Give it to Gibo

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Give it to Gibo
Sunday, 04 25, 2010

Last Wednesday, while practically scouring the length and breadth of Nepa-Q Mart to look for the best items my limited money could buy (Ilocano ngamin!), I decided to conduct a little survey. As I haggled for the best bangus for my buck, I simultaneously asked the vendors who their choice for president would be. And, not surprisingly, six out of every ten vendors I asked anwered me in this wise: “Si Gibo talaga ang gusto ko, pero huwag na lang. Sabi kasi ng mga survey matatalo naman siya.”

In other words, why vote for a good candidate when he will lose anyway?

That is exactly our beef against the so-called surveys. They coax voters who they should vote for, playing up on the voters’ subliminal desire to identify themselves with the eventual winner. They’re actually a form of political hypnotism, where the audience (the rest of the voters out there) believe what they see unfolding before their very eyes (the survey results).

As positioned by the surveys, the leader of the pack or the one within striking distance of winning invariably gets the vote on election day because of this mass hypnosis, as it were.

Surveys create a bandwagon effect and precipitate self-fulfilling predictions without regard to the real and genuine sentiment of the rest of the unsurveyed voters. This excision is where the unfairness and disservice of the surveys lie.

Surveys that prey on the respondent’s naiveté — or his propensity to make a choice without considering the candidates’ credentials — are hardly the kind that educate the public on the importance of making good choices. Surveys of this sort rely on the certainty that a predetermined set of respondents will unerringly pick one among a set of choices. In that case, either the outfit has been bought to come up with figures that would confirm a predetermined conclusion, or that the outfit had started on the ugly premise that notwithstanding the choices made by the respondents, the conclusion must be reverse-engineered and defended before the public at all costs. And that includes, of course, the right price.

Elections should be about making the right choice, zeroing in on the most qualified who will back his words and thoughts with the reality of deed. Elections should not be about voting only for the candidate who has the chance of winning because you see his face more often on TV or on posters plastered on every surface imaginable. If the latter were the primary consideration, then let’s just scrap the elections and rely purely on the survey results.

When a consistent frontrunner in the surveys suddenly slams the results of the latest survey (which he did not commission) that shows his points to be slipping while his opponents are catching up, you could be sure there has been some sort of manipulation that went with that frontrunner’s surveys. Perhaps Senator Noynoy Aquino knows how he has been getting his astronomical numbers in the previous surveys and how the unbelievably low numbers that the rest of the presidential candidates got were arrived at.

The yawning gap in qualifications and performance between Gibo and Noynoy should give Noynoy the least numbers in any survey, but the survey results show the reverse. Indeed, the surveys gloated about by the Liberal Party could have been sourced from Quiapo, that place where everything fake and dubious could be bought.

Gibo is the best choice in the field of eight candidates for president. Gibo has everything — galing at talino, and more. Yet, six out of every ten vendors I talked to would not be voting for him. Just because the surveys say he will lose anyway.

Even that video clip of Senator Jinggoy Estrada — where he exhorted the mammoth crowd at the rally of the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino to vote for Gilbert Teodoro if they are not minded to vote for his father, Joseph Estrada — speaks volumes of the strength of Gibo.

Back at the Nepa-Q Mart, a vendor gave me a different reason for not voting for Gibo: “OK siya, pero tuta naman siya ni Gloria, e.”

True, it is a downside that Gibo is associated with President Gloria Arroyo. And as the Beatles say, “Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight!” but that overlooks the intelligence and character of the man, and his qualifications, accomplishments and abilities as a leader. We have seen enough to be convinced that Gibo is his own man, as he already is as a candidate. Look at how he has been deftly handling the crisis in his own political party without any help from Arroyo: that’s leadership shining through. He has not turned to Arroyo to cure whatever ails his party: that’s independence of mind when it is crunch time. He is intelligent enough to make decisions at a time of his own choosing, for the good of the country above all and in accordance with the rule of law that has guided him all his life.

Larry Bondoc of Glendale, California, posted this in his blog: “Gibo’s greatest show of good character and values is his positive campaign style. He never engages himself in political mudslinging. He is just out there, listening to people and discussing issues and his platforms. He talks with substance and is clear in conveying his message to the Filipino people. Many believe he is an independent man and knows what he’s doing. I think he’s the man the country needs now.”

In the final reckoning, then, it is the qualifications, accomplishments and abilities that should matter. And come to think of it: If all those who prefer Gibo will actually vote for Gibo, imagine the votes he will get.

So enough of the hedging, the hemming and the hawing because of the surveys. Come election day, give it to Gibo.

[N.B. This was not printed in The Daily Tribune on April 25, 2010, for reasons unknown. It was finally printed on May 2, 2010.]
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2010

1-AANI from the soil and the sea

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

1-AANI from the soil and the sea
Saturday, 04 24, 2010

Last Wednesday was my turn to restock the depleted contents of the family fridge, so I had to negotiate my way through the cacophonous rumpus and ruckus of the seafood section of Nepa-Q-Mart. I was contemplating with my usual Ilocano frugal state of mind whether to settle for the lowly galunggong or to dent my wallet with the purchase of the tastier but more expensive lapu-lapu, when my attention was drawn toward a group handing out leaflets. I thought two of them looked familiar and, sure enough, they turned out to be former UP students of mine.

One is now a lawyer based in Samar, and he told me that he has been practising there since passing the bar in 1993. His clients: the fisher folk in that depressed province in the Visayas. He was honest enough to admit to me that the financial returns for his lawyering may not be that good as compared to his compañeros in the big city. But the psychic rewards, he said, are more than he could ask for - especially when he sees the joy that lights up the faces of his poor clients. Solving fishermen’s legal problems and helping improve their lives was enough to keep him locked to that kind of law practice.

My other student, I learned, is now a social entrepreneur. Six years ago, according to her, she established a taho factory - yes, taho; she didn’t put on any airs and call it “soy yoghurt” - and the proceeds of this “unlawyerly” enterprise are used to fund various socio-civic projects in Metro Manila and her home province of Bulacan. In her social enterprise, livelihood opportunities are given to farmers from Pampanga, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija who find themselves idle in between the planting and harvest seasons. While working in Manila, these farmers are given a decent place to stay in the factory premises and are even encouraged to join the management's weekly Bible studies.

It was evident that these two are happy and content in what they are doing now. They are especially proud of the uplift they have brought to the spirits of the farmers and vendors who at last discover their self-worth and dignity after interaction with these two social activists. Before, these farmers and vendors regarded themselves as nobodies, insignificant members of the society, and wallowed in self-pity, dismissing themselves with phrases such as "ganito lang kasi kami"; "mahirap lang kami"; "kain po tayo, pero pasensya po at pangmahirap lang ang pagkain namin" and other expressions of low self-esteem. Everything’s changed now. After a few months of weekly Bible studies in the factory, the farmers eventually felt empowered and then became regular volunteers of the factory's socio-civic projects.

In early 2007, attorneys Angel Gatmaitan and Mayen de los Santos led a group of individuals driven by their advocacies to uplift the quality of life in their respective towns and provinces, and formed a bloc that will embody their common vision. 2007 and 2008 turned out to be fruitful years. They spearheaded projects and activities involving small-scale lending, food-for-the-orphanage programs, a mini-library, medical and legal aid, sea-weed farming and other livelihood seminars in different towns and provinces.

The response among the beneficiaries of the project was so heartening that sometime in mid-2009, a member organization proposed the idea of joining the Party-list System of Elections. From this core group burst forth the cluster of organizations and individuals making up the party-list now known as 1-AANI.

For the May 10 elections, 1-AANI is now on overdrive, gaining support from its member organizations and other groups of individuals as well as other sectors of society to represent the farmers, fishermen and the marginalized. In fact, members of the Philippine Association of Ex-Seminarians and members of other socio-civic organizations are supporting the group. They have witnessed the projects and believe that winning a seat in this year’s elections will enable the group to replicate their ongoing projects on a much wider scale, benefiting more people, especially the least fortunate among the tillers of the soil and toilers of the sea.

1-AANI, even before its accreditation as a party list organization, already has a track record to speak of, and is not just one of those run-of-the-mill organizations that make themselves visible once every three years attempting to join the Congress of the Philippines.

The nominees of 1-AANI for the May 10, 2010 elections are 1) Atty. Timm Renomeron, a lawyer, former editor of the Philipppine Law Journal, and copra trader from Nurauen, Leyte; 2) Marvyn Gaerlan, a two-time University Student Councilor in UP Diliman, now a working student taking up law, and the coordinator of the Samar Seaweed Farming Project; 3) Eddie Catalo, a self-supporting law graduate and seafood trader from Boronggan, Eastern Samar; 4) Antonio Mirador, a municipal councilor for 12 years, who has been in the fishing business since 1976 and former vice-president of the Samar Fishermen Association; and 5) Atty. Anghel Gatmaitan, a lawyer from Bulacan, a volunteer for various socio-civic causes.

With the presence of these young men of the 1-AANI in the House of Representatives in the Fifteenth Congress, the marginalized sector that has benefitted from them in all these years will finally have a voice to articulate their concerns and enact them into law.

On top of the legislative agenda of 1-AANI, according to Atty. Gatmaitan, is the introduction of amendments to the Fisheries Code and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, designed to expand the credit and other support facilities available to those in the agriculture and fishery sector.

In English, the party’s name means “to harvest.” Expect, then, 1-AANI to harvest, for the sector it has sworn to represent in the House of Representatives, a bounty of laws that will serve the needs of the fisherfolk and farmers.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2010

Autism and marijuana

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Autism and marijuana
Sunday, 04 18, 2010

The denigrators of presidential candidate Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino Jr. claim that he is autistic. Of course, they would; that’s their role in the current political exercise. But what is alarming is that the Liberal Party (LP) never made any real effort to convince the public that its standard bearer is not mentally-challenged.

Thus, in my column of February 21, 2010 entitled “Those whom the gods wish to destroy,” I wrote: “It was methodical madness for the LP to make a limp denial of the autism issue and to give one columnist hell just because he had asked Noynoy if he felt alluded to. The autism issue will not die with the kind of answer that the LP has given; it could engender far worse and more personal issues that could irreparably hurt Noynoy’s campaign.”

Now comes the “Psychiatric Report” on Noynoy’s alleged mental disorder and use of marijuana, whose authenticity and contents have since been denied. The trouble with denials, however, is that they are easy to verify to an acceptable extent, even for non-specialists. The Report, even if fake, cannot be perfunctorily dismissed: it is replete with details of his character and personality, which Noynoy is reported to have exhibited, from which anyone can make an uneducated conclusion.

Even before the Report came out, Noynoy’s image has been a curious kaleidoscope of constantly changing personas: an individual alternating between fits of anger and goodnaturedness; a person indecisive on many issues, including his handling of the furor over Hacienda Luisita; a latent dictator who threatens not to recognize whoever is appointed chief justice before June 30; a doting father-figure to a son of his sister; a starry-eyed politico with a furious cigarette smoking habit and unconscious frothing in the mouth as he grapples with the realities of a situation.

The Report does lend some basis for questions to pile up since talk started about the mental state of Noynoy.

For starters, let’s zero in on the use of marijuana.

The case is made that autism is assuaged by an infusion of marijuana. Stated otherwise, marijuana cures autism. Is there really such a connection?

Google “marijuana and autism” and you will get a full edification that marijuana, indeed, is a cure for autism. From the Autism Research Institute at www.autism.com: “Some families have found marijuana to be nothing short of miraculous. Some of the symptoms marijuana has ameliorated include anxiety, aggression, panic disorder, generalized rage, tantrums, property destruction and self-injurious behavior.”

In the news item from the online edition of television network ABC on November 29, 2009, at www.abcnews.go.com, a mother makes the following claim: “’Marijuana balanced my son. My son had self-injurious behaviors. He was extremely aggressive, he would run out of our house. He was a danger to himself and others. But just hours after I gave him one of the pot-infused brownies, I could see a change - both in his appetite and demeanor.” And at www.righthardia.blogspot.com is this entry: “It seems to me if one is going to need to use drugs, one ought to consider a relatively safe drug, like marijuana, if research bears out the good results that a number of parents have reported.”

There are thousands of entries and testimonials in Google on the benefits of marijuana use in the cure of autism.

Barack Obama, in his autobiography “Dreams of My Father” released before the campaign for the US presidency in 2008, jumped the gun by saying: “Ok, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled frequently.” It paid that he made the admission well before somebody else made any disclosure that could have wrecked his campaign.

In the case of Noynoy, any admission or denial he makes would not exculpate him either way, now that the (in)famous “Psychiatric Report” has pre-empted whatever he may pose as a defense against the allegation that he used marijuana in his youth.

Any admission (to his use of marijuana) would necessarily lead one to entertain the thought that there is some truth to the insinuation that he is suffering from some mental problem for which cannabis would be an appropriate cure. On the other hand, any denial that he stayed away from marijuana will not necessarily disabuse the existence of the many verifiable acts and personality traits he has exhibited.

It did not help any when Noynoy declined to submit himself to a psychiatric test. Indeed, if there are no bats in his belfry, why should he not welcome the bat catchers?

Worse, he has instead challenged his political opponents to a lie detector test. What he has overlooked is that the questions in such a test could very well fit the same mold of the questions that would be asked in a psychiatric test. What will his answers be, for instance, if he is asked whether he was ever administered a psychiatric test, or if he had ever smoked marijuana in his entire life?

Whoever made the “Psychiatric Report” had it all figured out, but I still put that blame on Noynoy and the LP who have been less than transparent about the nature of his mental condition. And whoever counselled Noynoy to pose the challenge of a lie detector test must be the Trojan Horse in the LP.

By all means, let us condemn - or shoot - the ones responsible for the “Psychiatric Report.” But, then again, this is the endgame of the political war: everyone is fair game and no one is going to be spared.

Whichever way the debate on Noynoy’s mental state goes, there is a lesson learned: Candidates for national public office must be forthright with the voting public early on. There are no secrets that the public will not get to know or just speculate about, eventually.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2010

What’s the PPCRV doing?

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

What’s the PPCRV doing?
Sunday, 04 11, 2010

That was the question asked by those who attended the Kapihan sa Sulo yesterday, after Prof. Roberto Verzola of the Halalang Marangal (HALAL), an election watchdog, had detailed the security features of the Automated Election System (AES) stripped away by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), without the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) raising a howl.

Why the PPCRV appears inutile in its tasks as the Comelec-accredited citizens’ arm for the May, 2010 elections is indeed puzzling, leading some to speculate that the much-maligned and unlamented National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) could have made the more effective election watchdog.

Verzola distributed copies of his paper ‘Disquieting Signs That Make 2010 Election Fraud Easier,’ and repeatedly cited Section 6(a) of the Automated Election Law (AEL) as providing for “adequate security against unauthorized access.” Yet, ‘the Comelec has been gradually stripping away security features that were meant to prevent unauthorized access to the machines, ballot boxes, and the ballots themselves,’ Verzosa bewailed. He detailed this gradual degradation of the system security, as follows:

1. The ballot box is not transparent. - Old ballot boxes had a transparent window, to detect ballot stuffing. Transparent ballot boxes are the product of our long experience coping with cheats under a manual system,. At first, the ballot box for the automated election was also designed using transparent plastic. But the Comelec shifted back to dark plastic, supposedly to avoid exposing to light the sensitive ultra-violet (UV) markings on the ballots. This obviously is a lame excuse, because the UV markings are scanned and authenticated by the counting machine before the ballot is stored in the ballot box.

2. UV detection of fake ballots disabled. - The counting machine has a built-in feature to detect and reject ballots without the proper UV markings and are, therefore, presumed fake. However, the counting machine’s scanner was ordered turned off by the Comelec, disabling this authentication feature. (So the ballot box does not have to be dark after all!) Again, this is one less security feature for cheats to worry about.

3. NPO security mark missing in ARMM ballots. - With National Printing Office security marks missing in authentic ballots, it is now easier to pass off fake ballots The cheats are back in business. In fact, with the ballot security measures being stripped away, the electoral system will be fully exposed to the biggest weakness of ballot scanning and counting machines. It will be much easier now for the cheats to mark ovals than write names when mass-producing thousands of fake ballots.

4. BEIs instructed not to use digital signatures. - The Comelec general instructions for Board of Election Inspectors tell the BEI members not to digitally sign the data to be transmitted. The Comelec claims that the machine will just sign for them.

In short, precinct-level elections inspectors have been instructed by the Comelec to send election results without their digital signatures. The Comelec defends this incomprehensible instruction by saying that the digital signature generated by Smartmatic for the inspectors is already encoded into the machine. This is the equivalent of instructing inspectors to sign blank forms, which insiders could then use in whatever way they like. This is an open invitation to fraud. Earlier the Comelec had ignored suggestions that the functions of a digital certification agency be assigned to an independent third party, instead of remaining with Smartmatic. With the functions of digital signature generation, transmission and confirmation concentrated in Smartmatic, which also sold us the system and is furthermore running it, we have the business equivalent of the functions of supplier, operator, accountant, cashier and auditor assigned to a single person. Another open invitation to fraud.

5. Verification of voter’s choice disabled. - Section 6(n) of the AEL requires that the counting machines lets voters verify if their choices were correctly interpreted by the machine, before their choices are recorded. Already built into the counting machine, this feature that displays the actual names of candidates corresponding to shaded ovals and asking the voter to confirm by pressing the ‘CAST’ button. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the voting public to determine the accuracy of the voting machines, right on election day, right before their very eyes. The Comelec has taken away this opportunity, by disabling this verification feature. Now, the voter only gets a ‘thank you’ message. This only means one thing: it is possible for the machine to register a different choice, and the voter cannot complain because he will never know about it. The machine provides no paper audit trail that each voter can actually verify. Voters can no longer verify if the scanning machine has correctly registered their choices.

6. Source code access highly restricted. - The source code is Smartmatic’s general instructions to its counting machines. Pursuant to Section 12 of the AEL, it is incumbent upon the Comelec to promptly make the source code “available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof.’ Yet, the Comelec has inexplicably dragged its feet on this issue, making vague promises about opening the source code, but in reality keeping it closed and secret. While the Comelec may have already announced that the source code was ‘open’ for review, it imposed such restrictive conditions that made it next to impossible for local reviewers to do the task. Thus, no stakeholder has been able to review the source code.

.

The Comelec has been doing its worst, to guarantee the failure of the AES for the May, 2010 elections. It remains for the PPCRV, the accredited citizens’ arm, to do its best as a watchdog in order to remedy the failings of the Comelec, and to assure the electorate that whatever the poll body has been programmed to do will not succeed.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2010