The report on the Pulse Asia survey on people’s perception of the State of the Nation Address (SONA) brings to mind proverbial notions of rhetoric as mere embellishment or concealment of truth, as deception.
The SONA, being a rhetorical act, has often been treated by those who oppose or are critical of the administration as a superfluous verbal activity that is far removed from reality. Manuel Martinez, in his book “A Political History of Our Times: Presidential Policies from Aquino to Ramos to Estrada,” comments that “all SONAs, regardless of which President was mouthing them, by their very nature, have suffered in many parts from banality, turgidity, superfluity and insipidity.”
While it is important to examine and understand whether the rhetoric of the SONA corresponds with the material reality experienced by Filipinos in their everyday struggle, it is also worthy to look into how rhetoric actually constitutes reality. Arguably, the SONA has been used to justify and legitimize (controversial) government policies pursued not only during the years before the annual delivery of the congressional speech but also in the years that come after.
Before the passage of the contested Human Securities Act of 2007, for instance, the president, through her SONAs, had been flagging various articulations that tend to legitimize and rally public support for the passing of the law.
She had, of course, made explicit calls for Congress to pass an anti-terrorism law in her SONAs from 2002 to 2004. But curiously her articulations also include the employment of more sophisticated rhetorical devices, such as the metaphor of “war on terror” as a curative to the “nation’s ills.” Thus we have heard her speak of the “global war on terror” as “a historical watershed” and of ensuring that criminals “of the common kind and the kind that kills in the name of political advocacies.”
Later, we realized through the Alston Report that the war on terror frame had been used to target not just these lumped criminals or “enemies of the state,” but even members of legal organizations, journalists, and human rights advocates that the military considered as fronts of the armed rebels.
Whether we listen to it delivered from the presidential podium via television, radio or the Internet or read its full text published in major dailies or on the web, the SONA – including the metaphors and frames it privileges – will find its way in other contexts and domains as it has been strategically designed to carry sound-bites ready to be embedded or alluded to in journalistic texts, news broadcasts, classroom discussions, political commentaries, and even in everyday small talks or conversations.
More importantly, the speech carries passages apportioned to be re-contextualized or reformulated into more “authoritative, non-negotiable materialities” like the Human Securities Act and other statutes.
A considerable number of people may not be aware of the SONA (the report on the recent Pulse Asia survey indicates that 40% of the respondents are not aware of the past editions of the congressional speech), and a considerable number of those who do may find it untruthful, but these facts do not erase nor reduce the truth that the SONAs like all policy speeches are implicated in our socio-political reality.
Politics, according to rhetoric scholar Bruce Gronbeck, can be understood as a symbolic action and this demands that we analyze systematically the discourses of political ideology and valuation, of political visions and the places citizens occupy in such visions; of the means by which self-interests are converted into communal interests – into public policies.
It may be, therefore, helpful for us to regard the SONA – including the spectacle that comes with it – with our critical minds. And it may do us well if we listen to it carefully, study it, write about it, and perhaps, investigate, challenge or negotiate the representations it offers us before they get reformulated by our legislators into authoritative texts and become non-negotiable.
Gene Navera, Singapore (via e-mail)
Loading ...
September 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi Missy, Mariang Makiling is right. GMA has a mouth of universal liar because she was the daughter of Emilio Aguinaldo, our Philippine Traitor who sold us to the American when he hold title bought by Dr. Jose Rizal to Spain and Eva Macaraeg. How could she won support to our people she wouldn’t make a decision to implement her projects without the presence of the money being held by HM, King Anthony S. Martin. She waited HM, King Anthony S. Martin in Hagonoy, Bulacan be captured by some of his allies in the Bulacan Reservist of the Armed Forces of the Philippines because she promised them to award USD 500 Trillion in exchange of King Anthony. This is the Valid Information we gathered from our team in the palace.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
18
maria makiling Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Abe, pareho tayo ng pananaw…
Arroyo SONA…a nonsense, just a full of lies and deception.
malacanang mafia and arroyo corrupt-poration is the culprit of the real state of the nation…kahirapan, kagutuman, paglabag sa karapatang pangtao, malawakang koruption at pagkasira sa mga institusyon na sanas haligi ng mamamayang pilipino.
just a full of lies and deception.
Hi, Maria Makiling….Ask the ones who are busog and enjoying their bliss under Gloria’s regime. They will not agree with you.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
De los Reyes Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“You still miss the point. You are referring to the apolitical and disillusionned group or the silent majority which is not the subject of my contention.”
—————
Really? You are contradicting yourself now, my dear. Better read again what you wrote. Besides, my posit is clear: it is the individual’s economic situation (which affects everyone; whether pro or anti) that drives a man’s political viewpoint.
“My reference is the two politically oriented very vocal groups, one who supports GMA and will believe everything in the Sona even heap praises on it; the other the skeptic non-believer who will never believe anything GMA says even if it’s just the time or day.”
——————————-
Well, of course. This is very elementary Mr. De Los Reyes. This is pure common sense and need not be elaborated upon.
As I see it, we are speaking on a different level since what I wrote is beyond your limited intellectual understanding of political economy and its implication in today’s crises.
Thank you and God bless.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
GMA’s last SONA was one I really took interest to hear. Just for reason that maybe I could pick up something to write about in my blog as I am in fact new in blogging.
Notable changes from some that I’ve listened before, this time she was reporting about achievements instead of great things she wished to do. (Programs not substantiated with things concrete and known effective are wishful thinking)
If 70/100 is passing grade I guess this is the reason why Filipinos gave her a failure grade. She was reporting about the 30/100, or less, I guess. Rice indeed was P32.00/kg. (P32.00 to P52.00/kg actually)
Text at P0.50 looks to be more of incidental. This is hard times for Filipinos. Fewer people have extra squeezed for cellphone loads. 40 text for P20.00 load is better to the telecoms, than 20 text for P20.00 sa panahong walang pambili ang masa. Appears to be promo to encourage people to buy prepaid cards, sona or no sona.
But I am most interested in what those who want GMA out kon ano ang magawa nila, kaysa ingay na ingay wala namang klarong programa na inilahad para makita ng lahat.
People don’t jump in murky waters.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Social Weather Station uses “net satisfaction rating” in their surveys.
NSR is used primarily to rate customers satisfaction and is not used in polls and surveys on the performance of a president or the government. The lowest rating is always “zero” rating, negative rating has no real meaning at all. The NSR rating is computed by subtracting the number of “dissatisfied” Filipinos from “satisfied” Filipinos.
As an example, if there are 26 “dissatisfied” Filipinos against 25 “satisfied” Filipinos with 49 “no comment” Filipinos, the survey will still report a negative rating; therefore, how reliable is the survey when the fact is there are only 26 “dissatisfied” Filipinos with an error margin of plus-or-minus 3 percent? This kind of surveys only serve the purpose of creating an impact that the president is “rated” NEGATIVE.
Net Satisfaction Rating is a “cheap”commercial gimmick to create a false image that a certain product has a negative rating. The readers and audience should disregard all kinds of survey unless information on:
1. How were the 1200 Filipinos selected?
2. What was the basis for their distribution?
3. What were the questions asked?
4. How were the questions worded?
5. In what manner were the questions asked or presented, etc.
In short, information on the design of the survey must be disclosed together with the survey upon presenting to the public.