Why I am not choosing Leni Robredo

Many of my friends will definitely disagree with what I am about to write but I am sure in the end they would choose to understand me and allow me to exercise my God-given freedom of speech. As a voter and as an observer, I merely want to air my opinion in the political race that has awakened the consciousness of an entire nation, or so I think.

The heated VP debate last April 10 is no doubt a testimony to the character of each candidate and it was indeed very helpful to people who haven’t made up their minds. A lot of assessments, comments, and impressions indeed came out. I am sure everyone has his/her opinion but I’d like to focus on the comments of some about Cong. Robredo. In the question of whether the candidate has future plans to run for President 6 years from now, the congresswoman was quick to raise the No sign. This made her supporters tag her as one who isn’t a politician but a public servant and one with integrity. It seems that people was very quick to forget that only late last year, the lady also said that running for VP was “never an option” for her. No offense to the lawmaker, I liked her once for showing strength amidst her husband’s demise, and this was of course before she made the decision to run as VP.  But I think her candidacy has changed the Bicolana.

She flip-flops. One of the important virtues we look for in a leader is integrity. One who stands by what he/she does and says. When Robredo very quickly expressed in the VP debate that she has no intention of running as President in the future, many were impressed but I remember too well that only in September last year, she also said that she had no intention of running as VP and yet we found her standing in the VP debate stage. Understandably, she could not resist the call to serve. For that, I think we should allow her to get away with it but no one can blame me for not believing that she won’t change her mind about her future presidential bid. Why? This is because it is not the first time she flip-flopped.

In the controversial SSS pension hike issue, Robredo was one of those who voted for increasing the SSS pension in June last year, and yet when Pres. Aquino vetoed it, she was quick to change her mind, even to the extent of defending the president saying he did what must be done. Even when a group of legislators tried to collect signatures to overturn the veto, Robredo was silent. When SSS pensioners wanted their voices heard at the Congress, she was nowhere to be found. How come she defends the action of the president when she fails to even listen? I can say she is one who cannot stand firm, one who quickly bends depending on the flow of politics. Hence her chosen political symbol a flipflop is quite fitting to her character.

 

She capitalizes on bashing her opponent. This is sad but it is no wonder because the one who  brought her to the race is one who has made a career out of throwing muds at his opponents.  But for me, this is minor. What disturbs me more is that she bashes Bongbong Marcos about Martial Law (ML) atrocities yet she allows herself to enjoy the endorsement of former Pres. Ramos – a key figure during the Martial Law era, one who had a rather direct hand in its enforcement. Such an act is not only inconsistent but a clear manifestation that contrary to popular impression - Leni Robredo is a politician. She bashes one (even if BBM barely had a hand in the ML) but embraces another (turning a blind eye on the role of Ramos during the ML era) because it was politically beneficial for her to do so. And what gives her the right to throw mud when she is yet to write her contribution to the national interest? Moreover, since when did she make fighting for the ML victims her mission? What does she have to say about other human rights abuses? I would be very interested to know what she has to say about the human rights violations of the Mendiola massacre and the Hacienda Luisita massacre.

She wears yellow. Robredo has seemed to embrace the ‘yellow propaganda,’ whatever that means.  I don’t know but she seems to enjoy very much the idea that she is like Cory who rose into political stardom because of the demise of her husband. So now she dresses like her and Kris Aquino and her siblings. You might think that the symbol should be no big deal, after all what matters is that the person is sincere and humble etc. Yet this clearly shows where her allegiance lies as shown by her defense of the actions and decisions of the president. One example, she approved the BBL despite its unconstitutionality simply to side with Aquino. When and if she wins the race, what will her decisions be based upon? How flexible will she bend to cater to the needs of Aquino?

True enough, yellow is used to symbolize being pro-democracy as Cory Aquino herself is said to be pro-democracy. In fact, there are people who call her an icon of democracy, whatever kind of democracy they were referring too. But I am sure Robredo knows from history that former president was hardly an icon of democracy as shown in the crucial decisions she made as a president. In the so-called revolutionary government she put up –Cory handpicked the members who made up the body which had written the 1987 Constitution. Instead of conducting election to determine the members of the assembly as she should have in a democratic setting, she instead appointed them. Many believe that EDSA People Power 1 was not about democracy but was merely an uprising and a power grabbing episode because only a few percentage of the electorate, not the majority, marched to EDSA to oust the then legitimate and duly-elected president Ferdinand Marcos. Cory Aquino also unilaterally decided to release the top rebel officials as soon as she became president according to her running mate Doy Laurel. If Robredo is truly pro-democracy, I don’t think she should be happy to be called the second Cory Aquino.

Most importantly, she is not ready, period. She said it herself. In an event she graced in Kidapawan City last September 2015, it was Cong. Leni Robredo herself who uttered the words - “I am not prepared" and "Running for the country’s second highest post was never an option” and that she “…never dreamed of becoming a vice president” and that “there are many others who have the capability and experience for that position.” Note that she used the words ‘never’ more than once. She also said that her decision was final. What then made her think a month later when she filed her candidacy that she is prepared for the position?

The Vice Presidency is a national post, the second-highest. And the requirements for it is the same as the Presidential post. Therefore, it is no place for trainees. Experience in serving the national interest in particular and in politics, in general, is essential because it takes a while before one gets to learn the numerous problems, and solutions for that matter, that plague an entire country. People are very quick to say that Robredo will make a good national leader but how can we say this when the slate is virtually clean? On what basis do we say she has clean records when there is no record of government service to speak of save for less than 3 years as a lawmaker, and therefore she has not be subjected to the same political pressure as other candidates who have had an experience in a national post in the past have been subjected to.


Oh I’m sorry, I stand corrected. In the brief stint she has in the congress, we saw that she does not have a backbone and easily gives in even to unconstitutional propositions to satisfy her political leanings. She throws mud to advance herself instead of focusing on her platforms. She criticizes one when it suits her but is blind to another who can raise her political stake. If that is not being a trapo then I don't know what it is. 

I’d really wished that Robredo opted to just continue her political career as a lawmaker where she can learn more about it and gain experience in politics but I guess the events that transpired are a nature’s way to bring out the character of the person. I simply think that she has lost the strength I saw in her when her husband died, when she took upon the call to serve her people in Bicol in his stead. Politics had very quickly tainted her and it was unfortunate that she chose to be dragged too fast into the national political scene without much experience and political will. Most of all, it pains me that she allowed herself to be used for the political gains of others.

References: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/718381/robredo-says-she-will-not-run-for-vp-in-2016#ixzz45cdm548l
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/755724/robredo-defends-aquino-on-pension-hike-veto-he-did-what-must-be-done

The fixation with numbers for political gains

In such times of political salience, opinions of experts are of high demand. Politicians are very welcoming of any information they can use to support their political interests. The academe consisting of scholars and experts have a very critical role to play and therefore it is very crucial that they exercise caution in their writing. I write this post in response to various articles coming out bearing their assessments of various regimes – Marcos, Aquino, and even Arroyo. I aim not to refute their claims because that would take time and to fight numbers, I’d need to present mine. Rather, I merely want to pose questions to writers and analysts who have written or are planning to write such articles and this goes not only to the anti-Marcos academia or anti-GMA academia but to all people wanting to do the compare-and-contrast piece. I also want to send my message to readers for them not to take things at face value.

Numbers don’t lie

True enough, numbers don’t lie. And so it is very tempting to check various numbers like the GDP growth, amount of external debt, debt ratios, expenditures, balance of payments, credit ratings and the like. So what many usually do is to pick numbers corresponding to the years covered by a particular administration and without much thought – attribute these to the administration during that period. I present several points why such assessment may be grossly flawed.

The truth is – policies and programs do take time to effect. Programs or policies implemented within a 4-year or 6-year rule may produce benefits that can only be felt 10-20 years after initial implementation. Of course in the 20-year rule by Pres. Marcos, there is a better chance of seeing the effects within that timeframe. But even then, infrastructures like major dams, roads, and bridges built by this regime in the 1970s and early 1980s still benefit many to this day. Likewise, airport terminals built or rehabilitated during the Arroyo administration may have been instrumental in the arrival of more tourists or the more efficient air transport today. To attribute these to the present administration just because we can only feel and see such effects now is just not fair. So this becomes an issue of calculation. In your cost-benefit analysis, if you even conduct one, for instance, how do you conduct your valuation of benefits of major infrastructures where the gains to the people lie beyond one’s regime? As mentioned earlier, many of the infrastructures that Marcos or Gloria Arroyo spent on are being utilized to these days. These also have to be considered before one can say anything about cost-effectiveness of borrowings.

Establishing causality

Likewise, and more importantly, the policy process including implementation does not happen in a void. In writing or reading articles that attribute effects to a particular factor – in this case a particular regime’s policy, one needs to be careful about causality. Is the analysis rigorous enough to establish causality? If you say that a particular regime did so bad, borrowed too much, that the economy has suffered so much, you are saying that this regime has ‘caused’ such bad outcome. In school, especially in graduate school, we are taught to draw our conclusions only after careful and rigorous analysis, more so if what we are claiming is causality. Some would argue that we should be strict with the causality requirements only in more critical fields like medicine. I disagree, all analyses that attempt to make attributions must be scientifically founded. Otherwise, we should not forget to highlight the caveats.

There are 3 requirements before one can establish causality – the temporal requirement, correlation, and lastly, the absence or ruling out of confounding factors. The first two are easier to establish relative to the third. Temporal requirement merely asks that the cause we claim happens before the effect. There is a problem if they happen simultaneously. The second one asks for a correlation – meaning if authoritative regime is equal to chaos or economic recession, then the opposite must also be true, without authoritative regime, we get a better economic outcome. We look into the entire history of the country and if we see such pattern then there is a correlation. Since it is widely accepted that there is only one authoritative regime so far, this is quite difficult to establish. What one can do is to look for other countries’ experiences. And believe me, this is yet to be established as it has stirred a long and continuing debate among economists and political scientists all over the world.

The last requirement and perhaps the most important in this discussion is the absence of confounding factors. This has haunted every analyst because it is very difficult to rule our other possible explanations. In layman’s term – it means that when we attribute the problems of the economy to the policies of a particular regime, we must ensure that no other factors – no external shocks, no natural and man-made calamities, no domestic factors like rebellion or internal conflict, and no foreign influences or interventions have affected the outcome we are looking at. Only after we have determined that these factors did not confound the outcome can we truly say that it is caused by the policies. So, have we ruled them out?

Look more closely

There is also what we call construct validity. There is a construct validity problem if the program we’re looking at was not implemented as it should be, if ever implemented, because of whatever reasons or factors prevailing during those times. In short, de facto was different from de jure. Blaming it is of no use. This means that you cannot attribute the outcome to something that is either incompletely implemented or not implemented at all. An example is the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, why blame the Marcos regime for the debt it incurred to construct the plant, hence our failure to benefit from it, when it was abandoned by succeeding administrations? The same goes to other projects that were in the pipeline but were abandoned by administrations that succeeded, and these are projects that Marcos had started to build with the billions of dollars he borrowed.

Meanwhile, looking at mere patterns of government expenditures, debts, among others, fails to account at where the money went to – does it comprise of big time infrastructures or dole out expenses? If one regime borrowed and spent $100 million while another had $2 billion, what do we make of this? Do we look at the needs met? Do we look at the quality of spending? I don’t see such in the articles I’ve read, only outright attributions with not much deep analysis.

What to do

So how should we do our assessments then? I’m no expert but in my humble opinion, I suggest all we can do is to make an account of outputs vis-à-vis inputs and not attribute broad outcomes to regimes because outcomes are a function of so many factors not even an authoritative regime can control. It is so easy to credit or discredit a person depending on where your allegiances are. Understandably, even scholars and researchers like us have our own political leanings and principles. Nevertheless, we should not allow ourselves to use our craft loosely just to arrive at a conclusion that supports a particular political agenda to the extent that we sacrifice sound analysis and our reputation as researchers or academics.

Why Bongbong Marcos?

When Sen. Bongbong Marcos’ rating rose in last month’s SWS survey, the anti-Marcos coalition immediately gathered its force to arrest the surge. This is coupled with frantic efforts by all his opponents to dismantle his reputation by pushing the Martial Law human rights violations argument. Loud as they are, playing the ‘all versus one’ card, the campaign doesn’t seem to work, at least, not yet. The latest Pulse Asia survey had just confirmed that indeed Marcos has now successfully caught up with the survey leader Sen. Chiz Escudero.

Meanwhile, the Marcos campaign remains steady. His seemingly rock star appeal to the masses in his provincial and city visits makes any opponent to want to use every weapon they have in their campaign arsenal. Despite the many criticisms and allegations, Bongbong has become the force to reckon with. In this article, I attempt to explicate the factors behind the rise in the popularity of the VP contender and comment on some issues pointed at him.

There are two faces to his popularity – one is the much older Marcos loyalist who have lived long enough to see another Marcos rise to the political arena while remaining nostalgic of the old Marcos regime’s successes. The other face – the subject of my maiden article, is that of the young and technologically-adept millennial who, according to many, is lucky he/she did not live to see the atrocities that happened during the Martial Law years. The former is dubbed as too old to remember the Martial Law crimes and the latter is too young and insensitive. One is saying the old times are better than today and the other believes so. Or so we think. But is this all?

Bongbong Marcos and the youth
(Courtesy of bongbongmarcos.com)

Is it desperation?

If not for the failures of the present, no one would fantasize the past – especially the so-called ‘dark times’ in Philippine history. Have the people become that desperate? Is true leadership so scarce in this part of the world that the Marcos brand have become palatable?  As part of the younger generation myself who have seen Presidents being impeached or arrested for plunder or simply loathed for being cold and heartless to the needs of the people, my desperation too runs deep. But that is not the whole story. It is likewise too simplistic to say that people do like him, or if you’re on the other side of the fence dislike him, because of what his father did. I say, the people have taken a much closer look at the young Marcos.

When the SAF 44 got butchered in the Mamasapano clash that involved the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in early 2015, a window of opportunity opens. This particular incident paved the way for a more thorough discussion of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) wherein people got to see more of Sen. Bongbong Marcos, being the head of the Senate Committee on Local Government, and the way he handled the BBL discussions. It was an exposure no one has planned. And so many, especially those who haven’t yet, realized that he is one brilliant, articulate politician. Such exposure have led people to dig deeper into his political career, his achievements, and his ideologies. And many have lauded it, as they cannot deny he’s one good leader that has the potential for a higher office.

Inherited charisma?

He has become his own man. Though remaining a self-confessed fan of his father, Bongbong confesses he does not aim to emulate his father because to do that he has to outdo what the old Marcos has done which he says is difficult, if not impossible. Undeniably, like his father, he has the charisma. How would you explain the warm reception that he gets whenever he goes to the provinces and municipalities? And this is an oversimplification – in reality, people react as if he’s a matinee idol, or a rock star, as I put it earlier. I have never seen people react in such manner in front of a politician in my entire adult life – older people in tears, a pool of youngsters taking endless selfies with him, a 90-year old man who can barely walk went out to see him in his rally.

Bongbong Marcos visits Cainta, Rizal
(Photo by politics.com.ph)

His message of unity?

His message of unity sells pretty well too. In these times where divisiveness rules the political and social arena, where those at the helm conduct selective justice, where you see a President’s advocacy is to punish not everyone who commits corruption but rather those who do not favour his agenda, Bongbong’s platform of unity is not bad at all. In fact, it is what we badly needed in a country so lacking of social cohesion that we fail to see past the affairs of our own families. Our morale as one people has suffered a lot because no one has ever attempted to unite us, not in a way that seeks to tear down political fences as Bongbong Marcos is proposing. Scholars and observers have long been arguing that it is social cohesion this fragmented country needs and it is what we must pursue.

Not apologetic

The litany of criticisms about the Martial Law crimes that he must apologize for is already, I believe, a passé. Those who refuse to move on and insist that he acknowledges them should have done their campaign long time ago if that is what’s really necessary for the nation to heal. What they’re doing now is tainted with politics as many people can see. That is why Bongbong is firm on his stance that the closure for the Martial Law crimes is beyond him. And why should he apologize? He did not have any executive powers relating to the Martial Law in those times. It is not up to him to apologize since those who had a direct hand on it, people who made decisions, people who acted as implementers of the detentions and tortures, people who had brainwashed the minds of young activists to join the rebels, people who took part in the rebellion that have pushed the Marcos administration to desperate measures, are still very much alive today, though they remain, well, unrepentant. Why then should he be the one to take all the blame, just because his name is Marcos?

And many people say ‘enough already.’ You have been blaming the 20-year Marcos rule for the past 30 years. As if the Marcos regime is all there is in this country. As if we didn’t have many other problems  back then. As if our hands are too tied with the problems brought by the Martial Law years, come on, 30 years? I'd rather be fixated with the good and how we were able to do it rather than the bad and how we've never come to get past it. The Filipinos are no idiots. Thank God we’re now in the knowledge age, the technology we now have allows more and more people to access information that the mainstream media and propagandists have denied us in the past.


People gather to welcome BBM
(Photo courtesy of newsunited.com)

No distortion, only the truth

When Bongbong said ‘let historians, not politicians judge Marcos rule,’ he said so because he himself does not want to be the one telling history for he is man enough to acknowledge that his version would be biased, and so he said let the historians do it.  I do not believe that this statement is an attempt to distort history as some academics have claimed. Using the word ‘distort’ is malicious and is used only by those who are not open to the reality that the history we know today may be incomplete, if not distorted in the first place. If you speak of the atrocities during the Marcos regime because of the Martial Law, is that distortion? Definitely not, for you’re telling some episodes of the truth. And when you are accounting good things that had happened, is that distortion? I say, it’s not as long as it done in an objective manner. But if there were important things and events and actions that were not included in the accounting, either intentionally or not, do we just leave them behind or we bring them out? If there were loopholes in the way history was written or events that are untold to this day, why shouldn’t we allow historians to make amends, augmentations or corrections if in their writing all salient aspects and perspectives come out? When older people like our parents and grandparents say that they were not treated badly and that life was better back then - that is their truth, no one here is distorting history, no one is distorting the truth. We do not need distortions. History, in its complete form, must be told. The people want to have an unbiased account of events and players before, during, and after the Martial Law so that we have a better understanding of our past. Seeking for the complete truth is not distorting history. You do not need to be an expert or an academic to understand that. 

Millennials and the Marcos VP candidacy

I have been meaning to write a piece about the millennials and how the candidacy of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have streamed a lot of attention to this segment of the society. As the survey figures of Marcos rise, the discussion intensifies and so I decided to finally pen my piece. The young Marcos is said to be favoured largely by millennials because these people did not experience life during his father’s administration. Mock polls in schools show that he is the run-away winner in the VP race. Many have been quick to judge these youngsters as insensitive and ignorant of the atrocities of the Martial Law regime. I do not consider myself a millennial as I was born in the late 1970s but since I was too young back then to have a meaningful assessment of everything, I count myself a part of this younger generation that has been deprived of an education on this very important part of our history. In my maiden post in this blog which I intend to build for discussion about Philippine politics and policies, I lay down my observations and opinions as part of this younger generation.

Better times?

Yes, we were born late in the day and therefore we don’t know what it’s like to live in those days. But why is it that many from the older generation, those who have lived during those times, say that those were better times than today? People were more disciplined and peaceful. My mom, at least, says so. And other parents and grandparents. It is unlikely that all these people are lying. People might say, do away with comparison, rather let’s look at it as it is. But can we prevent that? It is a fact that many people believe things were better in the Martial Law years despite the many horrible stories of human rights violations. It is also a fact that whether or not things were better during those times than today is DEBATABLE. And millennials make their own assessment out of this lack of consensus.

Deprived

I argue, as many people have, that this is, at least partly, a deficiency of the education sector, maybe it failed to educate many of the youth about the realities of the Martial Law era. As already mentioned, I was born in the late 1970s and the history books during my time did not have a nuanced discussion of why Martial Law was imposed in the first place, or why people have been detained, only the so-called human rights violations, only the effects and reactions. Perhaps this is because, as they say, history is written by victors. People have a habit of portraying things and events selectively. And so people like me and those who were born later have many questions in our minds left unanswered. It seems that the victors’ version of history have been shoved into our consciousness without the genuine objective to educate us but rather to brainwash us to look into events and things that matter to them the most. And the education sector is not solely to be blamed. I argue that the mainstream media has a huge responsibility and they failed in their share of the responsibility. This is why many of our youngsters resort to social media and alternative platforms like Youtube where they can get answers to their questions.

We read, you know.

You’re wrong to say we don’t read beyond Facebook news feed. Being born in the Internet era, the youth can access all the facilities available out there. People blame them for resorting to social media to get the information they need. What is wrong with that? At least they get some ideas, ideas that can guide their research. From Youtube, they get talking heads, not some articles written by biased authors and politicians. They get to listen to people who were actually there, people who made decisions during those times. And they can unearth the archives to get information that have been buried deep by propagandists who want to bury them forever. For instance, in my very own research I get to listen not only to former Pres. Marcos, his legal advisers including the legal luminary Estelito Mendoza, people who have served him and other presidents after him like Juan Ponce Enrile but also those from the opposition during those times like former Sen. Ilarde, significant figures like Nur Misuari, a former Malaysian Prime Minister, rebel leaders Victor Corpuz, self-confessed leftist Rigoberto Tiglao and many others. Youtube is full of videos of past interviews and events and we try to make careful and intelligent observation and analysis of these not to mention our ability to discuss issues via the social media platform. What many people fail to see is that the younger generation's resourcefulness and genuine curiosity are its strongest weapon. Pair these up with the power of Google and all the Internet resources that they can reach in a single tap of their gadgets and you have a generation that truly lives the knowledge era.

Hunger for the truth

The truth is we want and need the whole truth, a complete account of all events focusing on the reasons, including the people responsible for it, behind the Martial Law declaration, an objective account of the atrocities, and those people who have a direct hand on it. The truth that speaks not only of the bad but also of the good that have come out of it, the lessons that we learned and yet to learn. We hunger for enlightenment and the government and historians must provide that enlightenment. We may not be able to count on to the mainstream media for now, but maybe someday.

For now, we can only thank Bongbong Marcos and his candidacy, we are now talking of improving the history curriculum at school and there might be a chance that my children's children will benefit from this enlightenment. And so we wait.