Trillanes was hired to do a job

Antonio Trillanes IV, one time mutineer is now a Philippine Republic Senator. The Administration and its allies--- have of course their negative view of the matter. They'd be idiots not to.

On one hand, Senator Trillanes was quoted by the Inquirer as saying "this is the people's victory" and that "people are longing for change". His rhetoric of course is sweet sounding and quite true.

Centrists like myself long for change--- a government that is for the people, as much as it is by the people and of the people.

If elections poll people who they want to hire to be stewards of their estate, then politicians have got to know that if they don't do the job we voted them into office for--- then they're out. just look at the last election--- no amount of cheating can really turn the tide when people have decided to get someone into office.

isn't that fair warning?

There is nothing worst for business than to see uncertainty. There has to be something certain, something sure like a common playing field, or rules that can not be changed in the middle of the game. Sometimes it is a certainty that any political climate will not disrupt the status quo: the flow of profits that business needs as assurance. So when a guy like Trillanes executes a mutiny, things go crazy. people back off from deals because they're not certain profits will be made.

I can not speak for anybody other than myself but the reason why i voted for Trillanes was because here was a guy with stellar credentials yapping at the top of his lungs (and he has a huge voice to disrupt everyone's business) something he believes must be corrected. he wants to change the system for the better. These guys have reasonable grievances, though unacceptable their way of expressing it. (added for clarity) why not give them the opportunity to prove their worth in a positive way through the system?

what do you do with a person with stellar credentials who is a resource badly misappropriated?

The gloria macapagal-arroyo way (well to be fair, not really just her way, but really the conservatives in general that she personifies) is to alienate him. they make this person irrelevant. fundamentally nothing is wrong with such a tactic. it is quite useful.

however, If you do that--- without giving them ample opportunity to put their mouth where its worth, you'll only create terrorists and critics and detractors. not to mention, losing a perfectly good resource. such waste!

our democracy, however imperfect isn't dead nor close to dying as many may like to believe. certainly there are those who subvert elections, who cheat here and there. admittedly they may win sometimes, but generally I'd like to believe those who people want to be in, will be in. the same reason exist why there are political dynasties in the philippines. People do vote who they think is best to lead them.

how can I believe this?

I hope Senator Trillanes will not see his election as some sort of reward. Likewise, future adventurers may view the victory of Trillianes as an opportunity, a road to fame and power. Raise a ruckus, start a coup and even if you fail, you become a senator. make no mistake, they will be making the same grievous error many politicians in government have made. they underestimate our people's ability, democracy's ability to see right from wrong. people do vote who they want in: for good or ill.

i've got no hard numbers. look at nueva ecija, look at pampanga, batangas and look at Makati: they're just some of the places that for good or bad have either thrown out dynasties and powerful clans or have reasoned to reelect them.

for all the political killings and all the violence, for all the cheaters and ways to subvert our democracy, given these facts, generally speaking and given how utterly imperfect our democracy is, our people's voice can be heard.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is probably (still) pissed at the results of the election. you know what? sometimes the other guy wins. then again, may be not. Seriously, may be it is time for the president herself to reevaluate and see what the people are saying to her. what do they approve of and what is it that they don't?

Senator Trillanes and the others who've been elected, I do not know whether to congratulate you or not. you'll have your work cut out for you. You've been hired to do a job. The least of your worries is to fail to live up to people's expectations and be voted out of office in the next election. you should be more worried about failing to live up to people's expectations and if you do, come 2010, people will cease participating in the process of elections. so much is riding on your success and that of many politicians elected into office like Ed Panlilio. If you should fail, politicians being ignored will be the least of this nation's problems because what degree of apathy will exist against democratic processes then?

Where All Roads Lead

I have ink on my fingers like many Filipinos today. There are myriad reason, we each have our own. For some--- it doesn't matter who wins, only that they exercised their right, after all what's different? The why matters less than the act of exercising your right and that's the difference each of our vote makes. For me--- it was because one can not simply disavow or divorce private enterprise, private initiative from Democracy or for that matter Citizenship. You've got to be part of the positive discourse and affirmative action, and by voting, you commit yourself as a citizen: you've skin in the game.

When the pundits finally finish analyzing today, we see its results: that would be the most interesting piece of information. It would be good for our people to understand the intricate web we weave and give us an idea where we have gone, and the road we choose to proceed in.

As the polls close and the sun sets on this day, the journey for 2010 begins and that is the more important factoid. The quality of the road we build will be important. Will we Filipinos be ready? All roads lead to 2010.

Skin in the Game (Redux)

Given no one got my point in skin in the game, i've re-written it. it was my fault really. it was crap. the original is still up and may be found here.

For the longest time, it was difficult wrestling with whether or not I will vote. Seeing firsthand how insiders play the game and knowing where that way leads is like building a house built on a stack of cards: eventually it will collapse on our collective behinds. I've shared my sentiment over and over again, most recently in The Leadership Agenda. It is my biggest reason for a firm belief in the theory that people are better off leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination and such belief has not wavered. The insider's way and people leveraging their own success, they're not enough.

It was why I was asking questions.

Our eye must be on what's next. We constantly focus on reaching where our neighbors are, matching their competitiveness. I submit to you: no way in hell we can catch up, not at the state we are in and I don't think we should. I submit to you as a nation the answer to becoming a successful country can be defined in two words. We must, to borrow Intel's slogan: Leap Ahead.

I hope our leaders and our people realize it.

When Jon Limjap of Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX fame asked:

"so tell me, will you be voting next week?"

My reply was:

"honestly? i am still hoping something--- news, an idea, anything really, between now and the day of the election to convince me to vote.

otherwise, it would be: s^2d^2 (translates to: same shit, different day)"

That said, this is the part where I show you my list (in no particular order), come election day:

1. Aquino, Noynoy
2. Cayetano, Allan Peter
3. Lacson, Panfilo
4. Escudero, Chiz,
5. Trillanes, Antonio
6. Arroyo, Joker
7. Zubiri, Juan Miguel
8. Pimentel, Koko
9. Villar, Manuel
10. Defensor, Michael
11. Angara, Edgardo
12. Honasan, Gregorio

Shocking really to a lot of people that i know. May be a few readers out there as well. I will cast my vote and allow me to explain this change of heart.

Truth be told, only six people really made it on my list, but I never really believed in a ballot that is half-empty. you've got to play the game wholeheartedly or not at all. I filled the empty seats because of one thing or another. Here are my reasons:

• Aquino, Cayetano, Escudero are in because I want youth and brains to make a difference.
• Lacson is a waste in the Senate, he should be in the executive branch, given he is a tank. With the current climate, he's in the list because not letting him play would be a waste of firepower, so to speak.
• Trillanes is there because this guy needs to show us what he's made of, i don't care how many medals he's got. He's got ideas, which is good place to start. let's see him do some actual good and not create a ruckus. Let's see him make changes from the inside. (Ms. Monsod has a counter view regarding choices for the senate, especially for people who've done the sort of thing Trillanes has done.)
  
• Zubiri and Defensor are there to give the opposing voice and Palace View of the World and these guys have brains and youth also on their side.
• Angara, Arroyo, and Villar: they've been there and done that and though their alliances--- Angara and Villar are flaky and Joker, who I think needs to retire--- are all questionable because they are mavericks and may shift based on how the wind blows. then again, what the heck: they can be relied on for the most part, for sound judgments and that is in short supply these days.
• Honasan, having him in the Senate where people can keep an eye on him is so much better than alienating the guy.
• Pimentel--- it was a tough call between Pimentel and Roco for me, but I choose Pimentel. Yes his dad is there, which is really a big deal on the wrong side of the track, but this guy could be the diamond in the rough and so he's "what the heck, up in the air vote".
  

This is by no means telling you, these guys are the "more deserving ones" and should be voted into office. Contrary, I trust, you the reader, would have your own reasons and your own shopping list and are making your own choices.

Now on to the part where I explain this change of heart.

The more people I asked and the more I've read of other people's point of view why they're voting seem to culminate in two things. one, it is their right and by God, they will exercise it and second, they believe it would be a vote against an undeserving person, i.e. keeping the "bad guys" from gaining more power. they're all perfectly valid reasons and I respect their choice in the matter and we share the same spirit, but those are not the reasons why I decided to vote.

Memories of Water wrote Res Ipsa Loquitor and had this to say:

"Thus my vote for a representative is also a vote against the perpetuation of political dynasty, traditional politics, and just plain stupid and selfish politics. I could not even call our political situation as a strong republic; in fact, even the term republic is quite dubious as well. For the past years, no palpable revision of representation was felt in the country – only the continuous perpetuation of personal political interests and idiocy."

I'd like to believe in the same way. A lot of people are saying the same thing. When I look at my list and compare it to the surveys of probable winners, this come to mind: given the survey winners are poised to win, do these people really embody those values we speak of? Because the top 25 people are either veteran political operations or they and their family have been in the business of politics since this nation has been founded. My list is littered with people who are veteran operators and those in politics, why?

In Your Leader Is Like You, MLQ3 wrote this:

"The problem is, if rich and poor alike, we know what makes for good, or desirable leaders, rich or poor alike, we also tend to say our present crop of leaders, on the whole, are uninspiring.

But let me suggest something further to you. Just because a candidate doesn’t provide it, doesn’t mean the public hunger for good leadership isn’t there. It only proves that if the larger public has a sense of traditional, ethical values, our political class has no feeling for those values."

Interesting thought. I find it most troubling because when you think about it, we're hiring these people to serve us. They're going to be doing a job but their culture and ours are at cross purposes and it will only generate friction. On another hand, setting that aside: it couldn't be any different from hiring a lawyer or a doctor or some professional to do a job--- we only need to know that they can get the job done. Put that way, i can swallow that sentiment.

Given my list: I don't have to like them but I'm putting my trust in their capability to do a job.

When I looked at this list and compared them to survey results it reminded me of this TEDTalk by Malcolm Gladwell. The title of his presentation was, "What we can learn from spaghetti sauce".

Gladwell's talk was all about his hero who was hired by the food industry way back in the 70s and 80s to find the perfect cola. they made batches of cola ranging from 8% sweetness to 12% sweetness. they surveyed thousands of people, "which of these do you like". Being the scientist that he was, plotted it in a graph.

Did you know what they got?

The data was inconclusive. everyone had their own preferences.

A few years later, Gladwell's hero was approached by spaghetti sauce company. they needed a product to compete in the market place. Gladwell's hero hypothesized people don't want one kind of sauce, they wanted different kinds of sauce. So they did an experiment. made various variations in sauce and asked people to rank them according to their preferences. When the data came in, they grouped the information into clusters and they found out that one third of americans preferred Chunky Spaghetti sauce and you know what? No one had a product to meet the needs of this market segment and so the Spaghetti sauce company earned US$600M over 10 years when they launched a product to meet that demand. More importantly, people wanted variety.

click here to download this video in zipped mp4 format

Like the spaghetti sauce experiment, we take what is given. this election will tell us, what do people want and I hope our leaders heed that call.

As I've mentioned a lot of the people who answered my questions privately or through email and from what i've read of blogs had their reasons just like mlq3 when he concluded his "Your Leader is You": "if we do not vote, we are not people of government, but like those of the jungle."

I share in the spirit of which they make their choice but I have a different reason.

In his book, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance, Gerstner wrote that he put his own money into the sinking ship of IBM and tied his fortunes with its success or failure. His reasons for doing so was to tie his fortunes with IBM. I think, every citizen and every leader must do the same. Let me explain:

Without a doubt, Democracy--- life really, is a contact sport. You want to be part of the discourse, you want to contribute as a citizen, you not only have to obey the law, you have to be an active and constructive part of the discourse. You got to walk the talk.

We can not stop being participants in the game. We can not withdraw from the game and still expect to win.

When you do stop participating as a citizen, you don't get to complain. You can't go to the police and expect them to do their job. you can't complain that government hospitals suck or there is too much red tape at your local LTO. You don't get to be a part of it. You can't merely be a participant in a democracy as a critic, in fact i submit you can't be a critic--- if you haven't exercised your right to choose your leader. if such leader has failed after providing all the support you could muster, then so be it: we get to fire him or her and choose a new one the next time there is an election.

Democracy is all about participation and participation positively. we can not simply just write about it. In the same vein, we can not just simply walk the streets for someone's ouster, or for them to step down if you've never participated in democracy. if you did not vote, you don't get to do all those things and still call yourself a citizen. We can not simply be apathetic. We can not just walk the talk.

This isn't a sinking ship--- it isn't by far. So when the polls close and the counting begin, winners and losers alike must look towards the future: 2010. It is right around the corner and this mid-term election is just a brief stop over. So, if you've got that vision for what we need, it never is too early to start.

Every Filipino is a stakeholder in our future. We each have our roles to play in the ever continuing saga of our race, whether we be in a position of influence or as simple citizen. We can not hide nor shrink from being who we are.

Everyday people everywhere are leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination. Democracy is a contact sport. When you leverage your own success, you can not simply divorce it from Democracy or for that matter Citizenship. You've got to be part of the positive discourse and affirmative action for all Filipinos in every walk of life. Put it simply, by voting, you've got skin in the game.

Skin in the Game

this post has been rewritten. you may find it here: Skin in the Game (Redux)

For the longest time, I've wrestled with not voting. I've made no secret of my contempt for the mediocrity we find ourselves in and my frustration knowing there is a greater world out there that we as a people can tap into, if only, more people could see. I've shared my sentiment over and over again, most recently in The Leadership Agenda. My firm belief in a theory that people are better off leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination has not wavered.

Some of you may be privy to how insiders do conduct their business and how things do work. We have many names for it: "Under the table", "For the boys," just to name two. That is just how the game is played. It hasn't changed in half a century and is part of our culture.

I've always said, one of the biggest problems with our politics of the day is that you could hardly differentiate the Administration and the Opposition. People often mistake that it is suppose to be that you are either Pro-Gloria, or Pro-Opposition.

We clamor for her ouster. We yearn her removal from office. I have no love for Gloria or her ilk, but I believe those who yearn her removal from office--- by force, by impeachment are 1) making a terrible mistake, and 2) wasting their energy.

They are making a mistake because it will not change the dynamics of the game. By focusing on Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, we make it personal. Yes, she has done repellent things--- which we can not prove in court and if can, why the hell not? Yes, she says one thing and does another. She makes our blood boil and her activities and that of her dogs weaken our democracy. I submit that pGMA is a symptom and simply exchanging a dog we know, for another dog who we don't know is not the cure. Point: we exchanged Erap with a Gloria and it has haunted us.

When I say "wasting their energy", it is not to say: roll over and die with her every whim. Because we can not right a wrong made by making another wrong. I believe it was our mistake to bring Gloria to power: through EDSA 2. And right here, right now: that war is over and she won. That ship has sailed. It is water under the bridge. How many figures of speech or idioms do you need?

That is a painful thing to accept. I wish it wasn't so. It also does not change this fact: Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is the symbolic symptom of our problem and not the problem.

"Wasting their energy", because I submit further that this Election was over before it even began. In fact my unsolicited advice is to look towards the future: 2010.

Our eye must be on what's next. We constantly focus on reaching where our neighbors are, matching their competitiveness. I submit to you: no way in hell we can catch up, not at the state we are in and I don't think we should. I submit to you as a nation the answer to becoming a successful country can be defined in two words. We must, to borrow Intel's slogan: Leap Ahead.

Going back to the here and now, when I look at the surveys and see who are more likely to make it, I cringe at the thought that the same old names and the same old faces and same old last names are in the game. I look at the list and also cheer at the fact that some of the names that shouldn't be there more so than the people who are in the list, may not make it. As much as it is going to be business as usual, the Senate at least will not be packed by people even less deserving than those who are highly probable to win.

Some people believe this is a Gloria v. Us election. Sort of a referendum of her rule and her way. If across the country, gloria's allies in every district, in every city and in every town will lose in overwhelming numbers across every seat, no matter how well they've performed: I may be inclined to believe you. It will be the surest sign of pure disdain for pGMA. Like i've mention above that thinking is wrong.

My firm belief in a theory that people are better off leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination has not wavered. I believe only through entrepreneurial spirit, through professional amateurs, can we innovate and grow. it is of course, easier said than done.

When Jon Limjap of Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX fame asked:

"so tell me, will you be voting next week?"

My reply was:

"honestly? i am still hoping something--- news, an idea, anything really, between now and the day of the election to convince me to vote.

otherwise, it would be: s^2d^2 (translates to: same shit, different day)"

That said, this is the part where I show you my list (in no particular order), come election day:

1. Aquino, Noynoy
2. Cayetano, Allan Peter
3. Lacson, Panfilo
4. Escudero, Chiz,
5. Trillanes, Antonio
6. Arroyo, Joker
7. Zubiri, Juan Miguel
8. Pimentel, Koko
9. Villar, Manuel
10. Defensor, Michael
11. Angara, Edgardo
12. Honasan, Gregorio

Shocking really to a lot of people that i know. May be a few readers out there as well. I will cast my vote and allow me to explain this change of heart.

Truth be told, only six people really made it on my list but I never really believed in a ballot that is half-empty. you've got to play the game wholeheartedly or not at all. I filled the empty seats because of one thing or another.

• Aquino, Cayetano, Escudero are in because I want youth and brains to make a difference.
• Lacson is a waste in the Senate, he should be in the executive branch given he is a tank. With the current climate, he's in the list because not letting him play would be a waste of firepower, so to speak.
• Trillanes is there because this guy needs to show us what he's made of, i don't care how many medals he's got. He's got ideas, which is good place to start. let's see him do some actual good and not create a ruckus.
• Zubiri and Defensor are there to give the opposing voice and Palace View of the World and these guys have brains and youth also on their side.
• Angara, Arroyo, and Villar: they've been there and done that and though their alliances--- Angara and Villar are flaky and Joker, who I think needs to retire are all questionable. then again, what the heck: they can be relied on for the most part for sound judgments.
• Honasan, having him in the Senate where people can see him is so much better than alienating the guy.

It was a tough call between Pimentel and Roco for me, but I choose Pimentel. Yes his dad is there, which is really a big deal on the wrong side of the track, but this guy could be the diamond in the rough and so he's "what the heck, up in the air vote".

This is by no means telling you, these guys are the "more deserving ones" and should be voted into office. Contrary, I trust, you the reader, would have your own reasons and your own shopping list.

Now on to the part where I explain this change of heart.

The more people I asked and the more I've read of other people's point of view why they're voting seem to culminate in two things. one, it is their right and by God, they will exercise it and second, they believe it would be a vote against an undeserving person, i.e. keeping the "bad guys" from gaining more power. they're all perfectly valid reasons and I respect their choice in the matter and we share the same spirit, but those are not the reasons why I decided to vote.

Memories of Water wrote Res Ipsa Loquitor and had this to say:

"Thus my vote for a representative is also a vote against the perpetuation of political dynasty, traditional politics, and just plain stupid and selfish politics. I could not even call our political situation as a strong republic; in fact, even the term republic is quite dubious as well. For the past years, no palpable revision of representation was felt in the country – only the continuous perpetuation of personal political interests and idiocy."

I'd like to believe in the same way. A lot of people are saying the same thing. When I look at my list and compare it to the surveys of probable winners, this come to mind: given the survey winners are poised to win, do these people really embody those values we speak of? Because the top 25 people are either veteran political operations or they and their family have been in the business of politics since this nation has been founded. My list is littered with people who are veteran operators and those in politics, why?

In Your Leader Is Like You, MLQ3 wrote this:

"The problem is, if rich and poor alike, we know what makes for good, or desirable leaders, rich or poor alike, we also tend to say our present crop of leaders, on the whole, are uninspiring.

But let me suggest something further to you. Just because a candidate doesn’t provide it, doesn’t mean the public hunger for good leadership isn’t there. It only proves that if the larger public has a sense of traditional, ethical values, our political class has no feeling for those values."

Interesting thought. I find it most troubling because when you think about it, we're hiring these people to serve us. They're going to be doing a job but their culture and ours are at cross purposes and it will only generate friction. On another hand, setting that aside: it couldn't be any different from hiring a lawyer or a doctor or some professional to do a job--- we only need to know that they can get the job done. Put that way, i can swallow that sentiment.

Given my list: I don't have to like them but I'm putting my trust in their capability to do a job.

When I looked at this list and compared them to survey results it reminded me of this TEDTalk by Malcolm Gladwell. The title of his presentation was, "What we can learn from spaghetti sauce".

Gladwell's talk was all about his hero who was hired by the food industry way back in the 70s and 80s to find the perfect cola. they made batches of cola ranging from 8% sweetness to 12% sweetness. they surveyed thousands of people, "which of these do you like". Being the scientist that he was, plotted it in a graph.

Did you know what they got?

The data was inconclusive. everyone had their own preferences.

A few years later, Gladwell's hero was approached by spaghetti sauce company. they needed a product to compete in the market place. Gladwell's hero hypothesized people don't want one kind of sauce, they wanted different kinds of sauce. So they did an experiment. made various variations in sauce and asked people to rank them according to their preferences. When the data came in, they grouped the information into clusters and they found out that one third of americans preferred Chunky Spaghetti sauce and you know what? No one had a product to meet the needs of this market segment and so the Spaghetti sauce company earned US$600M over 10 years when they launched a product to meet that demand. More importantly, people wanted variety.

click here to download this video in zipped mp4 format

Like the spaghetti sauce experiment, we take what is given. this election will tell us, what do people want and I hope our leaders heed that call.

As I've mentioned, a lot of the people who answered my questions privately or through email and from what i've read of blogs had their reasons just like mlq3 when he concluded his "Your Leader is You": "if we do not vote, we are not people of government, but like those of the jungle."

I share in the spirit of which they make their choice but I have a different reason.

It was one of the moves Gerstner did when he started his turnaround of IBM really brought me over the top. In his book, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance, Gerstner wrote that he put his own money into the sinking ship of IBM and tied his fortunes with its success or failure. let me explain:

Without a doubt, Democracy--- life really, is a contact sport. You want to be part of the discourse, you want to contribute as a citizen, you not only have to obey the law, you have to be an active and constructive part of the discourse. You got to walk the talk.

We can not stop being participants in the game. We can not withdraw from the game and still expect to win.

When you do stop participating as a citizen, you don't get to complain. You can't go to the police and expect them to do their job. you can't complain that government hospitals suck or there is too much red tape at your local LTO. You don't get to be a part of it. You can't merely be a participant in a democracy as a critic, in fact i submit you can't be a critic--- if you haven't exercised your right to choose your leader. if such leader has failed after providing all the support you could muster, then so be it: we get to fire him or her and choose a new one the next time there is an election.

Democracy is all about participation and participation positively. we can not simply just write about it. In the same vein, we can not just simply walk the streets for someone's ouster, or for them to step down if you've never participated in democracy, if you never voted. if you did not vote, you don't get to do all those things and still call yourself a citizen. We can not just walk the talk.

We may argue that this is a sinking ship, with all its problems and difficulty growing. Even if you do believe this is a sinking ship, wouldn't you like to go down fighting than standing around waiting for the inevitable end? If we went down fighting and no one stood witness--- would it have mattered? I submit it does because we would know it.

I don't subscribe to this whole sinking ship thought. Mediocre our (mine too) moves maybe, this is far from a sinking ship.

Everyday people are leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination, everywhere. Democracy is a contact sport. When you leverage your own success, you can not simply divorce it from Democracy or for that matter Citizenship. You've got to be part of the positive discourse. Put it simply, you've got to have skin in the game.

The Leadership Agenda

Is apathy a great evil? There is a sense of indifference coming from people and a fatalism that no matter who wins in the Philippines' May 2007 elections, the status quo will remain. Who cares who wins? Some say it is because of frustration, perhaps it is a deeper underlying anger and disdain at the mediocrity being foisted upon us. who wouldn't after all the lies, all the successive failures and all the hidden and twisted agenda and backstabbing?

When Cory Aquino was ushered to power, it created a rebirth of democracy in the Philippines and in spite of the many trials that came during her day, democracy was perhaps her biggest legacy. The stabilization and the building of the seeds of institution around a nascent democracy, a minor second to her achievement of keeping its flame alive.

During the 1990s, poised to take off and riding on the wave of investments sweeping South East Asia, perhaps the greatest success of Fidel Ramos was to create a genuine sense of unity under the banner and vision of "Philippines 2000". Never mind that as the bubble collapsed, so too did much of the wealth but the seeds of growth and achievement remained there.

Erap Estrada, no matter what one can say against the man, he can claim that his majority, his electoral victory was unprecedented and untarnished. It was proof that no machine can subvert the overwhelming desire of the people. it was proof that democracy won that day of his election yet his greatest failing was perhaps throwing away an opportunity to change this nation and this squandering of an electoral mandate also spawned an even deadlier virus by a vigilante middle class and they in turn, was used as an instrument to usurp an election.

As they say, it is ancient history and now we are here. With our economic progress such as it is, and while it is nothing extraordinary, this economy is riding once more on the wave of global progress and its success or failure determined by the Global economy.

A few days ago, Rene Azurin wrote "Indifference is a Mistake" in his BusinessWorld Column:

"This is an agenda we can all act on. I suspect, though, that unless we can get a stirred up youth to direct their fire and passion to demanding changes that matter, not much will happen. The young need to supply the energy and enthusiasm that we who are older and tireder now appear sadly lacking. They cannot be indifferent just yet. It is their future that is at stake."

Given our people's ever growing desire to work beyond the country, and while their wealth is generated elsewhere, has this Republic become a mere suburb in the sprawling nation of the world? they work abroad, their kids grow up at home, study at home and at the appointed time leave the nest and work elsewhere. And thus, has the Philippines' national government been reduced to the effectiveness and level of a homeowner's association?

Put it in this way: a man gives everything to a woman, who he loves. she in turn leaves him, breaks his heart and not even because she has another man waiting in the wings. she just leaves for no apparent reason. she comes back and the man forgives. she leaves again, hurts him and he forgives. after so many times, is the man an idiot? the feminists would write it the other way around, which doesn't really matter because the story never changes: when you've been hurt one too many times, when then do you cross the line and become an idiot?

Politics is content. In the same way you attract people's attention like buying goods or services: it is a form of content and in a world where there are so many things vying for content there is no room for people who demand you to listen to theirs. The generation of the technology savvy is the generation that gives merit to content. it approves what benefits them or what interests them. in other words, they get something out of it. If your content is terrible, is it the fault of the consumer or the producer of the content if it doesn't click?

We've entered an age where technological achievement is ushered in from private enterprise. Rarely is it spawned anymore from government initiatives and even then it is private enterprise that really takes it off the ground. The Wright Brothers took it upon themselves to fly and their desire infected others and today, aircraft has made the world a much smaller place. On another hand, look at the Internet: a byproduct of the Cold War but it was only when private enterprise started using it and leveraging it, when it started to be productive.

So what use is government now? Balancing the playing field: an arbiter, an entity that sets up rules of the game for private enterprise and individuals to play in. It seeds infrastructure when private enterprise refuses to build one or isn't interested in building one. it provides an insurance: a safety net for disasters and issues of general importance.

What happens when justice takes too long to uphold for rich and poor alike, when crime is so prevalent you can't even walk the streets carrying a cheap mobile phone safely or ride a bus without thought of being a victim of crime? When the help needed to rebuild community victims of natural disasters can not be provided for, when the infrastructure so desperately needed to be built is non-existent or inefficient, what good is government for then?

On the other hand, this is an age where private enterprise-- private individuals can band together and build communities and provide services even at the time of disasters or when the common good is of importance. Filipinos around the world do it all the time. Non-government organizations do it all the time. Individuals banding together, forming communities to solve or answer a particular need is happening every single day.

Why do we need government for, when people even with limited resources that they have, can make a difference by themselves?

Perhaps another way of looking at it is this: people are looking for a leader. Which brings us to this question: what kind of leader is a good one?

Sun Tzu said[1] that these are the characteristics of a commander or in our case a good leader are these:

• wisdom,
• knowledge,
• credibility,
• strictness,
• benevolent,
• courageous,
• is a skillful analyst,
• is unconcerned by punishment,
• puts the army/nation/organization first,
• is tranquil, obscure, and upright,
• has self-discipline,
• is clever and inventive,
• has a wide array of encompassing talents

Do you have those qualities?

A good leader is not just in government (the cynic would say never from government) and is found in all walks of life and in all sorts of organizations and communities. In Great Men and Sacrifice, I wrote that a good leader is also obsessed about the future and our past traditions:

I have only one point in all this. Let me ask you this: in Philippine society today, how often do we obsess about our future and how often do we concern ourselves with our past/traditions?

Great men lay their lives down, sure. Often, is not the greater sacrifice living such unhappy lives, taking on risks and trials---- suffering so that others may have happy or at least better lives? Anti-Hero or Villain, Linderman has a point: "great men are willing to sacrifice to save the world." Do you have what it takes to be great?

Leaders, change, making a difference--- they're no longer a monopoly of governments anymore. Can the future be designed because everyday people, ordinary people are making a difference right now: bringing up families, creating communities, innovating business and technology, helping each other and standing together. People can create their own future, right here, right now and are doing it every single day.

Government has become a nuisance.

It isn't anymore a case of being indifferent. People from all walks of life are doing what they can to make their lives better, on their own as best they could. Government and politicians have made the whole political genre a form of entertainment, like one big massive soap opera. So in television parlance: it has jumped the shark. it is not a case of being indifferent, it is a case of making government and politicians irrelevant.

It is in the Politicians best interest to keep the status quo: the "for the boys" club, the same old ideas, the stifling of civil liberties and innovation, the "you are against us or with us" mentality and the oppression of those who have no voice (updated:) and of course employing tactics as Ricky Carandang wrote in pretzel logic:

If a cursory look at the partlists and their nominees can immediately raise questions like these, imagine what a more detailed examination could unearth. And yet the Comelec wanted the voter to simply trust their judgement and vote blindly for their partylist reps. By keeping the names under lock and key, Comelec facilitated the sale of partylist seats and exposed voters to the danger that they may actually be sending someone to Congress that did not represent them or their interests. (end of update)

Stating the obvious and the ridiculous: by what sign of good faith do politicians give us?

Kidding aside, will casting a vote now advance the greater good?

In this video from TED, BMW's Chris Bangle talked about building the next generation of SUV but what really struck me as even more important is the leadership lessons to be learned from his presentation:

download zip/mp4 here

Politicians and by politicians i mean the whole government establishment plus many of those who were there in EDSA, and a lot of the old crowd of middle-class believers are asking us to place our trust once more in the political system, in government. Seriously, it seem pointless really. We are way past indifference. If government becomes irrelevant, why bother dealing with it? "You are either against us, or with us," isn't that what the old boys taught us kids? The Everyman's leadership agenda is this: people are (and better off) leveraging their own success through their own hard work, sheer audaciousness and determination.

further reading:
[1] "Sun Tzu: Art of War", translated by Ralph D. Sawyer, p132-134.

is apathy the greater evil?

The Philippine Daily Inquirer talked about the Political Battle over Pacquio's fight:

"There are rules in elections but Pacquiao is a phenomenon. He is the only thing right now that excites the whole country," Philippine Daily Inquirer boxing columnist Recah Trinidad told Agence France-Presse.

"How can you sacrifice that just because of some silly political exercise?"

Pacquiao is seeking Custodio's congressional seat representing South Cotabato province in Mindanao island, where the boxer traces his roots.

Arguably, Pacquiao is a good fighter--- one of the best to take up boxing. He is an inspiration to many Filipinos. Yet what precisely is wrong in our system is when we set aside rules, and common ethics even for "heroes" like Pacquiao.

Letting his game be viewed by millions does constitute an unfair advantage.

Who loses out? you, me and millions of Filipinos hoping to watch an excellent boxing match. Then again, Pacquiao has no business running for public office. He is already an inspiration for millions. He can do much good with his time, his money. He can educate a lot of kids. he can help train new boxers. He doesn't need to be running for public office to do much good, when if his heart is really in the right place, he could be doing more good right now being a hero. in fact i submit, he is doing much good right now being who he is: one hell of a boxer.

what is wrong in our country is that we have to have two feet in whatever business we've got. Pacquiao should choose between the excellent career of boxing or politics. he can't be doing both at the same time. one will undoubtedly suffer. the proper course of action would be to finish his stelar career as a boxer. he has more years ahead of him in that ring. then if the bug still has him, may be thats the moment for him to run for public office.

There is really something terribly wrong when people start saying elections are "silly political exercises". is there any doubt our political system is such a mess? "Silly political exercise," indeed. when we go that route, we don't deserve democracy.

speak up: vote?

isn't it better to make everyone a multimillionaire?
I remembered making this because of the headlines the past few days about how poverty and hunger still top as concerns of our time. I made this September 2006. The lady isn't mine, so i can't claim ownership... and I forget where i found it, just that I did. Using Google.

the person who made that and the person writing this are two different creatures, living in two different universes. i was full of hope and optimistic that the future can still hold promise for this country. the other guy isn't sure he can believe in people anymore and you've undoubtedly read some of my previous posts. My apathy, disappointment, and disillusionment mirrors countless others out there.

Values Oriented Truthful Elections. indeed.

its very easy isn't it? to write, to put those words in a slogan, to paint it in a t-shirt, or cry about it at the top of one's voice in a political rally.

mindless rhetoric? is it the same empty rhetoric that politicians of all shape, party affiliation stand on? Fighting poverty. indeed.

then again, the problem with not speaking up during an election is that no one ever listens to silence. on the flip-side, the problem with fighting poverty, and values oriented truthful elections is this: they tend to fade after washing the t-shirt. the paint wears off quite easy after people have won an election.

the crazy thing is that we already know how to fight and win against poverty: make everyone a multimillionaire.

yawn

the battle lines have been drawn. There is a line on the sand between the Administration Coalition of Mrs. Arroyo and Opposition Coalition of Mr. Estrada. Each group with their own selection processes and familiar names and faces.

Both camps are calling for "unity". i find "unity" to be a bitter tasting word these days. i fear, it would, in the next few months mean, "farce". Still, there is truth in their collective call for "Unity". Both arguably, still remain equally united: no different from each other and from that, stems my dismay.

what else is new?

I've been voting since I was 18. And I have never missed an election. When I didn't like the crop of candidates, I have never left a slot unfilled. I choose the lesser evil, every time, hoping against hope that maybe these people would have the courage to give something back, if only a little.

Why do many of us bother? What purpose is there for a government? our economy will at the very least survive, largely because our industrious people find ways to send their children to school, and however imperfect provide their own ways for health care.

So what if children die in the streets, for lack of food. They already are now. Those of us who can afford to, can help raise the condition of those we can touch: our drivers, house help and their families. every life we can touch, can touch others when they can. it isn't much, but it can be called progress.

so what if our leaders cheat or squabble? It isn't the role of the Church or the Government to instill ethics and morals, they provide support for parents. Isn't it the duty and obligation of parents to teach kids ethics and morals?

What purpose is there for a government? No one will invade this country, no strategic value. Even if there was, we have no standing Armed Forces capable of defeating such a force anyway. So why bother with a government?

it doesn't mean, i wouldn't listen to what each candidate would say. though i fear, i've heard them all before.

I look at the list of candidates and ask: why would i bother? what possible difference would that one vote be? what's the point of voting? i'd rather put my belief in our people who strive and toil everyday to make their lives a little better, however imperfect: at least they act.