By Greg Macabenta
Did we get a clear idea of the State of the Filipino Nation after listening to PNoy’s SONA?
Frankly, like past reports by former heads of state on how the country fared in the face of challenges and opportunities and what its future prospects were, this one was the equivalent of a body massage. Designed to make you feel good but didn't tell you what the state of your health is.
I bet PNoy got a better appraisal of the SOPA (State of the Porsche Automobile) when he bought the second hand vehicle from its former owner.
This SONA may have been different only in the sense that the good news that PNoy gave had more basis in fact than the rose-tinted annual reports of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arroyo’s credibility was so full of holes, even if she were telling the truth, people raised their eyebrows in incredulity.
But PNoy’s advisers were clearly cherry-picking when they worked on his speech. They wanted a “good news” speech, obviously designed to blunt brickbats from critics that have, frankly, ranged from the truthful to the blatantly exaggerated.
The wang-wang analogy was fine. The culture of impunity and entitlement that pervades our society certainly needs to be changed. Rubbing in the issue of graft and corruption, epitomized by the Arroyo administration, was good. This is one area where the Filipino people are beginning to see something happening.
The flurry of investigations and the threatened indictments would have been unthinkable during the incumbency of Arroyo. In those days, one could only go to the streets and brave police beatings and fire hoses. Or one could only suffer through the interminable congressional hearings - an exercise in impotence in the face of the blatant obstruction of justice by Arroyo and her minions.
At least, now, there appear to be determined efforts to dig up the truth (even if the Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court rejected the idea of a Truth Commission). The only question is whether the guilty can eventually be convicted and made to pay. Our justice system is not famous for exacting justice.
But the speech could have gone beyond the selective upbeat reports and the sarcastic references to the sins of the past administration. It could expanded on what the Aquino administration intends to do to make things right or make things happen on a broad range of concerns that are important to different sectors of society.
Not surprisingly, those sectors whose issues and concerns were not addressed in the SONA have been very critical of it. Business leaders tried to be polite, when asked what they thought of the speech, but they were clearly disappointed in not hearing PNoy talk about his economic programs.
John Forbes, senior adviser of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, was more candid. He said that while the Aquino government’s campaign against corruption is commendable, that is not enough to make the country a more attractive investment destination.
There was no mention of the Freedom of Information act and the RH Bill. No mention of agrarian reform (because it would have awakened the Hacienda Luisita sleeping dogs?). Only a superficial mention of the problems that beset our system of education. No mention of tourism, an area where the country has vast potentials, if given enough focus and funding. One could go on and on.
Of course, PNoy said, “Not everything we want to do will be explained today, but I invite you to read the budget message, which contains a more comprehensive plan for the coming year.”
Okay, so how do Pedro, Juan and Maria access that budget message? It’s doubtful they ever will.
In sum, PNoy delivered a feel-good speech, framed for him by people who didn’t want to include those issues and concerns where they could not provide a glowing report. What makes them different from a used car salesman?
In the first place, what is a State of the Nation Address but a comprehensive report on the country’s performance in relation to goals and objectives? A SONA should truthfully present to the people the status of programs and projects and how they measure up to those objectives.
In other words, PNoy’s SONA should have truthfully told the Filipino people: This is where we started. This is how far we’ve gotten. This is how much farther we need to go. And this is how we propose to get there.
If there were problems in achieving goals and objectives, those problems should have been explained and solutions proposed. Simply ignoring the problems or not mentioning them at all is avoidance and denial.
If there has been progress in achieving goals and objective, they certainly should have been showcased, with appropriate back patting. But overstating the achievements or not setting them in context is mental dishonesty. As Winnie Monsod rightly asked, what percentage of houses have been built in relation to targets?
I don’t think the Filipino people expected a hundred percent delivery in all areas. Shortfalls are inevitable when problems arise, whether due to official inadequacies, logistical problems or force majeure. The Aegean stables that we mandated PNoy to clean up can make the hardiest souls throw up.
We, the people, are not blameless either. A SONA should also give the citizenry an idea of how we can and should contribute towards achieving national goals, and what sacrifices, if any, we must be willing to make. There was a mention of tax avoidance on the part of professionals and the self-employed, but not much more.
For PNoy’s 2012 SONA, I suggest he take a few tips from some fellow heads of state who had to confront problems on the first year of their incumbency:
“Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”
That was Barack Obama on his first State of the Union address in 2009.
And here is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt admitted in his inaugural address in 1933, when the U.S. was in the grip of the Great Depression:
“Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
“More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.”
But, having said that, Roosevelt offered a way out of the problem, stressing: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
Maybe PNoy should write his own SONA the next time. He could say:
“First, the bad news. And now, for the good news.”
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
Did we get a clear idea of the State of the Filipino Nation after listening to PNoy’s SONA?
Frankly, like past reports by former heads of state on how the country fared in the face of challenges and opportunities and what its future prospects were, this one was the equivalent of a body massage. Designed to make you feel good but didn't tell you what the state of your health is.
I bet PNoy got a better appraisal of the SOPA (State of the Porsche Automobile) when he bought the second hand vehicle from its former owner.
This SONA may have been different only in the sense that the good news that PNoy gave had more basis in fact than the rose-tinted annual reports of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arroyo’s credibility was so full of holes, even if she were telling the truth, people raised their eyebrows in incredulity.
But PNoy’s advisers were clearly cherry-picking when they worked on his speech. They wanted a “good news” speech, obviously designed to blunt brickbats from critics that have, frankly, ranged from the truthful to the blatantly exaggerated.
The wang-wang analogy was fine. The culture of impunity and entitlement that pervades our society certainly needs to be changed. Rubbing in the issue of graft and corruption, epitomized by the Arroyo administration, was good. This is one area where the Filipino people are beginning to see something happening.
The flurry of investigations and the threatened indictments would have been unthinkable during the incumbency of Arroyo. In those days, one could only go to the streets and brave police beatings and fire hoses. Or one could only suffer through the interminable congressional hearings - an exercise in impotence in the face of the blatant obstruction of justice by Arroyo and her minions.
At least, now, there appear to be determined efforts to dig up the truth (even if the Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court rejected the idea of a Truth Commission). The only question is whether the guilty can eventually be convicted and made to pay. Our justice system is not famous for exacting justice.
But the speech could have gone beyond the selective upbeat reports and the sarcastic references to the sins of the past administration. It could expanded on what the Aquino administration intends to do to make things right or make things happen on a broad range of concerns that are important to different sectors of society.
Not surprisingly, those sectors whose issues and concerns were not addressed in the SONA have been very critical of it. Business leaders tried to be polite, when asked what they thought of the speech, but they were clearly disappointed in not hearing PNoy talk about his economic programs.
John Forbes, senior adviser of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, was more candid. He said that while the Aquino government’s campaign against corruption is commendable, that is not enough to make the country a more attractive investment destination.
There was no mention of the Freedom of Information act and the RH Bill. No mention of agrarian reform (because it would have awakened the Hacienda Luisita sleeping dogs?). Only a superficial mention of the problems that beset our system of education. No mention of tourism, an area where the country has vast potentials, if given enough focus and funding. One could go on and on.
Of course, PNoy said, “Not everything we want to do will be explained today, but I invite you to read the budget message, which contains a more comprehensive plan for the coming year.”
Okay, so how do Pedro, Juan and Maria access that budget message? It’s doubtful they ever will.
In sum, PNoy delivered a feel-good speech, framed for him by people who didn’t want to include those issues and concerns where they could not provide a glowing report. What makes them different from a used car salesman?
In the first place, what is a State of the Nation Address but a comprehensive report on the country’s performance in relation to goals and objectives? A SONA should truthfully present to the people the status of programs and projects and how they measure up to those objectives.
In other words, PNoy’s SONA should have truthfully told the Filipino people: This is where we started. This is how far we’ve gotten. This is how much farther we need to go. And this is how we propose to get there.
If there were problems in achieving goals and objectives, those problems should have been explained and solutions proposed. Simply ignoring the problems or not mentioning them at all is avoidance and denial.
If there has been progress in achieving goals and objective, they certainly should have been showcased, with appropriate back patting. But overstating the achievements or not setting them in context is mental dishonesty. As Winnie Monsod rightly asked, what percentage of houses have been built in relation to targets?
I don’t think the Filipino people expected a hundred percent delivery in all areas. Shortfalls are inevitable when problems arise, whether due to official inadequacies, logistical problems or force majeure. The Aegean stables that we mandated PNoy to clean up can make the hardiest souls throw up.
We, the people, are not blameless either. A SONA should also give the citizenry an idea of how we can and should contribute towards achieving national goals, and what sacrifices, if any, we must be willing to make. There was a mention of tax avoidance on the part of professionals and the self-employed, but not much more.
For PNoy’s 2012 SONA, I suggest he take a few tips from some fellow heads of state who had to confront problems on the first year of their incumbency:
“Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”
That was Barack Obama on his first State of the Union address in 2009.
And here is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt admitted in his inaugural address in 1933, when the U.S. was in the grip of the Great Depression:
“Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
“More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.”
But, having said that, Roosevelt offered a way out of the problem, stressing: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
Maybe PNoy should write his own SONA the next time. He could say:
“First, the bad news. And now, for the good news.”
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment