Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
On April 14, 2010 Senator Noynoy Aquino proudly proclaimed during a press conference in Cebu that by “Next week, you will all be in shock and awe...One of the stalwarts of the current administration is joining our campaign”.
The media frenzy that followed raised suspicious questions:
Was it going to be Fidel V. Ramos who had earlier sent Alaminos City Mayor Nani Branganza and Pangasinan Governor Victor Agbayani to join Noynoy's camp?
Was it going to be Vice President Noli de Castro who has opted to stay politically-unattached and continuous to enjoy support from the poor?
Was it going to be Finance Secretary Gary Teves who remains one of the few decent men in the Arroyo administration?
And then the announcement came a few days later- its Joey Salceda!
Am I shocked? Am I awed?
Yes I am!!
I am shocked because this is the same Joey Salceda who called President Arroyo a “lucky bitch” during an Ateneo Graduate School forum in 2008 and got away with it because GMA obviously really loved him.
This is the same Joey Salceda who received his share of the JocJoc Bolante fertilizer fund in 2004 while his next district neighbor (and still a GMA loyalist) Rep. Edcel Lagman didn't get any because it was believed that he was not very helpful in the 2004 campaign.
This is the same Joey Salceda who cornered big-ticket projects from the GMA administration such as:
* Construction of the P3.4-billion Daraga International Airport
* P776 million public infrastructure funding
* Installation of the P560-million worth Doppler radar
* P977.3 million for the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, which assists
70,000 poor families in the province
* P1.25 billion worth of assistance after Typhoon Reming.
And this is the same Joey Salceda who just a few days earlier herded more than 30 administration governors belonging to the National Caucus of Governors, praised Gibo to high heavens, and engineered the signing of a manifesto to “work hard for overwhelming electoral majorities” for Teodoro.
And how does the Aquino camp explain Salceda's decision to jump to their side?
“I think he should be welcomed. He is a very intelligent governor. He’s got the experience of being a legislator. He’s also a governor. I think he should be welcomed in the LP,” said fellow LAKAS to LP political butterfly Ralph Recto.
And at least two of Aquino's senatorial candidates – Rufino Biazon and Risa Hontiveros – welcomed Salceda with open arms into the LP fold because he is a "maverick".
Is Salceda a "maverick"? The last time this was used in political-speak was to justify John McCain's poor choice of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate.
Everyone is the US was really "shocked and awed" by McCain's unlikely choice of an inexperienced and fact-challenged Alaska Governor who believed that Africa was a country and not a continent, did not know that Mexico, Canada and the US were part of NAFTA, couldn't mention the newspapers she reads, and claimed she had foreign policy expertise because Alaska's was geographically close to Russia.
And what does Joey Salceda think of his switch? He said that he decided to join the LP "because LP officials have allowed me to field my own set of local candidates regardless of political affiliation". And what takes the cake in this whole circus was Salceda's statement that "despite his support for Mr. Aquino, he remains an Arroyo ally" (http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=9006).
And am I "awed"?
I am awed by the audacity of LP leaders to present Joey Salceda as an economic genius without mentioning that he was one of the "economic architects" of the Arroyo administration that has plunged us into the economic and political abyss that we are now in.
I am awed that Salceda could praise Noynoy Aquino and in the same breath say that he supports and remains an Arroyo ally! What happened to "good vs. evil"? And I thought it was Villaroyo and not Aquinoroyo?
Most of all, I am awed by the LP's use of the word "maverick" to describe a political opportunist.
A "maverick" exhibits great independence in thought and action. At least Sarah Palin for all her shortcomings deserves to be called a maverick.
A political opportunist masquerading as a "maverick" is the most dangerous kind. Antique Governor Sally Perez was right when he said - “Noynoy, be careful of Governor Salceda. If he can do it to Gibo, he can do it to you”.
To this I add, Noynoy be careful of what you wish for, this "maverick" may turn out to be your worst nightmare.
Showing posts with label Noynoy Aquino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noynoy Aquino. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
We Need A Psychologically-Fit President
by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
Importance of Health Disclosure
The recent release in social networking sites like Facebook and e-groups of the alleged psychiatric evaluation of Senator Noynoy Aquino has centered public attention on the need for full disclosure of the medical condition of candidates as a basis for their fitness for public office.
Supporters of Noynoy Aquino have cried foul and accused the Nacionalista Party of orchestrating a demolition job against their candidate and paraded a letter from Father Tito Caluag stating that he never examined Senator Aquino.
Not to be outdone, ABS-CBN reports that psychiatric evaluation was released by the NP and when asked to name its sources, invoked the “confidentiality” of its sources as a defense against public disclosure.
What is being forgotten in this whole media frenzy is the fact that the medical condition of candidates running for office is a public issue that needs to be addressed. The fact that Noynoy Aquino is running for the President makes the resolution of this issue more critical.
In short, this is not about Noynoy Aquino. This is not about Ninoy and Cory Aquino’s legacy. This is about what is for the good of the nation.
Americans Monitor the Physical and Mental Health of their Presidents
People in developed countries take the mental health of their leaders seriously. In his blog entitled Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents--"Call Me Incompetent But Don't Call Me Crazy" Dr. Rick Lippin said that the mental competence of Presidents are important because: : (http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com/2007/03/mental-illness-in-us-presidents-call-me.html)
1. We obviously need mentally competent Presidents of the United States
2. We need better laws to ensure such mental competency both prior to and
while holding such an important office; and
3. We need to ensure that psychiatric evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of
Presidents are as free as possible from any influence whatsoever from
partisan politics.
Dr. Lippin's blog was based on an excellently written article in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (January 2006) which studied biographical source material in 37 presidents from 1776 to 1974 on the topic of Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents. This journal article concluded that 18 presidents (49%) met the criteria suggesting psychiatric diagnoses and in 10 instances (27%) "a disorder was evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably impaired job performance". Thankfully the authors concluded that no national calamities appeared to have occurred due to presidential mental illness. (http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2006&issue=01000&article=00009&type=abstract.) and (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16462555)
Many American Presidents suffered from psychiatric problems. James Madison, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce all suffered from major depressive disorders. Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were bipolar, and Woodrow Wilson suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder.
David Shribman, writing in Real Clear Politics said that “some of the presidents, to be sure, came to office with a proclivity to mental disorder, only to find that the stress of office pushed them into illness. But some – Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Pierce – developed mental disorders after their sons died tragically. Neither president was able to commit himself effectively to the task of leadership following such tragic loss". The psychiatrists who did the 2006 study concluded that "(T)raumatic bereavement may have left each one (Coolidge and Pierce) poorly equipped to discharge the demanding responsibilities of office."
Unfortunately, this landmark study only covered US presidents until Richard Nixon. I am sure that if it included the more recent occupants in the White House, the study would reveal that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's late in life and perhaps even in the White House. George W. Bush has admitted freely that he abused alcohol in the years leading up to his 40th birthday. Bill Clinton, of course led a very colorful life before and during his presidency that produced the scandals of Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.
The American public has consistently demanded that their presidential candidates show their physical and mental fitness for public office. One of the reasons why Senator Paul Tsongas failed to capture the Democratic Party nomination in 1992 was the public concern that his lymph node cancer that afflicted him in the mid-1980s will recur. Governor Bill Clinton went on to win the primaries and became President because of this health issue.
Later events would show that this concern was correct because a few years later Tsongas’ cancer returned and he died of pneumonia and liver failure.
More recently, Republican candidate John McCain repeatedly tried to block the release of his medical records while campaigning for the presidency against Barack Obama. He argued that his melanoma was a thing of the past and will recur if he is elected President. The concern for McCain’s health, coupled with the possibility of a Sarah Palin takeover was one of the reasons for the embarrassing Republican Party loss in 2008.
All these historical precedents bring me back to my original point. It is important, crucial, and necessary to subject all presidential candidates to psychiatric tests to determine their fitness for public office. Noynoy Aquino, because of the allegations that have surfaced, needs to squarely face this issue and not hide behind media statements.
Mental Incapacity
Filipinos hold elections sacred because they pin their hopes on elected officials to solve all of their problems. In a country deeply mired in poverty, Filipinos believe that curbing corruption, alleviating poverty, and exercising good governance can be achieved if they select the best leader from among those running for President.
A presidential candidate must therefore show unquestioned physical and mental fitness for public office to show that he can handle the stresses of managing a nation. The traumatic loss of their sons made US Presidents Coolidge and Pierce poorly equipped to discharge the demanding responsibilities of office. If it is true that Noynoy Aquino suffers from mental incapacity BEFORE he even assumes office, imagine the danger of him experiencing the traumatic situation of Coolidge and Pierce while in office!
The issue of “mental incapacity” is important for another reason - the Constitution cites “mental incapacity” as one of the grounds for declaring the Office of the President vacant.
Article VII, Sec. VIII of the 1987 Constitution states that “In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term…”
Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution which deals with vacancies occurring in the Office of the President identifies four (4) specified situations, to wit: (a) death of the incumbent, (b) his permanent disability, (c) removal, or (d) resignation from Office.
Permanent disability, as constitutionalists widely agree, refers not only to physical but also mental incapacity.
Noynoy Aquino's Alleged Psychiatric Evaluation Form
Noynoy Aquino’s alleged Psychiatric Evaluation Form from the Ateneo de Manila University Department of Psychology contains the following details:
“History of Present Illness: The patient is a 36-year old single male with a history of profuse salivation and labile moods since his childhood. He was observed to be sleeping excessively, disoriented and confusing family and household member’s name. When interviewed at the time of psychiatric assessment, the patient said he had difficulty in speech, poor concentration, impaired thinking and melancholia brought about by the stresses of his work and the break-up with his flight attendant girlfriend. He also claimed he felt clumsy and uncoordinated. He also describes what appeared to be a deep sense of foreboding and feeling that the “world was coming to an end.”
“Current Symptoms:
1. Psycho motor retardation
2. Slowed gait and activity
3. Lack of initiative
4. Melancholia
5. Fatigue
6. Lack of self-confidence
7. Lack of sexual interest”
“Substance Abuse History:
Smoker Yes, up to two (2) packs a day
Drugs Yes, teen-age experimentation with Marijuana and various pills
ETOH Yes, solitary drinker”
“…when confronted with stressful or traumatic experiences they transcend into open aggression, most noticeable during the coup d’etat attempts against his mother when she was President. He wanted to execute all the rebel soldiers and their leaders. He claimed that it was these very same men who killed his father, now here they were again trying to kill his whole family.”
Tell Tale Signs?
Critics of Noynoy Aquino have raised this mental condition question as early as Septmber 2009 when news broke out that he was running for President. Despite repeated denials, his media responses, conduct in public debates, mannerisms, and interviews about his life raise many questions. For example:
• He owns a lot of guns, definitely much more than the average gun enthusiast,
as shown in a special television show about presidential candidates
• He sleeps even in places where he shouldn’t be napping, such as during the
GMA-7 Presidential Debates series.
• He did raise tantrums during a Presidential Forum when he thought Tony Lopez, the moderator, was biased in favor of the other candidates
• He laughs a lot in public; smiles even when there is no reason to smile.
• His answers during interviews are sometimes “off tangent” with the question raised.
• He walks, talks, and acts similar to the “Current Symptoms” mentioned in the Report.
• He is very “vindictive” through his pronouncements on various issues (e.g. should he be elected president, he will impeach an Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice,).
• He does lack initiative. He has not passed any law, not even a local law after 9 years in the House of Representatives and 3 years in the Senate. He rarely holds committee hearings in the Senate committees that he chairs, and very seldom speaks in plenary debates.
National Interest vs. Privacy Requirements
Is privacy as covered in doctor-patient privilege more important than national interest?
According to George Annas, Professor of Health Law at Boston University School of Public Health in his article in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “The Health of the President and Presidential Candidates: The Public’s Right to Know”:
“It is a central legal and ethical principle that physicians should not disclose private medical information to people who are not involved in a patient’s care without the patient’s authorization. The doctor–patient relationship is a confidential one, and a breach of confidentiality is unethical unless it is necessary to protect the public’s health.”
The Public’s Right to Know
So should Aquino’s denial be the end of this issue? Absolutely not! It is the public’s right to know whether he, in fact, suffers from mental incapacity. He and all presidential candidates should allow themselves to undergo psychological examination.
It is in the best interest of the nation that they do. The nation cannot risk that its fate be entrusted to someone who is not psychologically fit to govern.
Importance of Health Disclosure
The recent release in social networking sites like Facebook and e-groups of the alleged psychiatric evaluation of Senator Noynoy Aquino has centered public attention on the need for full disclosure of the medical condition of candidates as a basis for their fitness for public office.
Supporters of Noynoy Aquino have cried foul and accused the Nacionalista Party of orchestrating a demolition job against their candidate and paraded a letter from Father Tito Caluag stating that he never examined Senator Aquino.
Not to be outdone, ABS-CBN reports that psychiatric evaluation was released by the NP and when asked to name its sources, invoked the “confidentiality” of its sources as a defense against public disclosure.
What is being forgotten in this whole media frenzy is the fact that the medical condition of candidates running for office is a public issue that needs to be addressed. The fact that Noynoy Aquino is running for the President makes the resolution of this issue more critical.
In short, this is not about Noynoy Aquino. This is not about Ninoy and Cory Aquino’s legacy. This is about what is for the good of the nation.
Americans Monitor the Physical and Mental Health of their Presidents
People in developed countries take the mental health of their leaders seriously. In his blog entitled Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents--"Call Me Incompetent But Don't Call Me Crazy" Dr. Rick Lippin said that the mental competence of Presidents are important because: : (http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com/2007/03/mental-illness-in-us-presidents-call-me.html)
1. We obviously need mentally competent Presidents of the United States
2. We need better laws to ensure such mental competency both prior to and
while holding such an important office; and
3. We need to ensure that psychiatric evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of
Presidents are as free as possible from any influence whatsoever from
partisan politics.
Dr. Lippin's blog was based on an excellently written article in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (January 2006) which studied biographical source material in 37 presidents from 1776 to 1974 on the topic of Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents. This journal article concluded that 18 presidents (49%) met the criteria suggesting psychiatric diagnoses and in 10 instances (27%) "a disorder was evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably impaired job performance". Thankfully the authors concluded that no national calamities appeared to have occurred due to presidential mental illness. (http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2006&issue=01000&article=00009&type=abstract.) and (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16462555)
Many American Presidents suffered from psychiatric problems. James Madison, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce all suffered from major depressive disorders. Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were bipolar, and Woodrow Wilson suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder.
David Shribman, writing in Real Clear Politics said that “some of the presidents, to be sure, came to office with a proclivity to mental disorder, only to find that the stress of office pushed them into illness. But some – Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Pierce – developed mental disorders after their sons died tragically. Neither president was able to commit himself effectively to the task of leadership following such tragic loss". The psychiatrists who did the 2006 study concluded that "(T)raumatic bereavement may have left each one (Coolidge and Pierce) poorly equipped to discharge the demanding responsibilities of office."
Unfortunately, this landmark study only covered US presidents until Richard Nixon. I am sure that if it included the more recent occupants in the White House, the study would reveal that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's late in life and perhaps even in the White House. George W. Bush has admitted freely that he abused alcohol in the years leading up to his 40th birthday. Bill Clinton, of course led a very colorful life before and during his presidency that produced the scandals of Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.
The American public has consistently demanded that their presidential candidates show their physical and mental fitness for public office. One of the reasons why Senator Paul Tsongas failed to capture the Democratic Party nomination in 1992 was the public concern that his lymph node cancer that afflicted him in the mid-1980s will recur. Governor Bill Clinton went on to win the primaries and became President because of this health issue.
Later events would show that this concern was correct because a few years later Tsongas’ cancer returned and he died of pneumonia and liver failure.
More recently, Republican candidate John McCain repeatedly tried to block the release of his medical records while campaigning for the presidency against Barack Obama. He argued that his melanoma was a thing of the past and will recur if he is elected President. The concern for McCain’s health, coupled with the possibility of a Sarah Palin takeover was one of the reasons for the embarrassing Republican Party loss in 2008.
All these historical precedents bring me back to my original point. It is important, crucial, and necessary to subject all presidential candidates to psychiatric tests to determine their fitness for public office. Noynoy Aquino, because of the allegations that have surfaced, needs to squarely face this issue and not hide behind media statements.
Mental Incapacity
Filipinos hold elections sacred because they pin their hopes on elected officials to solve all of their problems. In a country deeply mired in poverty, Filipinos believe that curbing corruption, alleviating poverty, and exercising good governance can be achieved if they select the best leader from among those running for President.
A presidential candidate must therefore show unquestioned physical and mental fitness for public office to show that he can handle the stresses of managing a nation. The traumatic loss of their sons made US Presidents Coolidge and Pierce poorly equipped to discharge the demanding responsibilities of office. If it is true that Noynoy Aquino suffers from mental incapacity BEFORE he even assumes office, imagine the danger of him experiencing the traumatic situation of Coolidge and Pierce while in office!
The issue of “mental incapacity” is important for another reason - the Constitution cites “mental incapacity” as one of the grounds for declaring the Office of the President vacant.
Article VII, Sec. VIII of the 1987 Constitution states that “In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term…”
Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution which deals with vacancies occurring in the Office of the President identifies four (4) specified situations, to wit: (a) death of the incumbent, (b) his permanent disability, (c) removal, or (d) resignation from Office.
Permanent disability, as constitutionalists widely agree, refers not only to physical but also mental incapacity.
Noynoy Aquino's Alleged Psychiatric Evaluation Form
Noynoy Aquino’s alleged Psychiatric Evaluation Form from the Ateneo de Manila University Department of Psychology contains the following details:
“History of Present Illness: The patient is a 36-year old single male with a history of profuse salivation and labile moods since his childhood. He was observed to be sleeping excessively, disoriented and confusing family and household member’s name. When interviewed at the time of psychiatric assessment, the patient said he had difficulty in speech, poor concentration, impaired thinking and melancholia brought about by the stresses of his work and the break-up with his flight attendant girlfriend. He also claimed he felt clumsy and uncoordinated. He also describes what appeared to be a deep sense of foreboding and feeling that the “world was coming to an end.”
“Current Symptoms:
1. Psycho motor retardation
2. Slowed gait and activity
3. Lack of initiative
4. Melancholia
5. Fatigue
6. Lack of self-confidence
7. Lack of sexual interest”
“Substance Abuse History:
Smoker Yes, up to two (2) packs a day
Drugs Yes, teen-age experimentation with Marijuana and various pills
ETOH Yes, solitary drinker”
“…when confronted with stressful or traumatic experiences they transcend into open aggression, most noticeable during the coup d’etat attempts against his mother when she was President. He wanted to execute all the rebel soldiers and their leaders. He claimed that it was these very same men who killed his father, now here they were again trying to kill his whole family.”
Tell Tale Signs?
Critics of Noynoy Aquino have raised this mental condition question as early as Septmber 2009 when news broke out that he was running for President. Despite repeated denials, his media responses, conduct in public debates, mannerisms, and interviews about his life raise many questions. For example:
• He owns a lot of guns, definitely much more than the average gun enthusiast,
as shown in a special television show about presidential candidates
• He sleeps even in places where he shouldn’t be napping, such as during the
GMA-7 Presidential Debates series.
• He did raise tantrums during a Presidential Forum when he thought Tony Lopez, the moderator, was biased in favor of the other candidates
• He laughs a lot in public; smiles even when there is no reason to smile.
• His answers during interviews are sometimes “off tangent” with the question raised.
• He walks, talks, and acts similar to the “Current Symptoms” mentioned in the Report.
• He is very “vindictive” through his pronouncements on various issues (e.g. should he be elected president, he will impeach an Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice,).
• He does lack initiative. He has not passed any law, not even a local law after 9 years in the House of Representatives and 3 years in the Senate. He rarely holds committee hearings in the Senate committees that he chairs, and very seldom speaks in plenary debates.
National Interest vs. Privacy Requirements
Is privacy as covered in doctor-patient privilege more important than national interest?
According to George Annas, Professor of Health Law at Boston University School of Public Health in his article in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “The Health of the President and Presidential Candidates: The Public’s Right to Know”:
“It is a central legal and ethical principle that physicians should not disclose private medical information to people who are not involved in a patient’s care without the patient’s authorization. The doctor–patient relationship is a confidential one, and a breach of confidentiality is unethical unless it is necessary to protect the public’s health.”
The Public’s Right to Know
So should Aquino’s denial be the end of this issue? Absolutely not! It is the public’s right to know whether he, in fact, suffers from mental incapacity. He and all presidential candidates should allow themselves to undergo psychological examination.
It is in the best interest of the nation that they do. The nation cannot risk that its fate be entrusted to someone who is not psychologically fit to govern.
Extended Education Not a Panacea
by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
Promising every Filipino access to education is a standard election promise that all candidates mouth off during the campaign. It is not surprising that educational reforms have become standard messages in the on-going presidential debates. Manny Villar wants to expand access to higher education, Dick Gordon promises to increase the monthly salary of teachers to P40,000, Noynoy Aquino wants quality textbooks, and Eddie Villanueva calls for an educational system anchored on moral standards.
What is surprising is that some candidates, perhaps in an attempt to put one better than their opponents, have started to promise the moon to the Filipino voters.
One such example is Noynoy Aquino’s proposal in the recent COCPEA presidential forum to add two more years to the education system purportedly to bring the country to global standards, increase the employability of graduates, and make our manpower internationally competitive.
Increasing the number of years in the educational system is not a new idea. Over the past four decades, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (1970), Presidential Commission on Education Reform (1999), and the Presidential Task Force on Education (2008) have proposed the extension of the basic education cycle to improve the content and relevance of basic education and make it internationally competitive.
But what is surprising is that Noynoy Aquino has proposed adding not just one but two additional years of education to every Filipino effectively converting us from a K-10 (kindergarten + 6 elementary + 4 high school) to a K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12) system.
Supporters of this proposal argue that the Philippines is the only Asian country with a 10-year basic education system. Others say students who stay in school longer perform better in international science and math achievement tests; that a long education cycle better prepares students for higher education and the job market, and higher levels of education attainment is strongly correlated to higher wages.
But is increasing the number of years in the school system the best educational reform for a poor country suffering from a continuing fiscal deficit? And are we not better off using our scarce resources to address existing educational problems and programs?
In fact, there are many existing education initiatives, such as early childhood education and the high school bridge program, that have not been fully implemented for lack of funding support. R.A. 8980 or the Early Childhood Care and Development Act of 2000 makes pre-school a prerequisite for enrolling in Grade 1 thus making pre-school education a government responsibility. Current Department of Education (DepEd) data shows that only half of children age 5 are in preschool and some P1.8B is needed to maintain the program at current levels.
The recent congressional hearings on the DepEd budget also showed that we need to build 66,881 classrooms (costing some P43B) and hire 64,060 teachers (based on 1:1 teacher-classroom ratio) just to accommodate our current school population.
And the Philippines, by its own admission, is already lagging behind in its Millennium Development Goal commitment of achieving universal primary education by 2015. The DepEd needs more than P15B annually just to find and bring all school-age children to school and keep them there.
Which brings me to my previous questions – how much money will be needed to add two years to the current education cycle and how does Noynoy Aquino propose to produce this amount given his promise not to raise taxes if elected president? (He has flip-flopped on this position). Remember that he has also promised universal preschool, one million GATSPE scholarships, and technical-vocation education in high schools.
There were no estimates given by Aquino in his speech, in his webpage, via his political supporters, or by his education experts. His quoted media response is to increase GDP by 2% and reclaim P280B from corruption to fund educational reform.
I find this posture fiscally irresponsible and politically pandering. It is also not clear how adding two years to the school system will make us globally competitive.
Even if we assume that the funding required can somehow be magically produced, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money to wipe out the classroom shortage, ensure that all 5 year old children are in preschool, fulfill our international commitment to achieve universal primary education, do school feeding programs, hire additional teachers, or reduce classroom size to improve student-to-teacher ratio and elevate student performance and achievement?
Perhaps the Ateneo-schooled presidential bet should spend a day at the Batasan Elementary School located just a few meters from his old House of Representatives office and experience first hand how more than 50 public school students are crammed in a classroom during the third shift at 7 o’clock in the evening. Then maybe he will realize that adding two more years to a public school student’s life is not the answer to making him internationally competitive, helping him find a decent job, or making his daily school experience bearable.
Promising every Filipino access to education is a standard election promise that all candidates mouth off during the campaign. It is not surprising that educational reforms have become standard messages in the on-going presidential debates. Manny Villar wants to expand access to higher education, Dick Gordon promises to increase the monthly salary of teachers to P40,000, Noynoy Aquino wants quality textbooks, and Eddie Villanueva calls for an educational system anchored on moral standards.
What is surprising is that some candidates, perhaps in an attempt to put one better than their opponents, have started to promise the moon to the Filipino voters.
One such example is Noynoy Aquino’s proposal in the recent COCPEA presidential forum to add two more years to the education system purportedly to bring the country to global standards, increase the employability of graduates, and make our manpower internationally competitive.
Increasing the number of years in the educational system is not a new idea. Over the past four decades, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (1970), Presidential Commission on Education Reform (1999), and the Presidential Task Force on Education (2008) have proposed the extension of the basic education cycle to improve the content and relevance of basic education and make it internationally competitive.
But what is surprising is that Noynoy Aquino has proposed adding not just one but two additional years of education to every Filipino effectively converting us from a K-10 (kindergarten + 6 elementary + 4 high school) to a K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12) system.
Supporters of this proposal argue that the Philippines is the only Asian country with a 10-year basic education system. Others say students who stay in school longer perform better in international science and math achievement tests; that a long education cycle better prepares students for higher education and the job market, and higher levels of education attainment is strongly correlated to higher wages.
But is increasing the number of years in the school system the best educational reform for a poor country suffering from a continuing fiscal deficit? And are we not better off using our scarce resources to address existing educational problems and programs?
In fact, there are many existing education initiatives, such as early childhood education and the high school bridge program, that have not been fully implemented for lack of funding support. R.A. 8980 or the Early Childhood Care and Development Act of 2000 makes pre-school a prerequisite for enrolling in Grade 1 thus making pre-school education a government responsibility. Current Department of Education (DepEd) data shows that only half of children age 5 are in preschool and some P1.8B is needed to maintain the program at current levels.
The recent congressional hearings on the DepEd budget also showed that we need to build 66,881 classrooms (costing some P43B) and hire 64,060 teachers (based on 1:1 teacher-classroom ratio) just to accommodate our current school population.
And the Philippines, by its own admission, is already lagging behind in its Millennium Development Goal commitment of achieving universal primary education by 2015. The DepEd needs more than P15B annually just to find and bring all school-age children to school and keep them there.
Which brings me to my previous questions – how much money will be needed to add two years to the current education cycle and how does Noynoy Aquino propose to produce this amount given his promise not to raise taxes if elected president? (He has flip-flopped on this position). Remember that he has also promised universal preschool, one million GATSPE scholarships, and technical-vocation education in high schools.
There were no estimates given by Aquino in his speech, in his webpage, via his political supporters, or by his education experts. His quoted media response is to increase GDP by 2% and reclaim P280B from corruption to fund educational reform.
I find this posture fiscally irresponsible and politically pandering. It is also not clear how adding two years to the school system will make us globally competitive.
Even if we assume that the funding required can somehow be magically produced, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money to wipe out the classroom shortage, ensure that all 5 year old children are in preschool, fulfill our international commitment to achieve universal primary education, do school feeding programs, hire additional teachers, or reduce classroom size to improve student-to-teacher ratio and elevate student performance and achievement?
Perhaps the Ateneo-schooled presidential bet should spend a day at the Batasan Elementary School located just a few meters from his old House of Representatives office and experience first hand how more than 50 public school students are crammed in a classroom during the third shift at 7 o’clock in the evening. Then maybe he will realize that adding two more years to a public school student’s life is not the answer to making him internationally competitive, helping him find a decent job, or making his daily school experience bearable.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Poor Judgement by the Smoking Senator
by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
Here are ten important facts about cigarette smoking from the WHO: (http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.htm)
1. Smoking related-diseases kill one in 10 adults globally, or cause four million deaths. By 2030, if current trends continue, smoking will kill one in six people.
2. Every eight seconds, someone in the world dies from tobacco use.
3. Smoking is on the rise in the developing world but falling in developed nations. Among Americans, smoking rates shrunk by nearly half in three decades (from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s), falling to 23% of adults by 1997. In the developing world, tobacco consumption is rising by 3.4% per year.
5. Half of long-term smokers will die from tobacco. Every cigarette smoked cuts at least five minutes of life on average - about the time taken to smoke it.
6. Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death. It is a prime factor in heart disease, stroke and chronic lung disease. It can cause cancer of the lungs, larynx, oesophagus, mouth, and bladder, and contributes to cancer of the cervix, pancreas, and kidneys.
7. More than 4,000 toxic or carcinogenic chemicals have been found in tobacco smoke.
8. About 200,000 Filipino men will develop smoking-related diseases in their productive years of age. It was estimated in 1999, that to provide health care for these sick men, and the loss in productivity, cost Filipino taxpayers some P43 billion.
9. Every year, there are about 20,000 smoking-related deaths in the country.
10. Tobacco use will drain nearly 20% of the household income of smokers' families.
So what is Senator Noynoy Aquino thinking when he had this picture taken with the two young women?
Poor lapse of judgement? Ignorant of the perils of smoking and second hand smoke? or maybe he simply doesn't understand the meaning of "leadership by example"?
By the way, he is the only presidential candidate who smokes!!
Noynoy Aquino admits his cigarette addiction and has adopted a "Barack Obama style" response - I will quit smoking when I become President.
But Noynoy Aquino is no Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has shown very good judgement by being extremely discreet with his smoking during the presidential campaign. And he has never been photographed with a smoke with young people around him.
Many legislators in the House of Representatives are joining the fight against cigarette smoking, with several lawmakers leading a bipartisan effort to pass legislation designed to scare smokers into quitting.
The group, which includes LP senatorial candidate Risa Hontiveros, is pushing a bill that would require tobacco companies to place “picture warnings” on their products to illustrate the dangers of smoking.
This move by the legislators is in line with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a May 2003 treaty that includes strategies against the problem of tobacco smoking. The treaty has been ratified by 154 countries, including the Philippines (http://www.tobaccocontrol.ph/node/53).
In accordance with the treaty provisions, the Philippines has to implement the “picture warning” policy by September 2008, according to Dr. Maricar Limpin, president of the FCTC Alliance Philippines.
Maybe Noynoy Aquino can clarify whether he supports this initiative? Maybe Riza Hontiveros can convince her presidential choice to lead this campaign in the Senate?
Or better still, can Noynoy Aquino please clarify his health agenda - does it include an anti-smoking component? Will he support increasing taxes on cigarettes to generate money for lung, larynx, oesophagus, and mouth cancer research and medication?
Studies show that close to 30 percent of Filipino adults smoke even if almost every one in the population is aware of the ill-effects of puffing a cigarette. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2823512/all_about_smoking_in_the_philippines.html?singlepage=true&cat=5)
You can count the cigarette addicted Senator in this 30% statistic. But he should be more circumspect in his public actions, or be told clearly that he does not have the license to kill the rest of the Filipino population like you and me.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Noynoy Aquino's Legislative Performance
by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
I was surfing the world wide web last night when I stumbled upon an interview I gave in The Correspondents show entitled Ang Laban Ni Noynoy that was shown when Noynoy Aquino launched his candidacy late last year.
I argued in that show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDRZgzvZ6A&feature=related) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKBZx0tC9RY&feature=related) that Noynoy's legislative performance paled in comparison with the other presidential candidates and that the fact that he has not produced a single law will be raised against him as the campaign period shifts into high gear.
As expected, his poor legislative record has become an extremely heavy albatross that has weighed down his campaign. Many columnists and bloggers have made fun of this situation by saying that the much maligned Senator Lito Lapid is more qualified to become President than Noynoy Aquino because he has, at least, produced one law (RA 9999) that would give tax perks to private law firms that render free legal service to poor clients.
In a portion of his official website called The Truth About Noynoy: Huwag Magpalinlang Sa Mga Sabi Sabi (http://www.noynoy.ph/anti-smear/), Noynoy Aquino's supporters answered the question - Wala ba Talagang Nagawa si Noynoy sa Lehislatura? - this way:
"CLAIM: Walang ginawa si Noynoy habang nakaupo sa senado, at hindi sapat ang kanyang mga hinain para sa serbisyong pampubliko.
TRUTH: Senator Aquino’s legislative record is filled with laws that push for transparency, accountability, curbing corruption and leveling the playing field so that special relationships do not take precedence over quality public service. A good lawmaker must not be judged solely on the number of laws penned, but the quality of these laws in the interest of the public good. Congress is a democratic institution that is also meant to guard against government excesses. Aquino believes we already have many good laws, and what is needed is proper enforcement."
There is something wrong, funny, and misleading about this statement.
1. Official records of the Senate and House of Representatives show that none of Noynoy Aquino's principally authored bills have been enacted into law. Then how can his official website say "Senator Aquino’s legislative record is filled with laws that push for transparency, accountability, curbing corruption and leveling the playing field..."?
A bill is not the same as a law. Thousands of bills are filed every year but very few of these bills get enacted into a law. Bills become law because their authors work hard to pass these through committee, defend its merits on the floor, get their colleagues to vote for their bills on second and third readings, and work with their House of Representatives counterparts to reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions.
Is this poor staff work or simply an attempt to mislead the public?
2. "A good lawmaker must not be judged solely on the number of laws penned, but the quality of these laws in the interest of the public good." True. But if a lawmaker has not even passed a single law, how can he be judged whether his laws are in the interest of the public good?
3. "Aquino believes we already have many good laws, and what is needed is proper enforcement." He may believe this, but this is not a factual statement. Let me enumerate several important bills that need to be enacted into law but continue to languish in the Senate because Senators have been unwilling to act on these:
- The Omnibus Amendments to the Local Government Code (Senate Bill No. 1161) that would correct many of the problems facing the country such as the rampant conversion of municipalities into cities and promote more devolution;
- The National Land Use Code (SBN 3426/843/641/82/76) which would serve as a blueprint for the prioritization and utilization of the country’s land and resources, protect agricultural lands from industrial activities as well as residential conversions, and delineate environmentally protected lands and indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands.
- Civil Service Code of the Philippines (Senate Bill No. 1162) that professionalizes the government bureaucracy and protects it from political interference.
- Freedom of Information Act that will allow citizens to access government documents to combat corruption and hold government officials accountable for their actions.
And the list goes on and on and on...
Poor staff work? or Misleading public relations spin to hide poor legislative performance?
You be the judge.
I was surfing the world wide web last night when I stumbled upon an interview I gave in The Correspondents show entitled Ang Laban Ni Noynoy that was shown when Noynoy Aquino launched his candidacy late last year.
I argued in that show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDRZgzvZ6A&feature=related) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKBZx0tC9RY&feature=related) that Noynoy's legislative performance paled in comparison with the other presidential candidates and that the fact that he has not produced a single law will be raised against him as the campaign period shifts into high gear.
As expected, his poor legislative record has become an extremely heavy albatross that has weighed down his campaign. Many columnists and bloggers have made fun of this situation by saying that the much maligned Senator Lito Lapid is more qualified to become President than Noynoy Aquino because he has, at least, produced one law (RA 9999) that would give tax perks to private law firms that render free legal service to poor clients.
In a portion of his official website called The Truth About Noynoy: Huwag Magpalinlang Sa Mga Sabi Sabi (http://www.noynoy.ph/anti-smear/), Noynoy Aquino's supporters answered the question - Wala ba Talagang Nagawa si Noynoy sa Lehislatura? - this way:
"CLAIM: Walang ginawa si Noynoy habang nakaupo sa senado, at hindi sapat ang kanyang mga hinain para sa serbisyong pampubliko.
TRUTH: Senator Aquino’s legislative record is filled with laws that push for transparency, accountability, curbing corruption and leveling the playing field so that special relationships do not take precedence over quality public service. A good lawmaker must not be judged solely on the number of laws penned, but the quality of these laws in the interest of the public good. Congress is a democratic institution that is also meant to guard against government excesses. Aquino believes we already have many good laws, and what is needed is proper enforcement."
There is something wrong, funny, and misleading about this statement.
1. Official records of the Senate and House of Representatives show that none of Noynoy Aquino's principally authored bills have been enacted into law. Then how can his official website say "Senator Aquino’s legislative record is filled with laws that push for transparency, accountability, curbing corruption and leveling the playing field..."?
A bill is not the same as a law. Thousands of bills are filed every year but very few of these bills get enacted into a law. Bills become law because their authors work hard to pass these through committee, defend its merits on the floor, get their colleagues to vote for their bills on second and third readings, and work with their House of Representatives counterparts to reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions.
Is this poor staff work or simply an attempt to mislead the public?
2. "A good lawmaker must not be judged solely on the number of laws penned, but the quality of these laws in the interest of the public good." True. But if a lawmaker has not even passed a single law, how can he be judged whether his laws are in the interest of the public good?
3. "Aquino believes we already have many good laws, and what is needed is proper enforcement." He may believe this, but this is not a factual statement. Let me enumerate several important bills that need to be enacted into law but continue to languish in the Senate because Senators have been unwilling to act on these:
- The Omnibus Amendments to the Local Government Code (Senate Bill No. 1161) that would correct many of the problems facing the country such as the rampant conversion of municipalities into cities and promote more devolution;
- The National Land Use Code (SBN 3426/843/641/82/76) which would serve as a blueprint for the prioritization and utilization of the country’s land and resources, protect agricultural lands from industrial activities as well as residential conversions, and delineate environmentally protected lands and indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands.
- Civil Service Code of the Philippines (Senate Bill No. 1162) that professionalizes the government bureaucracy and protects it from political interference.
- Freedom of Information Act that will allow citizens to access government documents to combat corruption and hold government officials accountable for their actions.
And the list goes on and on and on...
Poor staff work? or Misleading public relations spin to hide poor legislative performance?
You be the judge.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Something Weird Happened on the Way to Club Filipino
by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera
In my Monday blog entitled "The Problem with a Noynoy Presidential Run" I pointed to the problems created by a Mar Roxas-Noynoy Aquino political rivalry and urged the Liberal Party to resolve this problem as soon as possible lest it starts affecting their campaign for the presidency.
I ended the column by asking the question: Will it be Noynoy Aquino for President?
A couple of hours later in historic Club Filipino, Mar Roxas answered my question with his dramatic decision to give way to Noynoy Aquino for the sake of LP unity and the demands of various groups all over country.
I was expecting a Mar Roxas slide to be accompanied by the crowning of Noynoy Aquino as the LP standard bearer and a call to arms for the LP base and support groups for 2010.
It did not happen on Tuesday.
As the whole country waited with bated breath on Wednesday, Noynoy Aquino announced in the same historic Club Filipino that he will be going on a "spiritual retreat" before finalizing his decision for the 2010 elections. He also said that his presidential run would be based on three things: 1) his ability to guarantee that there will really be meaningful changes for society and the country; 2) the availability of logistics for his electoral campaign; and 3) the sentiments of his four sisters about his presidential bid.
Wow!! Whoa!! What??
Something definitely weird happened on the way to Club Filipino.
If Noynoy needed to go on a retreat, consult with his family, gauge his ability to lead the country, get a sense of the logistics for his electoral campaign, wasn't it more logical to talk this out with Mar Roxas, declare his intention to contest the presidency, engage in spirited and issue-based rivalry within the LP, and let the party and its support groups decide, through a convention, on who is best fit to carry the LP banner come November?
And why the rush in Mar Roxas' press conference last Tuesday?
While LP party leaders in media interviews were united in asking everyone to respect Noynoy's desire for self-reflection, many wonder why these same party leaders did not manage the Mar to Noynoy transfer of the mantle of leadership better.
The trail of events has placed both Mar Roxas and Noynoy Aquino in a bind.
For all his efforts over the past year to champion the cause of victimized educational plan holders, lead Senate discussions on the JPEPA, attack GMA's ChaCha, develop advocacy ads to show his concern for the poor, send his trusted political lieutenants to negotiate with local leaders, and criss-cross the country with Korina, people's recollection of Mar Roxas is now been defined almost exclusively in his relinguishing his presidential dream to Noynoy who has not accepted it.
Korina Sanchez has enough reasons to feel bad.
And with his reluctance to lead a country that has suddenly found its moral moorings with the untimely death of former President Cory Aquino, his hesitation to present himself before the Filipino people without a clear vision and platform of government, and the real problem of starting his presidential campaign late compared to the others, Noynoy is now being criticized by political pundits like Benito Lim for being "odorless, tasteless, and colorless" and being asked by GMA's attack dogs to differentiate himself from his parents.
Both Mar Roxas and Noynoy Aquino deserve better. The LP leaders should have managed the trail of events better.
In my Monday blog entitled "The Problem with a Noynoy Presidential Run" I pointed to the problems created by a Mar Roxas-Noynoy Aquino political rivalry and urged the Liberal Party to resolve this problem as soon as possible lest it starts affecting their campaign for the presidency.
I ended the column by asking the question: Will it be Noynoy Aquino for President?
A couple of hours later in historic Club Filipino, Mar Roxas answered my question with his dramatic decision to give way to Noynoy Aquino for the sake of LP unity and the demands of various groups all over country.
I was expecting a Mar Roxas slide to be accompanied by the crowning of Noynoy Aquino as the LP standard bearer and a call to arms for the LP base and support groups for 2010.
It did not happen on Tuesday.
As the whole country waited with bated breath on Wednesday, Noynoy Aquino announced in the same historic Club Filipino that he will be going on a "spiritual retreat" before finalizing his decision for the 2010 elections. He also said that his presidential run would be based on three things: 1) his ability to guarantee that there will really be meaningful changes for society and the country; 2) the availability of logistics for his electoral campaign; and 3) the sentiments of his four sisters about his presidential bid.
Wow!! Whoa!! What??
Something definitely weird happened on the way to Club Filipino.
If Noynoy needed to go on a retreat, consult with his family, gauge his ability to lead the country, get a sense of the logistics for his electoral campaign, wasn't it more logical to talk this out with Mar Roxas, declare his intention to contest the presidency, engage in spirited and issue-based rivalry within the LP, and let the party and its support groups decide, through a convention, on who is best fit to carry the LP banner come November?
And why the rush in Mar Roxas' press conference last Tuesday?
While LP party leaders in media interviews were united in asking everyone to respect Noynoy's desire for self-reflection, many wonder why these same party leaders did not manage the Mar to Noynoy transfer of the mantle of leadership better.
The trail of events has placed both Mar Roxas and Noynoy Aquino in a bind.
For all his efforts over the past year to champion the cause of victimized educational plan holders, lead Senate discussions on the JPEPA, attack GMA's ChaCha, develop advocacy ads to show his concern for the poor, send his trusted political lieutenants to negotiate with local leaders, and criss-cross the country with Korina, people's recollection of Mar Roxas is now been defined almost exclusively in his relinguishing his presidential dream to Noynoy who has not accepted it.
Korina Sanchez has enough reasons to feel bad.
And with his reluctance to lead a country that has suddenly found its moral moorings with the untimely death of former President Cory Aquino, his hesitation to present himself before the Filipino people without a clear vision and platform of government, and the real problem of starting his presidential campaign late compared to the others, Noynoy is now being criticized by political pundits like Benito Lim for being "odorless, tasteless, and colorless" and being asked by GMA's attack dogs to differentiate himself from his parents.
Both Mar Roxas and Noynoy Aquino deserve better. The LP leaders should have managed the trail of events better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
