Mental dishonesty

By Greg Macabenta

As surely as night follows day, every single presidential candidate in the 2010 elections will vow to end corruption and dishonesty in government and will swear to uphold the law “without fear or favor” or, in the words of Erap Estrada, in his inaugural speech, “Walang kaikaibigan, walang kama-kamaganak.”

And while they’re saying this, every single one of these would-be candidates has been merrily running circles around the law. Not really breaking it. Just bending it and making a mockery of it.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, turn on your TV sets and watch those “non-campaign” commercials that sure as hell look, sound and smell like political campaign pitches.
Sure, sure, none of those spots is saying outright, “Vote for me!” but it shouldn’t take a genius to guess what these spots are saying. Even an idiot can tell.

Of course, we know why our moral, crusading, honest, incorruptible, pure as driven snow presidential wannabes are doing this. They think that the Comelec rules on election campaigning are unreasonable. They think the gag on delivering messages about the qualities of candidates doesn’t make sense.

So what do they do? Instead of amending the law through the logical congressional process, they simply use the great Pinoy talent of “palusot.” Finding a loophole and getting away with it.
At least, Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin is realistic enough to acknowledge the idiocy of the rules although he is careful not to knock those who have been bending them (I wouldn’t be surprised if he has bent the rules himself). He has filed a bill in Congress that would make the rules on early campaigning more reasonable and logical.

But to go back to this penchant for bending or running circles around the law. It has become such a national habit that nobody notices it anymore. Besides, it’s so easy to rationalize breaking or bending the law, especially when you see national leaders, from the president to the members of Congress to the sages in the Supreme Court, conveniently justifying the means to their ends.
Having seen these presidential candidates start their campaigns with such mental dishonesty, is there any reason to believe that they will change their ways when they assume office?
I frankly doubt it.

I think we will all have to resign ourselves to the harsh reality that we will be electing to the presidency and the vice-presidency people who have no compunctions about bending the law to suit their objectives. Oh yes, they may even do that “for the greater good of country and people.”
The only question is, who will do it less often. Or, putting it another way: Who will be doing MORE GOOD, while breaking or bending the law.

This brings me to the choices that are left to the electorate, based on the current list of would-be presidential and vice-presidential candidates: Aquino-Roxas, Estrada-Binay, Teodoro-Manzano and Villar-Legarda.

You may ask: What is it that qualifies these individuals for the highest offices in the land?
Frankly, that may not be the question to ask, but, rather, “Who shouldn’t be elected to the highest offices in the land?”

Apparently, the Philippine electorate has a better idea of what they do not want in the next president, rather than in the qualities that the ideal candidate should possess.
From talking to prospective voters and pundits in Manila and in the US, it is clear that the first thing they don’t want to see occupying the presidency is anyone answering to the name of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. By extension, they don’t want anyone who is associated with her.

This is the monkey on the back of Gilbert Teodoro. It is doubtful that the charms of Edu Manzano, as vice-presidential running mate, can effectively lighten that burden for him.
If it is a truism that Pinoys have a penchnt for “palusot,” it is even more true that quic pro quo is the rule in politics and every politician is a wheeler-dealer. The only difference is the degree of wheeling and dealing. On that score, it is likely that that Teodoro has made a commitment to protect the interests of Arroyo if he should become president.

He can attempt to deny this in private conversations, but it is doubtful that he will ever distance himself from his patron. .Of course, that’s not necessarily the kiss of death for his presidential ambitions. Anybody who thinks that the administration party will not try to do a Garci II is a simpleton. And when that happens, Teodoro could be the next president of the Philippines.
Stung by the many scams and cases of plunder in government, the voters also don’t want someone who is perceived to be corrupt or who is suspected to have made his fortune under dubious circumstances.

If one were to look at the credentials of Manny Villar, he certainly appears better prepared to manage the affairs of the country than either Teodoro, Estrada or Aquino. His success as an entrepreneur is testament to his brilliance as a businessman. But it may also be a testament to his genius as a backroom manipulator.

Despite the efforts of several of his colleagues in the Senate to give him a clean bill of health in the face of the accusations hurled against him by Ping Lacson, Villar continues to carry a monkey on his back in connection with his real estate fortune.By avoiding the accusations and brushing them off as political vendetta, Villar leaves himself wide-open to doubts about his integrity.
Can someone whose wealth is under a cloud and is spending billions on his campaign be expected to keep his hands clean if he ever becomes president?

If Villar were running for president in America, you can bet that he would be roasted over live coal for this. He is lucky to be campaigning in the Philippines where the media depend mainly on press releases and innuendo.

Then there’s Erap Estrada. Assuming he overcomes the legal impediment to his candidacy, what can we reasonably expect from someone who has already shown us what he is capable – and incapable – of doing as president? Isn’t this like watching one of his old movies where we already know the ending?

This brings us to Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas. No monkeys on their backs, except perhaps for the unresolved problem of Hacienda Luisita for the former.

Do they deserve to be president and vice-president? I guess we’re talking here of the lesser evil. Because they too are guilty of mental dishonesty with their non-campaign political campaigns.
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

FROM THE CAPITOL: Save the UC

By Senator Leland Yee

Despite pleas and protests from students, the University Of California Board of Regents yet again voted to dramatically increase student fees. The 32 percent fee hike comes just two months after the Regents raised student fees 30 percent and handed out exorbitant pay raises to several top administrators.

The move also comes one month after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed several bills to protect public funds at the university. SB 86 would have prohibited executive pay raises during bad budget years at the UC and the California State University. SB 218 would have brought greater financial accountability to UC and CSU campus auxiliary organizations by subjecting them to the California Public Records Act. SB 219 would have helped rein in waste, fraud and abuse by providing university employees with the same whistleblower protections as other state employees.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Board of Regents are allowing top executives to live high on the hog while students suffer. It is unconscionable for the Governor to cut funds to higher education while allowing the UC administration to act like AIG. In 2009 alone, the UC Regents have approved approximately $9 million in executive compensation increases. Yet, the UC administration only points to the state budget for the need to raise student fees.

Certainly the state needs to prioritize funding for education and that is why I voted against all such budget cuts and will continue to do so. However, it is intellectually dishonest for the Regents to simply blame the state budget for student fee hikes while they are lining the pockets of executives. Executive pay should be the first thing on the chopping block, not students.

In a September interview with the New York Times, UC President Mark Yudof, who receives nearly $1 million in salary and perks was asked, “What do you think of the idea that no administrator at a state university needs to earn more than the President of the United States, $400,000?” Yudof responded, “Will you throw in Air Force One and the White House?”
Unfortunately, this is the type of arrogance and cavalier attitude that plagues the university. California deserves better from their public university leadership.

Russell Gould, chairman of the Regents, today told the Sacramento Bee that student objections do not influence his decision-making and that student fees must be increased. However, students and workers have long called on the Regents and Yudof to use other options rather than student fee hikes. Such suggested options include dipping into the $7.2 billion Short Term Investment Pool; redirecting some of the $1.6 billion that UC received last year in gifts and donations; cutting the salaries of the thousands of UC executives and top administrators earning 6-figures; cutting the $350 million in bonuses given to employees making more than $200,000 annually; or freezing new positions such as “Vice Chancellor of Research” and “Chief Quality Officer” that pay upwards of $420,000 per year.

“UC has reserves in the billions of dollars that could be tapped, or UC could redirect its fundraising abilities, or use other sources of income such as the highly profitable medical centers, or call for a mild pay cut for the thousands of six-figure administrators,” said Jelger Kalmijn, President of the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE-CWA 9119).

“UC is sounding the alarm bells of financial ruin and rushing to push the economic crisis on the backs of UC students, patients and workers” says Lakesha Harrison, President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME 3299), which represents patient care and services workers. “But to many of us, this is another example of UC administrators’ misplaced priorities and lack of accountability to the public.”

In a time when many are going through economic hardships, increasing student fees becomes just another burden for many students. While maintaining a full-time schedule in school, many are also forced to take one, sometimes two or three, part-time jobs in order to support themselves and pay for their education. We must continue to let our voices be heard and let the Regents know that these actions are not okay and unfair for students.