SOUNDING BOARD is an outlet for opinions on good and crazy things going on at home (wherever I may be). All are welcome. You are not expected to bring anything except your common sense & sense of humor.
'If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.'
-Robert X. Cringely (from geek wisdom)
Sen. Panfilo Lacson challenged his fellow legislators during deliberations on the proposed national budget Wednesday not to collect the Priority Development Assistance Fund of 200 million pesos for each of the 23 senators this year. The PDAF is the former Countrywide Development Fund, the pork barrel that was allegedly a source of kickbacks and campaign funds. Lacson said nearly half the cost of the projects funded under the PDAF is lost to corruption. At least 10 percent goes to legal deductions, while only 40 percent is actually spent on the projects, he said.
Well, I do not know exactly where the Senator got his figures on the percentages going to corruption, legal deductions and projects. But the mere allocation of Php 200 million each for all 24 senators sure needs to be addressed properly.
If I have no idea whatsoever of what's going on in the planning and budgeting process in government, I would say that in contrast to the Representatives in the Lower House of Congress who have legitimate constituents by disctrict, the senators are not supposed to represent any district or region or province. And this is why I am at a loss when I try to reason out and put myself in their shoes. WTF are the pork barrel funds for, Mr. Senator? And Php 200 million each?
In the advent of a tighter link between planning and budgeting, the whole concept of "pork barrel funds" or what is now technically called PDAF does not fit into the entire planning and budgeting system. In fact, pork barrel funds run contrary to the budgeting system. The distortion brought about by pork barrel funds come in the way of insertions in the budget by representatives from both houses (senate and congress). One can try to understand the lower house representatives' sentiments when they rationalize pork barrel as a source of funds for projects being demanded by their constituents that have not been included in the proposed budget. However, by the mere fact that such projects-on-demand are not included, it implies the proposed pork-funded projects are not considered priority.
Why can't these representatives work with the current budgeting system, give up pork, and eliminate one of the biggest distortion in the budgeting process? Why am I so naive sometimes?
posted by Allan at 8:39 AM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Thursday, February 27, 2003
_____________________________________________
... it is the best alternative we have, barring the possibility of having a benevolent dictator. Of course that's debatable, but if you come from a mismanaged democracy, you'll understand my sentiment.
Incidentally, whenever I read The Atlantic Online, I remember a friend and a mentor back in graduate school - Craig Warren Smith. When I was writing a short paper on soft power and counter-terrorism (a section was discussed in SOUNDING BOARD), he showed me an article in the printed version of The Atlantic. He mentioned that The Atlantic is a good one and 'it is what intellectuals read' (his words; this is not an advertisement). I chuckled. It only took one article to entice me to read the whole edition. I now check the online version regularly, thanks to Craig.
posted by Allan at 4:03 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
_____________________________________________
Much ado about EDSA
The dwindling number of people celebrating EDSA People Power anniversary that ousted the Marcos dictatorship in February 1986 is another manifestation of Filipinos' short memory.
The main manifestation is of course seen in allowing the people behind the same government which EDSA forces toppled in 1986 to come back in power. Even the Marcoses. And to further show how easily Filipinos forget, this year's EDSA celebration may well turn out as the least attended in the last 17 years.
And when militant groups are prohibited to go to EDSA for the celebration, one doubts whether the present government truly understands what EDSA stands for.
posted by Allan at 12:10 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
Popish than the pope: on prohibiting pregnant women from getting married in church
In a pastoral letter read by Auxilliary Bishop Lucilo Quiambao last Sunday, (Bishop Jose) Sorra said a pregnant bride in front of the altar, receiving the church's blessing before the congregation, 'contradicted' the essence of the sacrament. He pointed out that the very reason a bride traditionally wore white was to symbolize her 'virginity' or 'purity'.
Talk about living in the 60s.
Although this has a limited implication in the Bicol area, one can think of a number of issues here. One issue, however, stands out. This backward thinking of the Catholic Church (at least by Sorra) discriminates against women. The underlying reason giving importance to virginity before marriage only applies to women. Of course it is expected from such a backward male-dominated institution. One doubts whether Sorra really understands Jesus Christ's message when He did not throw any stone to Mary Magdalene. If Christ didn't, who are we to judge (and punish)? As if the Catholic Church is not plagued with problems on the sexual behavior of some of its priests (but that's beside the point, right?).
President George W. Bush warned that a new UN resolution was not a prerequisite for military action against Iraq and reiterated that only 'full disarmament' by Baghdad can avert war. Asked what could prevent US-led military action to strip Baghdad of any weapons of mass destruction, Bush replied: "There's only one thing, that's full disarmament.'
Of course, US can attack Iraq even without any resolution. In fact, US can attack any country it wants. But is there a likelihood that US will go it alone? The answer is a clear NO. It may appear (or made to appear) that Bush has a penchant for unilateral action. However, regardless of the tough, cowboy image that Bush has been trying hard to project with respect to the issue on Iraq, one has to separate the shit from the bull. It is true that from day one, Bush has been threatening to go it alone and 'bring Saddam Hussein to his knees' (now that's a sample of a projected tough image). It is also true that Bush has been going through the United Nations and even seeking support from small nations. The fact is, US can't go it alone. Not if it still thinks itself as part of the globalized world. It can't afford to alienate itself from its allies, even with the support of UK, especially in the light of recent developments pertaining to 'new positive steps being taken by Iraq'.
posted by Allan at 10:56 AM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Sunday, February 23, 2003
_____________________________________________
Muslim youth lured to MILF: revisiting Arroyo government's military campaign vs MILF
Militant Muslim youth in Marawi City is sending a critical signal to the Arroyo government --- that the military campaign against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is not anti-MILF but anti-Muslim. Joining MILF, for them, seems not too far in the horizon.
It doesn't really matter much whether or not the military campaign is anti-Muslim (and I assume it is not). What matters is that there is a perception problem, and Malacanang must address this issue. Now. As long as there is a perception problem, and as long as the people in the MILF areas are poor, a victory in the military front is meaningless. It has no bearing on the polarization and alienation being felt by vulnerable groups in the conflict-ridden areas.
There are three mutually-reinforcing strategies which the Arroyo government must take note of: 1) military campaign; 2) the war against poverty; and 3) addressing the anti-Muslim perception problem. The sad part is that Ms. Arroyo seems to be reinforcing her military campaign more than the other two, and worse, not being able to see the interlinkages.
Maybe if the insurgents and their families starve, they would reconsider sacrificing their principles, be enticed by government's offers, and eventually join the mainstream. If you find nothing wrong with that, chances are you are one of Arroyo's military strategists. And until now, President Arroyo and her hawkish boys still don't get it --- insurgency will never be resolved by military campaign alone.
posted by Allan at 8:20 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Friday, February 21, 2003
_____________________________________________
Warding off stupidity
SOUNDING BOARD seems to be quite inactive for sometime. I didn't have much time to post for the past few weeks. Well let me see if I have a good alibi for that... let me mention two.
One, this country's penchant for coming up with policy interventions (bills, executive issuances, etc.) for almost any problem in the country seem to have been keeping me busy. Sure, there may be some areas in need of legislation. But when one looks at some proposed legislation and finds out that this and that congressman and senator are proposing for the establishment (read: proliferation) of centers for youth, women, children, and almost every population group in the country during this time when the national budget isn't even enough for basic services, then policy evaluation becomes an exercise of diplomacy. Policy evaluation reports become a way of stating what should already be obvious to our elected representatives: Mr. Congressman/Madam Senator/Ms. Representative from the 3rd District of wherever, your proposal to create a center for youth, women, whoever in every city and municipality in the country may be your best effort to rid the country of poverty but it is with deep regret that we are not inclined to endorse your bill. First, there are existing centers which may be tapped in the same area (which your staff should have bothered to check first instead of wasting our time telling you this). Second, the poor people in your area prefers to have decent work (borrowing from ILO) and food on the table. I doubt if they can eat the centers you are proposing. Third, if you haven't notice yet (because you seem to have lots of budget at your disposal), the national government is cash-strapped right now and could not afford to build a center in every municipality and city in the country. Fourth, we are flooded with a lot of these unfunded mandates which seek to do this and that, build this and that, without any regard as to whether or not the government has money to fund such mandated activities. The last thing we need right now is another proposal to build centers. (Of course, I consider it an art to convey these messages to the "chosen few" in a diplomatic manner. How I wish, someday, I can convey the unsanitized version.)
Two, when policy proposals are not in the form of proposed centers all over the country, the proposed legislations come in the form of budget quotas. Here, these chosen few will propose that this much percent of the total budget of national government agencies should be allocated to gender-related activities, or youth, or whatever you can think of. And to show further ignorance (read: disrespect) on local government fiscal autonomy, the proposed policy would even venture to include local government units and government corporations. One has to remind our representatives in congress and senate constantly that this is not how to do it. We do not set aside budgets first then determine where to spend them. This is putting the cart several kilometers before the horse. If these activities are really necessary, such will be implemented and correspondingly budgeted even without your budget quota. And when one asks the proponents what is the rationale behind the quota, (e.g., 5% or 1% of the budget) and no intelligent answer is given, one begins to wonder whether they know what they got themselves into in the first place. And when one former senator candidly says "we got lucky because when we were discussing this, the other senators seem to be sleeping", one doubts whether we really get the senators we really deserve.
The irritating part is when it gets to be your job to prepare the implementing guidelines for such ridiculous policies. It can only work 2 ways. One, damage control. Since it is difficult to undo someone's stupidity stamped into law, one has to craft guidelines to make it appear that we are doing something to implement the law so that when these chosen few calls the mandated agencies to a congressional or senate hearing, the more intelligent ones can say we have done this and we have done that. But in reality, they will be doing that anyway even without the subject policy. Two, it could be what I call "riding the waves of stupidity". One can surrender to the utter lack of intelligence in the existing laws and do what it says. Then we get a bloated bureaucracy with public servants doing compliance reports 90 percent of their time and doing real public service 10 percent of their time. One way or the other, it feels like shit.
These are some things which I have been getting myself busy lately. Such a waste of time, and of taxpayers' money.
posted by Allan at 6:29 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Sunday, February 09, 2003
_____________________________________________
Alternative anti-war protests: Am I in the wrong place or what?
Around 700 women have posed nude in Australia as a sign of protest against their country's support for possible military action against Iraq. Women from 20 to 60 used their bodies in a naked protest to form "No war" on the side of a hill in Byron Bay, New South Wales. Quite recently, a group of women in California have launched a nude peace movement called Baring Witness to prevent war against Iraq. See some photos here, as well as related activities in other places. And in 4 September 2002, an alternative advocacy for peace was launched. The site's title says it all - Masturbate for Peace: Using Self-Love to End Conflict. Their Number 1 bumper sticker ---
Peace is the issue. Use a tissue.
Better Head than Dead.
Fire your Peter, not your 8 millimeter.
War is Crappy, Slap Your Pappy.
Slap your tool, don't fight for fuel.
Rub your snake for peace's sake.
War's for squares, play downstairs.
Stop war now, milk your cow.
Now that's what I call channeling 'naked aggression'. As for the naked photos from Baring Witness, don't expect close-ups. They're doing it for peace, even if the medium is more catchy than the message. But then, who's complaining?
posted by Allan at 11:02 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
SOUNDING BOARD
Sunday, February 02, 2003
_____________________________________________
When evidences are not so compelling (and the smoking gun can't be found)
If war is not a viable alternative at the moment (lest US be alienating itself from its allies and encouraging greater anti-US sentiments across the globe), Bush should shift his energies from finding the smoking gun to further alienating Iraq from its allies.
There are six reasons why allies want Bush to slow down, according to Johanna McGeary of TIME: (1) we need to see more proof on Iraq; (2) inspections should last longer; (3) the UN must be the one to authorize war; (4) invading Iraq disrupts the war on terror; (5) cowboy bush is back, and his style grates; and (6) America's foreign policy is too arrogant.
It is almost unlikely that US will find a smoking gun, and it is not very smart to expect a replay of what we saw during the Cuban missile crisis. And without the smoking gun, forget convincing France and Russia, and of course, China. However, If, indeed, Saddam has programs on weapons of mass destruction, France may be right in thinking that the inspections froze such programs. Maybe, but the deterrent role of the inspections is questionable. The inspections could not continue forever. Once the inspections regime ends, there is no guarantee that we'll see a WMD-free Iraq.
This must be why Bush is still acting tough and relentlessly threatening to go it alone. The doves has already claimed its victory when US opted to make its moves under the umbrella of UN. It is not over yet. Of course, going alone is a diplomatic suicide for Bush, and as Joseph Nye stresses, such act would diminish America's soft power. If we can't assume that these things are under Bush's cowboy hat, we can safely assume that these are crucial considerations for his advisers.
What else is there to consider? Putting together the intelligence puzzle should be done strategically, putting the spotlight on countries with suspected links with Iraq. And France and Russia should be on top of the list. Cutting Iraq from the rest of the world (and from suppliers of materials and equipments used for weapons production) may well be a more viable alternative than looking for the smoking gun.
posted by Allan at 11:08 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
(0) comments
::
main page
