Amazing Stories, News and and everything!
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
240 na ang mga patay sa ’Ondoy’
MANILA - Mga awtoridad nabalaka na sab kay posibleng maigo na sab ang nasod sa laing bagyo samtang misaka na ngadto sa 240 ang nangamatay sa bagyong Ondoy.
Matod sa mga forecaster sa panahon nga laing bagyo nga naporma sa Pacific Ocean mosud sa kadagatan sa Pilipinas ug hayan mag landfall ugma sa Luzon gihapon, sama sa bagyong Ondoy.
Sun.Star accepts donations for victims of Typhoon Ondoy
Grabe ang epekto sa bagyong Ondoy kay ang usa ka buwan nga uwan gibundak man sud lang sa usa ka adlaw, hinungdan nga gibahaan ang 80 porsyento sa Metro Manila niadtong Sabado.
Gibana-bana sa mga awtoridad nga 2.34 bilyunes pesos ang danyos sa bagyo.
Mokabat sa 1.8 milyunes ka mga tawo ang apektado ug 370,000 ang niabandonar sa ilang mga balay ug ningdangop sa evacuation centers.
Gidaghanon sa nangamatay gipaabot nga mosaka pa kon moabot na ang mga report gikan sa hilit nga mga dapit.
“For casualties, the increase will be not as great, but the damage figures may increase,” matod ni Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro sa usa ka news conference.
Mga rebeldeng komunista ningpahibawo og ceasefire tali sa kasundalohan sa kagamhanan ug nimando sa ilang ginsakpan sa pagtabang sa flood relief operations.
Ang katawhan ug volunteer groups sa nagkadaiyang mga dapit sa nasod nagtigom og mga hinabang, sagad mga senina, mainom nga tubig ug medisina.
Dunay mga tawo mingbukas sab sa ilang balay nga kapuy-an niadtong nangabiktima sa baha ug ningbiya sa ilang mga balay.
Mga sundawong Kano sa Mindanao gidala sa Manila aron motabang sa relief operations, samtang ang United Nations ningpahibawo nga manghatag silag hinabang nga pagkaon ug cash alang sa medical assistance.
Mipadala sab silag usa ka helicopter ug lima ka rubber boats.
Mga opisyal nanawagan sa international community kay hayan di paigo ang resources sa kagamhanan, labina kon moigo na sab ang laing bagyo.
Naluwas sa kasundalohan, kapulisan ug volunteers ang labing minos 12,359 ka mga tawo, apan matod ni Teodoro duna pay mga tawo nga madugangan ang gidaghanon sa mga patay.
Gideklarar sa kagamhanan ubos sa state of calamity ang Metro Manila ug 25 ka mga lalawigan nga nangaigo sab sa bagyo.
Lakip sa nangatanggong sa bagyo mao ang seksing aktres nga si Cristine Reyes ug iyang pamilya, kinsa giluwas sa aktor nga si Richard Gutierrez. (AP/Internet)
Sun.Star accepts donations for victims of Typhoon Ondoy
Grabe ang epekto sa bagyong Ondoy kay ang usa ka buwan nga uwan gibundak man sud lang sa usa ka adlaw, hinungdan nga gibahaan ang 80 porsyento sa Metro Manila niadtong Sabado.
Gibana-bana sa mga awtoridad nga 2.34 bilyunes pesos ang danyos sa bagyo.
Mokabat sa 1.8 milyunes ka mga tawo ang apektado ug 370,000 ang niabandonar sa ilang mga balay ug ningdangop sa evacuation centers.
Gidaghanon sa nangamatay gipaabot nga mosaka pa kon moabot na ang mga report gikan sa hilit nga mga dapit.
“For casualties, the increase will be not as great, but the damage figures may increase,” matod ni Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro sa usa ka news conference.
Mga rebeldeng komunista ningpahibawo og ceasefire tali sa kasundalohan sa kagamhanan ug nimando sa ilang ginsakpan sa pagtabang sa flood relief operations.
Ang katawhan ug volunteer groups sa nagkadaiyang mga dapit sa nasod nagtigom og mga hinabang, sagad mga senina, mainom nga tubig ug medisina.
Dunay mga tawo mingbukas sab sa ilang balay nga kapuy-an niadtong nangabiktima sa baha ug ningbiya sa ilang mga balay.
Mga sundawong Kano sa Mindanao gidala sa Manila aron motabang sa relief operations, samtang ang United Nations ningpahibawo nga manghatag silag hinabang nga pagkaon ug cash alang sa medical assistance.
Mipadala sab silag usa ka helicopter ug lima ka rubber boats.
Mga opisyal nanawagan sa international community kay hayan di paigo ang resources sa kagamhanan, labina kon moigo na sab ang laing bagyo.
Naluwas sa kasundalohan, kapulisan ug volunteers ang labing minos 12,359 ka mga tawo, apan matod ni Teodoro duna pay mga tawo nga madugangan ang gidaghanon sa mga patay.
Gideklarar sa kagamhanan ubos sa state of calamity ang Metro Manila ug 25 ka mga lalawigan nga nangaigo sab sa bagyo.
Lakip sa nangatanggong sa bagyo mao ang seksing aktres nga si Cristine Reyes ug iyang pamilya, kinsa giluwas sa aktor nga si Richard Gutierrez. (AP/Internet)
Friday, September 18, 2009
Hopes for modern politics
The interesting term “trapo,” as presently used in Philippine politics, is a fusion of two words—“traditional” and “politician.” In the beginning, the preferred word was “tradpol.” But this contraction fell into disuse because, I suspect, it lacked the pejorative power of “trapo,” a piece of worthless cloth meant to wipe off dirt. Over the years, “trapo” mutated in meaning, acquiring moral connotations supplied by the growing negative attitude toward politics in general. Today, the Filipino understanding of “trapo” has little to do with being merely traditional; it has more to do with being dirty and immoral. This is all too ironic, because to be traditional originally meant a commitment to an all-embracing morality in a simple world.
This semantic shift has shaped our understanding of what ails Philippine politics. Against the trapo, we now raise the image of the morally unblemished politician. To fight evil, we are now in quest of the good and moral. But, how do we measure the good in politics? By their personal traits alone, or primarily by their political visions? The depiction of our political opponents as not merely our rivals in the contest for power but as the very incarnation of evil is misleading and dangerous.
For, our problem is not simply that we’ve had bad men and women in politics. Every society does. Our main problem is that our entire political system—the mechanism by which we govern ourselves—has become dysfunctional. It no longer serves the interests of our people in a complex world. Yet it persists, by design and by public acquiescence. The perpetuation of this dysfunctional system is what breeds corruption, incompetence, and misuse of governmental power.
By “political system,” I am not referring merely to the form of government—the choice between a presidential and a parliamentary system, or between a unitary and a federal government. I mean rather the whole system by which we choose the leaders who make decisions in our name. I mean as well the entire quality of the relationship between the governors and the governed.
One word probably best captures the substance of politics in traditional societies like ours—patronage. This refers to the support rendered by superiors to subordinates in exchange for the latter’s loyalty. Given the mass poverty and the sharp inequalities among our people, relations between the rulers and the ruled in our society normally take on the character of patronage. Under this system, the benefits given to the many are represented as acts of benevolence of the rulers, rather than as the legitimate entitlements of the recipients. The ideal leader is kind and generous, rather than knowledgeable and law-abiding. The ideal citizen is loyal and grateful, rather than informed and assertive of his rights.
This culture of patronage so pervades our political life that elections are seen as nothing more than contests to determine who can give more and promise more in the short-term. Accordingly, the image that candidates assiduously cultivate is that of approachability rather than competence, and compassion rather than wisdom. It is personal traits that are projected more than concrete programs of social reconstruction. These are the things that make our politics traditional rather than modern.
It is not because our people do not understand the difference that our political system has remained the way it is. Their dependence certainly stands in the way of a more rational assertion of their rights. But poverty alone does not fully account for the persistence of patronage politics. To complete the picture, we have to look at how the mass organizations of the poor, the peasantry and the working classes in our society have been crushed and demobilized over the years. The remnants of the organized constituencies of a more radical era have either been driven underground, or they have been accommodated as party-list organizations in the margins of the political system.
Today the contest is between the traditional and the modern elements of the political class. Though this is far from being a battle between the elites and the masses, it is no less important. Modernists desire a type of politics that is insulated from political dynasties, business groups and ecclesiastical interests. They seek a strict separation of the powers of government that alone can make checks and balances operational. They prefer the long-term efficacy of a professionally-run and autonomous public bureaucracy over the short-term satisfactions offered by patronage politics. They believe that politics must move away from the contest of personalities and celebrities that it is today, toward a competition of political groups and parties with clear ideologies and coherent programs of government. They seek the total elimination of all forms of violence and arbitrariness from the political system.
We have no choice but to side with the moderns in this contest. Modernity not only will allow us to build a government appropriate to the complex challenges of our times, it will also move us hopefully in the direction of greater democratization in our national life. The struggle for good government has to be understood in these terms, rather than in the simplistic terms of a moral crusade against evil “trapos.”
* * *
This semantic shift has shaped our understanding of what ails Philippine politics. Against the trapo, we now raise the image of the morally unblemished politician. To fight evil, we are now in quest of the good and moral. But, how do we measure the good in politics? By their personal traits alone, or primarily by their political visions? The depiction of our political opponents as not merely our rivals in the contest for power but as the very incarnation of evil is misleading and dangerous.
For, our problem is not simply that we’ve had bad men and women in politics. Every society does. Our main problem is that our entire political system—the mechanism by which we govern ourselves—has become dysfunctional. It no longer serves the interests of our people in a complex world. Yet it persists, by design and by public acquiescence. The perpetuation of this dysfunctional system is what breeds corruption, incompetence, and misuse of governmental power.
By “political system,” I am not referring merely to the form of government—the choice between a presidential and a parliamentary system, or between a unitary and a federal government. I mean rather the whole system by which we choose the leaders who make decisions in our name. I mean as well the entire quality of the relationship between the governors and the governed.
One word probably best captures the substance of politics in traditional societies like ours—patronage. This refers to the support rendered by superiors to subordinates in exchange for the latter’s loyalty. Given the mass poverty and the sharp inequalities among our people, relations between the rulers and the ruled in our society normally take on the character of patronage. Under this system, the benefits given to the many are represented as acts of benevolence of the rulers, rather than as the legitimate entitlements of the recipients. The ideal leader is kind and generous, rather than knowledgeable and law-abiding. The ideal citizen is loyal and grateful, rather than informed and assertive of his rights.
This culture of patronage so pervades our political life that elections are seen as nothing more than contests to determine who can give more and promise more in the short-term. Accordingly, the image that candidates assiduously cultivate is that of approachability rather than competence, and compassion rather than wisdom. It is personal traits that are projected more than concrete programs of social reconstruction. These are the things that make our politics traditional rather than modern.
It is not because our people do not understand the difference that our political system has remained the way it is. Their dependence certainly stands in the way of a more rational assertion of their rights. But poverty alone does not fully account for the persistence of patronage politics. To complete the picture, we have to look at how the mass organizations of the poor, the peasantry and the working classes in our society have been crushed and demobilized over the years. The remnants of the organized constituencies of a more radical era have either been driven underground, or they have been accommodated as party-list organizations in the margins of the political system.
Today the contest is between the traditional and the modern elements of the political class. Though this is far from being a battle between the elites and the masses, it is no less important. Modernists desire a type of politics that is insulated from political dynasties, business groups and ecclesiastical interests. They seek a strict separation of the powers of government that alone can make checks and balances operational. They prefer the long-term efficacy of a professionally-run and autonomous public bureaucracy over the short-term satisfactions offered by patronage politics. They believe that politics must move away from the contest of personalities and celebrities that it is today, toward a competition of political groups and parties with clear ideologies and coherent programs of government. They seek the total elimination of all forms of violence and arbitrariness from the political system.
We have no choice but to side with the moderns in this contest. Modernity not only will allow us to build a government appropriate to the complex challenges of our times, it will also move us hopefully in the direction of greater democratization in our national life. The struggle for good government has to be understood in these terms, rather than in the simplistic terms of a moral crusade against evil “trapos.”
* * *
Monday, March 9, 2009
35 Passers of KBP exam
OZAMIZ CITY--The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) has released the results of the accreditation examination held last Dec. 13, 2008 at the Misamis University, Ozamiz City.Based on the official paper sent in by Virginia Velasco, KBP standards authority performance officer and obtained by this paper, some 35 examinees passed from among the 51 takers.The total passing rate is 68.62 percent.Leading the passers is Jo Ann Mae Solatorio with a 96 score.Solatorio is the municipal accountant of Mabuhay, Olutanga Island, Zamboanga Sibugay. She is a blocktimer of DxOI, a low-power community radio based in that area.Examinees from DxOI took the first to fifth place in the KBP exam with only Pagadian’s DxWO and DxDD tying the fourth place.DxOI, with 13, and DxDD, with 12, composed half of the examiners. From among the stations in Ozamiz, DxSY has 8; Ronda Balita has 4, DxOC with 3 and one from MBNN-TV.Aside from DxOI, five examinees from DxUM also took the KBP accreditation examination which is made up of multiple choice and case analysis questions.Genelisa Piedad, an intern DxDD and the youngest among the examinees, told PANGUIL BAY MONITOR the exam was “both easy and difficult.”She sees her passing as an employment opportunity in the future and “a license to become a professional bearer of the freedom of speech.”The KBP exam passers will still have to undergo performance evaluation by their respective station managers before being issued KBP accreditation cards.The evaluation results will then be submitted to the KBP provincial chapter head, who will in turn forward them to the KBP national offfice.Those who failed will be issued temporary accreditation cards valid for five months to give them time to review and take the exam again before the card expires.Under the KBP Broadcast Code, all personnel who go on air, including blocktimers, should be accredited to ensure that minimum standards of broadcast professionalism are met. (PANGUIL BAY MONITOR)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)