E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Wellspring of hope
Sunday, 10 27, 2002
Imagine, if you will, the more than seven million Filipinos abroad: Oil workers in the arid deserts of the Middle East; caregivers in Israel; domestic helpers in the bustling cities of Singapore, Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur; doctors, accountants and all kinds of white-collar professionals in the United States and Canada; seafarers in the vessels that regularly crisscross the Pacific and Atlantic seas; and, if one has to be honest about it, even those workers engaged in the so-called entertainment and hospitality trade in the rowdy and turbulent cities of every continent of the earth. The Filipino is here, there and everywhere.
One does not need to pore over the records of concerned government agencies – if such records really exist that might reflect their concern (we’re talking, after all, of flight of expert and valuable labor away from the country) – in order to deduce that a significant number of these Filipino expatriates, as long as the economics and politics of their host country permit, would rather stay for a protracted period of time abroad than go back to the Philippines. For most of our countrymen, out there, in distant shores, is where the money is; never mind if one has to break one’s back.
It comes, therefore, as a mild surprise, a surprise that sometimes borders on perplexed vexation, when those of us who are here in the Philippines are swamped with expressions of concern, sympathy, outrage from these very same Filipinos who are supposed to be no longer affected by whatever befalls this catastrophe-prone, economically-distressed, politically-confused country of ours. Whether it can be an Edsa revolt or a Pinatubo eruption or a case of endemic corruption, there will always be a reaction from the Filipino abroad. By various means – e-mail, snail mail, text or satellite phone – he always finds a way to make himself heard. And if he’d rather have his druthers, he would do something about it.
Which brings us to the question: Do immigrants still feel strongly for the motherland? Or, do they merely want to have the best of both worlds – to live and work abroad and still enjoy the right of suffrage? Are they people who love their country sincerely and deeply and are just staying abroad on a temporary basis? Or, are they just plain opportunists?
Finding the answers to these questions was actually an agonizing exercise for the members of the Senate committee that drafted the absentee voting bill, which was passed on third and final reading last Tuesday. Opinion was divided. Pundits said it makes no sense rewarding those who had turned their backs on the native country – the stink, the corruption, the Pres. Dioskupo Magarapal Blvd., and all. They were sober voices who argued it was precisely the hapless – and hopeless – conditions back home that pushed the immigrants to pack their backs and leave. But, then, these sober voices were countered by those who said that it was bad judgment to leave the country to the likes of Mike Arroyo and Dante Ang. And their kind.
Finally, after considering the pros and cons of the issue was a verdict. The committee report was endorsed for plenary vote, and passed on a 17-1-1 vote, which was very firm: The right to vote shall be granted even to the greencard holders.
The spirit of inclusiveness, said Sen. Ed Angara, dominates the Senate version. The provision on the immigrants is just one of the many that convey the strong message that overseas Filipinos, wherever and whatever they are, and whatever their status, will benefit from the absentee voting measure.
The Senate version of the absentee voting bill does not discriminate as to the legal status of the overseas Filipinos. Angara said even during the initial hearings on the measure he already stood strongly behind the need to include the undocumented overseas Filipinos in the list of absentee voters. (There are roughly 1.3 million Filipinos in the various diasporas overseas). And in the Senate version, the documentary requirements for registration have been relaxed. Documents other than passports can be used to register. This is to make sure that the TNTs are not excluded from the process.
A longer voting period has been prescribed for some 600,000 seafarers serving on board international vessels, from the small tramp steamers serving short-distance routes to the giant oil tankers plying the long shipping runs. This is in line with the general idea to broaden the coverage of voters, not to limit the list. The Senate version even encourages the seafarers to avail of the tools of information technology to deliver their votes.
Speaking of IT, the Senate version, in a sense, sets the stage to make the tools of IT part of the electoral process. Whenever technically and financially feasible, the use of these tools is encouraged. In fact, the Senate version wants the Commission on Elections to do everything that can be done to automate the elections.
The Senate version of the absentee voting measure has been criticized for its supposed laxity – and for opening up the absentee votes to manipulation and electoral fraud. It has been slammed for putting too much faith in the people and in an untried system. Or, to put it bluntly, a system that will be developed only once the law is passed and funds are allocated. But that is vintage Angara. He represents faith, not pessimism. Instead of dark tales about fraud and electoral cheating, he sees the bright and hopeful side of absentee voting. He feels that Filipinos are basically noble in their pursuits, and their exposure to different cultures and different peoples tend to magnify – not diminish – this nobility of purpose.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment