0		ads, Filipino presidential candidates, elections

In less than two months, Filipino voters like me will choose the next local and national leaders of the country.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) official website still lists 10 presidential candidates even if it has already disqualified Vetellano Acosta of Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (loose translation: New Society Movement). Anyway, that there are currently nine candidates for President doesn't necessarily translate to a variety of choices.

They are more of the same not only in terms of their social background but also where they stand on burning issues of the day. How could voters choose wisely if they don't know their platform of governance? Campaign slogans and jingles cannot be expected to provide an in-depth explanation of specific programs and policies that presidential candidates would implement if they get elected.

The discerning voters do not need catchy slogans or expensive production numbers as they read, watch or listen to political advertisements. All that's required is a categorical statement regarding burning issues of the day.

In a recent column article published in Pinoy Weekly titled "Sino ba'ng dapat iboto?" (loose translation: Who should be deserving of our vote?), I wrote about the state of my "political indecision" due to the lack of in-depth discussion of issues.

In the process of my discussion, I presented some alternative short statements that could serve as 30-second ads for the presidential candidates. Allow me at this point to translate them into English:

• I will repeal the Oil Deregulation Law because we need to end the monopoly of the oil companies.
• The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not serve the interest of the majority of Filipinos so it is right that we junk it, along with the other US-RP military agreements.
• I will support the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) because this follows the land-to-the-tiller principle absent in the recently extended Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other past agrarian reform programs.
• I will increase the salaries of workers in the private and public sectors so I will encourage the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass the pending bills regarding legislated wage increases.
• I will fight the globalization policy which results not just in the increase in the prices of goods and services but also in the death of many local businesses.

Of course, it's possible to think of so many more.

• Just like the Oil Deregulation Law, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) should be repealed because this has resulted in anomalous increases in the electric bill.
• The privatization of water utilities has resulted in increases in the water bill so it is necessary for government to regain control of all water utilities, as in the case of the power and oil industries that must be similarly nationalized.
• The poor people always bear the brunt of indirect taxes on goods and services so the repeal of the Value-Added Tax is in order.
• The police will not violently disperse any peaceful mass actions and, on certain occasions, protesters in Mendiola will even be allowed to enter Malacanang Palace for dialogue.
• Consistent with the findings of the United Nations and other international groups, I hold the military directly responsible for the spate of extra-judicial killings and other forms of human rights violations and those concerned should be ready to face criminal charges.

Obviously, these statements take less than 30 seconds to deliver. But given the lack of political will of many candidates, it might take them forever to do so.

Once they commit to upholding such issues, they will definitely end up betraying the social class they belong to, not to mention alienating the moneyed few who help fund their campaigns. Does this mean that in-depth discussion of issues will remain a pipe dream in the runup to the May 10 elections?

At any rate, if there are any presidential candidates who are willing to incorporate these points in future political advertisements, they will definitely help raise the level of political discourse and earn the votes of the more critical Filipinos.

	0		organizational communication, gender sensitivity, feminism, women\'s month

The celebration of International Women's Month is the proper time to analyze a little-known Philippine government memorandum issued in 2005.

Five years ago, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) encouraged those in government to use non-sexist language in their official communications. Issued on March 30, 2005, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12 aims to promote gender-sensitivity in technical writing outputs like letters and memoranda.

In a primer prepared by its Gender Development Committee in March 2008, the National Statistics Office (NSO) stressed the need to transform language "from traditional usage to a more liberating one." The use of non-sexist language, according to the NSO, will encourage people "to make a conscious effort to avoid implicit and discriminatory language against women and men."

The suggestions in using non-sexist language prove to be very useful. There is no debate that the NSO's following suggestions could help make technical writing outputs more gender-sensitive:

1. "Eliminate the generic use of HE, HIS or HIM unless the antecedent is obviously male;
2. "Eliminate the generic use of Man, instead use People, Person(s), Human(s), Human Being(s), Humankind, Humanity, The Human Race;
3. "Eliminate sexism in symbolic representations of gender in words, sentences and text;
4. "Eliminate Sexual Stereotyping of Roles; and
5. "Eliminate sexism when addressing persons formally."

The elimination and consequent substitution of the proper terms could go a long way in promoting a culture of gender-sensitivity in the bureaucracy. Sentences, after all, could be written in a way that uses gender-neutral words.

While the CSC should be commended for promoting the use of non-sexist language, what needs to be assessed is the impact of the memorandum circular which is a mere "encouragement" to be gender-sensitive in the writing of official communications.

Five years after the issuance of the memorandum, have official communications become more gender-sensitive? Has non-sexist language been finally minimized, if not totally eliminated, from the bureaucracy's everyday lingo?

Notwithstanding the lack of any qualitative study on government's technical writing outputs, what is clear is that the CSC memorandum is being implemented at a time when government structures remain inherently sexist, as may be gleaned from male references to positions of power and influence. Consider the following:

1. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives remain to be called congressmen.
2. Heads of various committees in the three branches of government are still addressed as chairmen.
3. The highest official of the land is still gender-defined as reference is made to His Excellency or Her Excellency.
4. Legal documents, most often than not, start with the phrase "Know all men by these presents."

The sexist words currently used reflect the patriarchal mindset of those in power. Despite their periodic denials, the inherently sexist attitudes remain despite the occasional use of non-sexist language.

More than the encouragement to use non-sexist language, it is high time for government to institutionalize the training on gender-sensitivity to complement their drive to be more gender-neutral in their technical writing outputs.

Yes, communication is vital to promoting gender-sensitivity in the bureaucracy. But the use of non-sexist words would be useless if those working in government fail to learn, relearn and unlearn the nuances of patriarchy that informs Philippine society.

	0		journalism, 2010 elections

Is it ethical for a journalist to run for public office?

Legally, nothing prevents journalists from getting a seat in government as long as they meet the required citizenship, age and residency requirements.

Ethically, however, journalists should be reminded of what's written in the Filipino Journalist's Code of Ethics: "I shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the ‘conscience clause’ when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience." (emphasis mine)

A journalist who becomes a candidate for whatever position will have a difficult time performing his or her task of reporting the news. For example, how could media audiences believe his or her election analyses if they know that the journalist has a vested interest to win? A candidate-journalist is therefore put in a difficult situation where he or she cannot be seen as objective and fair, no matter how well he or she adheres to the highest professional standards of the profession.

Reading the list of 79 candidates for national positions (President, Vice President and Senator), one realizes that a handful of them used to be professional journalists. Two of them are running for Vice President (Loren Legarda and Jay Sonza) and four of them for Senator (Kata Inocencio, Rey Langit, Gilbert Remulla and Alex Tinsay).

Of course, these numbers may be considered inconsequential if one were to look at the total number of candidates for national office. There are 10 people running for President, 8 for Vice President and 61 for Senator. But just like journalists, most of those running for national positions have been in the public eye for some time either as celebrities or high-ranking government officials.

Even before the official start of the election campaign last February 9, most of them have been constantly seen on television. And even if they can hardly be called professional journalists, some politicians have actually acted as hosts or guest news anchors of selected television news and public affairs programs. There are also those who agreed to write newspaper columns to make themselves visible.

Some media organizations have a lot of explaining to do for allowing politicians (especially the inarticulate and incoherent ones) to help shape public opinion by actively taking part in the delivery of news. Theoretically, after all, politicians should be mere sources of information who are interviewed periodically by the media, given their lack of training in news gathering, writing and production.

But with this kind of arrangement where media audiences are introduced to "politician-journalists," there are questions that need to be asked: Instead of media organizations paying politicians professional fees for their services, were the former the ones who got paid instead? Why did media organizations agree to such an arrangement even if there are journalists who are obviously more qualified to handle tasks like hosting a talk show and anchoring a news program?

The existence of "politician-journalists" is no different from "candidate-journalists" where media audiences fail to know for sure where their interests and loyalties lie.

At least for those running for national positions, there is no such creature as "candidate-journalists" as they have, rightfully so, taken a leave of absence hosting public affairs programs or reporting the news. However, the same cannot be said yet for journalists aspiring for local positions as the official campaign at the local level starts only on March 26.

Just as entertainment personalities are decisive in the shaping of Filipino values, journalists have a serious responsibility of shaping public opinion by providing meaningful information. Should journalists decide to embark on a different kind of public service, they should be willing to give up their professions, either temporarily or permanently.

Actively campaigning while doing journalistic work does not help any in the shaping of public opinion. In the final analysis, "candidate-journalists" would do more harm than good in building up the credibility of the journalism profession in the eyes of media audiences, most especially the electorate. And with credibility put into question, it would be hard for the other well-meaning journalists to perform their watchdog function.

	0	1	2010 elections, media, journalism

It is easy for all Philippine presidential candidates to claim that they are advocates of press freedom. Who would dare impose restrictions on media whose favorable coverage they are trying to court? Why would candidates repress media and at the same time promise to protect and uphold democracy?

The political rhetoric, however, is oftentimes the opposite of what is actually done. What comes from the mouth does not necessarily originate from a well-meaning heart but from a sinister mind.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for example, had repeatedly claimed her alliance with the media in the struggle for press freedom. She argued in the past that the people’s uprising in 2001 called EDSA Dos ushered in a new administration, a direct opposite of the one under her predecessor Joseph Estrada. One of her promises, quite predictably, is to uphold the constitutional guarantee of press freedom.

It was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, however, that the biggest number of journalists was killed. Who could forget the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao last November 23 where at least 30 journalists were murdered with impunity and whose primary suspects were administration allies? Who wouldn’t see the irony of imposing a state of national emergency in February 2006 (the 20th anniversary of the people’s uprising in 1986) which resulted in the repression of an opposition newspaper and the cancellation of an award-winning radio program?

Even if the presidential candidates are expected to make general statements pertaining to press freedom, it is still best to ask them probing (and even confrontational) questions. Through such queries, could all have an idea of where they stand and how much they know about the workings of the press.

1. Do you think the constitutional guarantee of press freedom requires an enabling law? If so, what would be its salient points?
2. Where do you attribute the unabated killings of journalists? What do you think of empirical evidence proving that the most number of journalists killed since 1986 was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration?
3. If elected President, how could you help bring the perpetrators to justice? How could you help solve the culture of impunity that gives rise to the killings of journalists?
4. What is your concept of public information? What is its role in your presidency? What do you think are the necessary reforms in the current public information system of the government?
5. In relation to the previous question, what will happen to NBN, IBC and RPN under your presidency? What changes in management, if any, will you do to NBN? Will you continue the government’s control of IBC and RPN especially with regard to their news and public affairs programs?
6. What will happen to Executive Order No. 464 if you become President? Will you continue to implement it even if there are criticisms that it deprives the journalists in particular and the public in general of important information?
7. Do you think the proposed Freedom of Information Act will benefit journalists? Please explain your answer.
8. What is your stand on the proposed Right of Reply law? Do you think this compromises freedom of the press? Please explain your answer.
9. How could you help ensure self-regulation in journalism and media work? Will your adherence to media self-regulation go to the extent of abolishing the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)? Please explain your answer.
10. Assuming that you are in favor of media self-regulation, what would you do to government officials who are found guilty of violating press freedom (e.g., depriving journalists of publicly available information, harassing and intimidating journalists and media workers).

These are questions that require direct answers from all presidential candidates. Indeed, the challenge for them is to present a comprehensive media agenda which should include specific policy measures on how they could fulfill the general promise of what they would claim to do.

	0		ASEAN, intervention, human rights, Philippines

	0		2010 elections, campaign, promises

The presidential campaign officially starts today (February 9) and the debate organized yesterday morning (February 8) is supposed to give the Filipino electorate an idea of where the presidential candidates stand on pressing issues of the day.

Notwithstanding the usual rhetoric of good governance under their watch, it is good to know that the eight candidates have some specific goals if elected into the highest office of the land.

1. Sen. Noynoy Aquino, for example, is in favor of adding two more years in basic education to improve the quality of education in the country.
2. Olongapo City Councilor JC delos Reyes is generally against foreign ownership of land but wants to explore the possibility of "limited ownership" of land for foreigners.
3. Sen. Richard Gordon is in favor of increasing the salary of teachers to PhP40,000 (US$857.26) monthly and he wants to raise the necessary funds by imposing a tax on texting (i.e., SMS or short message system).
4. Sen. Jamby Madrigal, for her part, wants to limit the advertising of junk food and milk products for babies 0 to 2 years old and impose a tax on softdrinks.
5. Environmentalist Nick Perlas wants to set up an Office of Civil Society Affairs so that "civil society" would be integrated into the government.
6. Former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro believes that opening up the economy is a guarantee that it will not be controlled by a few.
7. Evangelist Eddie Villanueva wants to study the possibility of repealing Presidential Decree No. 1177, an old law that provides for automatic appropriation for debt payment in the national budget.
8. Sen. Manny Villar, on the other hand, sees the need to confront deficit spending.

The ninth candidate, former President Joseph Estrada, did not attend the debate, claiming that the leading newspaper that organized the event is biased against him.

The dearth of specific courses of action, however, is very evident as the eight candidates ended up giving general statements when asked about what they would do to effect meaningful change in the country. The debate focused on their unified stand against corruption and the need to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, all of them made a promise not to steal from the government coffers and argued that eradicating corruption could help provide more funds to basic services like health and education.

The empty - and at times questionable - rhetoric proves to be the order of the day as all candidates tried to sell themselves to a broader electorate. Consciously or unconsciously, they made promises that are either impossible to fulfill or hard to define.

1. Villanueva, for example, promises "absolute press freedom" if elected President even if existing theories in communication in journalism clearly defy this point.
2. Teodoro is in favor of consulting with indigenous peoples for whatever "extraction activities" will be done in their ancestral domains, unmindful of the fact that indigenous peoples through the years have been against the wanton exploitation of their land.
3. Villar wants to "let the people decide" on the issue of foreign ownership of land, without giving any specific steps on how this could be done and whether or not a healthy debate would happen on the issue if he becomes President.
4. Gordon claims that Filipinos should "make themselves look good" to foreign investors to attain development, which leads one to ask the role of local industries in his concept of national development.
5. Perlas is not against mining per se, but he wants to change the mining law so that there would be "equitable distribution of income," a big departure from the stand of anti-mining activists and environmentalists like him who had called on government to repeal the Mining Act.

Debates are supposed to be venues to test the mettle of the candidates, but their arguments are still neither here nor there based on the quality of the answers they had provided. To be fair to the candidates, the limited time prevented them from fully explaining their stand on issues. In addition, the questions are, for the most part, both broad and person-specific, preventing candidates from giving answers to common questions for better comparison of where they stand.

If the recent debate were any indication, the candidates' arguments are currently neither here nor there. The presidential campaign in the coming weeks should help clarify their stand on issues. Is it possible for the campaign to be elevated to a higher level of discourse? Would presidential candidates be willing to stick to the issues in their political ads? Would it be possible for them to refrain from muckraking?

As the candidates prepare to answer yes to all of these questions (as they are expected to do so), the Filipino voters should then ask themselves what they would do to the candidates who break their promise to wage an intelligent campaign. Empty rhetoric, after all, should never be tolerated.