if you were in their shoes?

Faithful reader Abbygail asks a provocative question:

… if you will be tapped by the govt. to serve in teves’ shoes, what will you do to change the rut we’re in? help the people w/ your ideas. we cannot be blaming each other forever and just sit still. what will you do if given that chance to serve?

I personally do not think that an interactive forum like ours requires its participants to offer specific alternatives (in contrast, for example, to a newspaper editorial). It’s more than enough to express ourselves and discuss issues with others. But I do share Abbygail’s concern about moving forward (note, please, that I did not use that old plea to “move on” — euphemism for forgiving and forgetting).

If we were in a high official’s place, what, specifically, would we do? No need to limit ourselves to Finance Secretary Gary Teves; how about we choose one department (say, DND) or agency (say, Pagcor), and then offer our proposed (specific) solutions?

Should be interesting. But, please, keep it specific. As they say, God (or the devil) is in the details.

Malacanang has come out swinging against the October 2007 Pulse Asia survey that found President Arroyo the “most corrupt President” in the history of the Philippines.

PMS Chief Cerge Remonde called it “unfair, unkind, and un-Christian.”

Cabinet Secretary Ricardo Saludo said surveys like these were largely irrelevant. “Pinakamahalaga ang walang sawang serbisyo ng Pangulo sa milyun-milyong Pilipino, hindi ang rating niya sa mga survey ng 1,500 tao.”

The insinuation that the small sample size of such surveys rendered them insignificant was echoed in one of Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye’s statements. He said: “We therefore vehemently challenge the survey results which could have been influenced by a number of distorting factors such as the sample (1,200 respondents out of 84 million Filipinos), possibly misleading questions and even the person or persons who commissioned the survey.”

Executive Secretary Ed Ermita later amplified on that last point. Clearly referring to ex-senator Serge Osmena, he said: “It’s a pity that because of politics, certain elements — organizations or individuals – are using the survey as a fodder for their relentless attack on the President.”

Are the President’s men arguing reasonably? Judge for yourself. In Newsstand, I list many links, to Pulse Asia, to previous readings of earlier surveys, to the science of opinion polling. One thing I did not include there, which we can put to good use here, is the Sample Calculator. How big should your sample be, if you want it to be representative of the population you are surveying?

Go ahead. Give it a try. 

In history’s all-star corruption race, who was worse?

Pulse Asia has an answer; or, rather, the survey firm has plumbed public opinion, and located the public’s answer. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the “most corrupt president in history,” statistically edging out the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos.

Here are three Tables of survey findings (the survey was taken in October 2007), summarizing the current state of public opinion. (Note, in particular, the second Table.) Please click on the thumbnail images to enlarge them.

An initial, cautionary reading can be found in Newsstand.

Back in 2006, in my own blog, I pointed out an interesting phenomenon I called The battle of the epistles (a battle that kept going, and going, and going…). It made a public personage of Bong Austero, for example. The

The battle of the open letters gets relaunched every time the political crisis starts veering towards violence. And it has extended to blogs, where manifestos (which, essentially, what an open letter is) get posted online. See, for example, The “Wala na bang iba?” Manifesto (read the whole thing). But still, the main battleground remains open letters, and the usefulness of such letters for institutions to express their thoughts.

One example is  Ateneo de Manila Sanggunian President: Statement on the Manila Peninsula Siege, similar in attitude to the manifesto linked to, above:

Change is disguised in many ways. Let us not be swayed by the propaganda of ill-thought nationalism.

Ateneans, I challenge you to speak and let your thoughts be heard. One opportunity is during the Senate Inquiries on Friday (December 7) at the Henry Lee Irwin Theater. This is the moment to shine, be passionate, think of how you reacted to the Dress Code issue during the first semester. This is the Ateneo way, after all. If not, then what is?

For the sake of discussion, here are other statements, too, from more senior people.

First, there is the open letter or statement of Pugadlawin, an Ateneo de Manila organization of faculty, etc. Here is what they have to say:

An excerpt:

When  Pugadlawin (Puwersa para sa Ganap na Demokrasya, Labang Wagas  para sa Inang Bayan) was organized amidst the threat of both a military coup and  martial law in February 2006, we said that in the face of looming political polarization,  what was needed is a new force to reclaim and rebuild the political center.  The  challenge is to work for genuine democracy: to defend the hard-won victories over authoritarianism, and to deepen democracy beyond its often formal and elitist character  towards greater popular participation and social justice. We reiterate this call today: 1) to  oppose initiatives that cater to narrow interests, curtail participation and endanger  democracy (e.g., coup attempts, government repression, self-serving cha-cha); 2) to build consensus around democratic processes and institutions as the way to resolve the  political crisis and promote reform (e.g., elections); 3) to forge a sociopolitical agenda  that would galvanize citizen involvement, linking social and political transformation, local  and national development.  Our aim is to build democratic institutions and foster hope in political action.

And here is a statement from the Christian Brothers of De La Salle University. First, an introduction:

And then the statement itself:

An excerpt:

For these reasons, even if it amounts to no more than a voice crying out in the  wilderness, we, the De La Salle Brothers of the Philippines, feel the need to proclaim once again the same values we espoused in 2005: truth, justice,  honesty and integrity. Without these, no government can be trusted, and where there is no trust, governance degenerates into bribery and intimidation.  We join in the call of courageous religious leaders and of proven men and women of  conscience who seek a moral revolution. But if such a call is to become more  than mere lip-service, we must translate it into effective action on behalf of the values we espouse, keeping in mind the legal framework of the Constitution. We  call on men and women of goodwill to act now to make real the change they want to see.

Whatever the opinion, I think it’s healthy and necessary, for such open letters to be written, to be circulated, debated, and even challenged. Better for people to take up the pen and express themselves than remain silent. But what do you think, which letter comes close to your opinion?

In my column today, I tried my hand at reading public opinion on graft and corruption under GMA — and why more people haven’t taken to the streets. (I actually did the reading last Thursday, before the Rotary Club of Manila, on the same day as the Trillanes caper.)

I sifted through the findings of three surveys, but essentially the attempt is a meditation on the latest (October 2007) Pulse Asia poll. These findings, in particular:

(Please click on the images to enlarge them.)

The conclusion I reached (and of course I am aware I could have gotten things fundamentally wrong) suggests that Ping Lacson’s latest attempt to disclose another corruption scandal still won’t force people out into the streets.

The lesson for regime-changers: Corruption scandals do not prematurely bring down an administration, but proof of something else entirely — brazen fraud, gross impunity, lewd dancing in the halls of the Senate.

This also suggests that suspending the high-profile Senate hearings on the ZTE case, where revelations not only of corruption but of obvious duplicity or gross arrogance were a real possibility, was a strategic mistake on the part of the opposition.

What do you think? More to the point, what kind of brazenness, similar to the “na-onse tayo” vote on the second Velarde envelope, would set the streets on fire?