. Robert Reyes. The priest said Ms Arroyo’s confession would not have been accepted in Catholic rites. The sacrament requires a sinner to reveal all her sins. He further preached, “It’s
not enough to say sorry if you did not confess all your sins. There has to be penance. Penance will hurt. It will hurt the penitent and it has something to do with the sin committed.”
For the people deeply offended by what they perceiveas the President’s grievous sin of lying and cheating in the elections, the penance they prescribe is that she step down from the presidency.
The credibility and trust that are now lost from the presidency could be restored only through her resignation.To make up to the people for her lapse in judgment and act of impropriety, Ms Arroyo has promised to redouble her efforts to serve the nation and earn the people’s trust. But the people’s trust has been irreversibly breached.
Elsewhere, heads of state are expected to resign indisgrace for breach of their nations' political ethics. In another culture, hara-kiri would have beena proper penance for Ms Arroyo’s lapse in judgment. To the Japanese, to take one's own life and suffer the pain of a self-disembowelment ritual is to regain lost honor and save face. Here, “to save face” has taken a different sense; those who cling to power have taken it to mean having a face thicker than a carabao’s hide (my deep apologies to the carabao); the term "kapalmuks" [thick-faced] must have been a word coined
specifically for politicians.
It has come to pass that time-honored values of "palabra de honor" [word of honor] and "delicadeza"[sense of propriety], to borrow the words of fellowAtenean (de Naga) Conrad de Quiros, have become commodities that are routinely and horrendously defiled in this country, no thanks to Ms Arroyo.
The President has asked for forgiveness. But to forgive her at this point is to condone lying and wrongdoing (and ignore evidence of election fraud) committed by the highest official of the land. This would reinforce the cynical belief that in this country cheating and other foul means are tolerated or, worse, are part of the rules of the game called Philippine elections.
It would justify the Machiavellian tenet that the ends justify the means to capture political power. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would certainly not be happy to be remembered as the president who lied, who cheated and won the election, and later was caught but nonetheless got away with it.
She would not like her lapse of judgment and act of impropriety to become a model of conduct that other elective officials may be tempted to emulate. No, she would not allow that. She would make certain her office remains exalted and free from a besmirched reputation. She would make
sure that only honest and honorable statesmen and stateswomen would occupy the Office of the President. Wouldn’t you, MadamePresident?ELMER S. CASILLAN, 12 Queborac Drive, Bagumbayan Sur,Naga City
-----
More than impropriety
PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s admission that she talked to an official of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) before her proclamation raises a key issue that Filipinos must grapple with. It is not one of mere impropriety, as her allies would have us believe. Neither is it of stability or the need for sobriety.The issue is, plainly, one of right and wrong, and what is
to be done in the face of wrongdoing.
Ms Arroyo asked us to forgive her. But if the President were to be exonerated by a public apology, what basis would there be to charge the Comelec official she conversed with, and the others with whom this Comelec official collaborated to carry out questionable if not criminal
acts?
Some argue that the legitimacy of Ms Arroyo’s victory is nonetheless unquestionable, that she would have won anyway. This assertion is now open to debate.
Others say there is no alternative leader. Again, this is an open question.
Still others argue that the instability that would arise from a change of president would be disastrous for the nation. But is the instability caused by the President’s wrongdoing not disastrous enough?
A President incapable of distinguishing between mere impropriety and grave wrong doing should not lead. Ms Arroyo must step down from office.
By stepping down, the message to all, most especially our youth, is clear: dishonesty is unacceptable. Dishonesty is wrong. No public official who is dishonest should remain in office. Dishonest officials must be accountable for their actions. “Sorry” is not enough.
By remaining in office, Ms Arroyo’s message is theopposite: it pays to be dishonest; just apologize and all is forgiven. Worse, there are indications of a cover-up of the wrongdoing at the highest level. As evidence of the cover-up emerges, Ms Arroyo’s position will become increasingly untenable.
Much has been said about the need to respect constitutional processes. The truth is, far too many Filipinos have lost faith not just in our leaders but in our institutions.
The Comelec has no credibility; so is the legislature; and the judiciary has failed to deliver justice especially to the poor and powerless. A church that preaches sobriety but remains silent in the face of patently immoral public acts will lose its reason for being. Businessmen who value profits and market stability over what is a clear case of misgovernance will soon lose both. And civil society leaders who cannot condemn wrong doing by the country’s highest officials isolate themselves from the majority for whom hunger and basic survival are daily fare.
The people cannot wait for the outcome of a fact-finding commission, which would take a year or so while Ms Arroyo remains in office.
We repeat, Ms Arroyo must step down. This is the first and necessary step in the peaceful transition to a restructuring of our institutions.
ZENEIDA Q. AVANCEÑA, president, CARMEN I. DIOKNO,treasurer, The Diokno Foundation
source: the inquirer
7/08/2005
Resignation Statement of Our President's Cabinet Members
Full text, resignation statement of 10 Cabinet members
Of Leadership And Credibility
WITH deep concern and firm resolve, after a long period of reflection, debate and consultations, we, the undersigned, are hereby submitting our collective irrevocable resignation.
As early as Tuesday, July 5, we had already made our decision to resign. The President preempted our moves. This preemption does not change our conviction that her decisions as of late are guided mainly by her determination to survive as President. We believe that she will continue to make her decisions according to this norm.
By this act, we are not making any judgments on the tapes and "jueteng" issues. There is a proper forum to resolve those issues consistent with the rule of law. More pressing and immediate concerns confront our people today than poisoned politics or infirmities in our Constitution. At the core of these concerns are the issues of leadership and credibility--the ability of our President to continue to lead and govern our country with the trust and confidence of our people.
The longer the President stays in office under a cloud of doubt and mistrust, and with her style of decision-making, the greater the damage on the economy and the more vulnerable the fragile political situation becomes to extremists seeking to undermine our democratic life. In the end, the poor will suffer the most.
The President can be part of the solution to this crisis by making the supreme sacrifice for God and country to voluntarily relinquish her office and allow her constitutional successor, the Vice President, to assume the Presidency. Resignation is a legitimate constitutional option for affecting leadership change. Given the crisis in the Presidency, this is the least disruptive and painful option that can swiftly restore normalcy and eventually, bring us to prosperity.
We reject violence and anti-constitutional alternatives and call on our people to do the same. We will reject any attempt to exploit our resignation to sow intrigue and destabilization. We should all unite behind our constitutional successor and work together to resume our struggle for social, political and economic reforms.
The process of reforming society is difficult. It will entail sacrifices among our already suffering people. It will generate resistance and conflict among those who may have to give up power and privilege. We need leadership that can inspire our people to stay the course, while we confront these challenges. We need leadership with the moral courage to push on in the face of adversity; leadership that can steer the nation towards healing and reconciliation.
Even as we take leave from public service, we assure everyone of our unwavering commitment to continue serving our country, especially the underprivileged and powerless amidst us.
Now, couldn't Arroyo do the same? The supreme sacrifice for the greater good?
5/27/2005
Travel in style with kalsada.com
From the 7107 islands of the Philippines, we suggest visiting the site kalsada.com to showcase the magnificent beauty of the Philippines. Once known as the Pearl of the Orient, there are a lot of beautiful places that are still unknown to a lot of people. "Kalsada", came from the Filipino word "road", and has been providing inspiration to travellers and nature lovers alike.
4/30/2005
Closer
Here are some excerpts from the movie "Closer".
1.
Anna: I'm sorry you're...
Larry: Don't say it! Don't you fucking say "you're too good for me" I am, but don't say it.
2.
Alice: Where is this "love"? I can't see it, I can't touch it. I can't feel it. I can hear it. I can hear some words, but I can't do anything with your easy words.
3.
Larry: You don't know the first thing about love because you don't understand compromise.
4.
Dan: You've ruined my life.
Anna: You'll get over it.
5.
Dan: I love her because she doesn't need me!
6.
Dan: What's so great about the truth? Try lying for a change - it's the currency of the world.
7.
Anna: Why did you swear eternal love when all you wanted was excitement!? Love bores you.
Dan: No, it disappoints me.
8.
Alice: It's the only way to leave: 'I don't love you anymore, good-bye.'
Dan: Supposing you do still love them?
Alice: You don't leave.
Dan: You've never left someone you still love?
Alice: No.
9.
Alice: You won't, you'll miss me. No one will ever love you as much as I do.
Dan: I know.
Alice: Why isn't love enough? I'm the one who leaves. I'm supposed to leave you. I'm the one who leaves.
10.
Alice: I don't love you anymore.
Dan: Look...I'm sorry...
Alice: No, I've changed the subject. I don't love you anymore.
Dan: Since when?
Alice: Now...just now. I don't want to lie and I can't tell the truth so it's over.
Dan: Alice...don't leave me.
Alice: I've left...I've gone. 'I don't love you anymore. Good-bye.'
11.
Dan: I fell in love with her.
Alice: Oh, like as if you have no choice. There's a moment. There's always a moment. I can do this. I can give in to this or I can resist it. I do not know when your moment was but I bet you know there was one.
* * * * *
Love is an accident …
waiting to happen.
Desire is a stranger …
you think you know.
Intimacy is a lie …
we tell ourselves.
Truth is a game …
you play to win.
waiting to happen.
Desire is a stranger …
you think you know.
Intimacy is a lie …
we tell ourselves.
Truth is a game …
you play to win.
If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking.
2/22/2005
Color Test
PROBLEM UNDERLYING THE PRESENT STRESS -- The fear that he may be prevented from achieving the things he wants leads him to play his part with an urgent and hectic intensity.
DESIRED OBJECTIVE -- Strives for a rich life in activity and experience, and for close bond offering sexual and emotional fulfillment.
CURRENT INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR -- Feels that he is receiving less than his share and that there is no one on whom he can rely for sympathy and understanding. Pent-up emotions and a certain egocentricity make him quick to take offense, but he realizes that he has to make the best of things as they are.
1/27/2005
Who needs a fling when what i want is the whole fairytale: long walks on the beach, up-all-night conversations, and watching sunrises/sunsets in each other's arms. I'm a picky dater who doesn't connect with just anyone. A strong intellectual streak, loyalty, and a great sense of humor are surely terrific selling points. BUT I already found my other half(love u, sweetie!), that person who can finish my sentences, the person who really 'gets' my inner emotions.
1/17/2005
Call Center Community
C2, previously known as Call Contact is now nearing it's version 2 upgrade. Hope we can realize the dream of having a source to connect fragmented people together.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)