Goons and government
Goons and government
Posted 10:59pm (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 7, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
FOR once Miriam Defensor-Santiago made the sanest suggestion to improve this country's quality of life. That is for all the senators and congressmen to commit suicide.
She said this in the face of the House of Representatives' embittered excoriation of the Senate and anticipated acts of retaliation in the coming days. As the senators and congressmen were trading punches, Miriam suggested that it would be best if all of them just committed mass suicide. It would constitute "the best public service to the people."
I agree wholeheartedly, and would personally volunteer to assist in this noble task in every way possible, if they were to accept it like Japanese samurai after the shame of defeat. In aid of legislation: that would be thought to sustain me in helping to carry out that grim purpose.
Frankly, I can't understand why the legislators worry that this "squabble" would lead to a legislative impasse, or power crisis. That is the least of their worries. The first is what they are left with after looking like dogs snarling over scraps of meat.
Completely weirdly-onli in da Pilipins-the congressmen are bitter over the fact that the Senate approved the budget as they made it. The House budget calls for a pork barrel allocation of P40 million for each congressman and P120 million for each senator, down from P70 million and P200 million respectively. The congressmen made these reductions, not because they were struck by conscience but because they thought smugly they could get back the cutbacks when they met with the senators to reconcile their versions of the budget. That was how it went in the past.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate suddenly decided to break "tradition" and approve the House's version as submitted. At least, that is the Senate's story. The congressmen now say that is not completely true, the Senate did not approve their version in pristine form, it first tinkered with the intelligence fund to boost its own allocations by P1.3 billion before approving the House version. So now the congressmen are crying foul: the Senate did not just put one over them, it put two over them.
Is it possible the congressmen actually expect the public to show sympathy for their plight? Is it possible the senators actually expect the public to side with them? What is the issue here? Nothing more or less than how much of the taxpayers' money-your money, in case the fact escapes you-goes to each of them.
If this breathtaking farce proves anything, it does so two things.
The first is the opposite of what House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles proposes. He says the country "would be in a better state if it had a single parliament, with each member representing a clearly defined constituency." Nothing could be farther from the truth. That was already shown with dramatic force a couple of years ago when the House moved to impeach Hilario Davide on grounds of corruption.
At the very least, it was monumentally hypocritical in light of the congressmen's ferocious defense of the pork barrel, one of the biggest contributors to corruption in this country. While the pork barrel does not give the legislators the actual money allocated to them, it gives them the power to dispense that money. That guarantees very little of it will actually become roads and bridges and clinics. The pitfalls of the pork barrel are well known. The Church and other institutions have a point to call for it to be scrapped.
At the very most, it showed the monumental dangers-for this particular country-of a parliamentary system that reposed power in the hands of a unicameral body. That presumes the unicameral body will not act like a mob, a presumption the House has refuted repeatedly over the years, when it used its power to try to achieve the most wretched ends. Not the least of them trying to prevent their own-like Romeo Jalosjos and Mark Jimenez-from being brought to justice. And now to rake in as much loot as they can while the country grovels in misery.
A friend of mine is right: Don't they worry this spectacle goads taxpayers not to pay taxes?
The second thing this proves is that John Locke's proposition is perversely right for this country. Perversely because when he said, "Government governs best that governs least," he meant that government shouldn't interfere too much with the natural course of life because that is best regulated by the private sector and the market. Here, that is true for a completely different reason. That is, the government does not pose a good to society, it threatens harm to it. The less government governs, the less harm it wreaks.
That conclusion is inescapable. What astounds me, in particular, is the way government manages to reward, rather than punish, itself for failure. Crime riots, and the PNP asks for more people and arms, and get them- when crime riots precisely because they do nothing about it, other than commit it themselves. The countryside withers, and the congressmen ask for more Countryside Development Fund, also called pork barrel, and get it-when the countryside withers precisely because of the CDF. The country goes bankrupt, and the President asks for close to a trillion pesos in budget, and gets it-when the country has gone bankrupt precisely because of her.
I remember again what the Rabbi said in "Fiddler on the Roof" when asked if there was a proper blessing for the Czar. He replied, "Yes, there is: May God bless and keep the Czar-far away from us." We may invoke the same blessing upon our government.
I agree wholeheartedly with Miriam, but with a caveat. Why only senators and congressmen? A mass suicide of the executive and judiciary as well would cleanse this country more thoroughly than the Great Flood.
Posted 10:59pm (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 7, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
FOR once Miriam Defensor-Santiago made the sanest suggestion to improve this country's quality of life. That is for all the senators and congressmen to commit suicide.
She said this in the face of the House of Representatives' embittered excoriation of the Senate and anticipated acts of retaliation in the coming days. As the senators and congressmen were trading punches, Miriam suggested that it would be best if all of them just committed mass suicide. It would constitute "the best public service to the people."
I agree wholeheartedly, and would personally volunteer to assist in this noble task in every way possible, if they were to accept it like Japanese samurai after the shame of defeat. In aid of legislation: that would be thought to sustain me in helping to carry out that grim purpose.
Frankly, I can't understand why the legislators worry that this "squabble" would lead to a legislative impasse, or power crisis. That is the least of their worries. The first is what they are left with after looking like dogs snarling over scraps of meat.
Completely weirdly-onli in da Pilipins-the congressmen are bitter over the fact that the Senate approved the budget as they made it. The House budget calls for a pork barrel allocation of P40 million for each congressman and P120 million for each senator, down from P70 million and P200 million respectively. The congressmen made these reductions, not because they were struck by conscience but because they thought smugly they could get back the cutbacks when they met with the senators to reconcile their versions of the budget. That was how it went in the past.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate suddenly decided to break "tradition" and approve the House's version as submitted. At least, that is the Senate's story. The congressmen now say that is not completely true, the Senate did not approve their version in pristine form, it first tinkered with the intelligence fund to boost its own allocations by P1.3 billion before approving the House version. So now the congressmen are crying foul: the Senate did not just put one over them, it put two over them.
Is it possible the congressmen actually expect the public to show sympathy for their plight? Is it possible the senators actually expect the public to side with them? What is the issue here? Nothing more or less than how much of the taxpayers' money-your money, in case the fact escapes you-goes to each of them.
If this breathtaking farce proves anything, it does so two things.
The first is the opposite of what House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles proposes. He says the country "would be in a better state if it had a single parliament, with each member representing a clearly defined constituency." Nothing could be farther from the truth. That was already shown with dramatic force a couple of years ago when the House moved to impeach Hilario Davide on grounds of corruption.
At the very least, it was monumentally hypocritical in light of the congressmen's ferocious defense of the pork barrel, one of the biggest contributors to corruption in this country. While the pork barrel does not give the legislators the actual money allocated to them, it gives them the power to dispense that money. That guarantees very little of it will actually become roads and bridges and clinics. The pitfalls of the pork barrel are well known. The Church and other institutions have a point to call for it to be scrapped.
At the very most, it showed the monumental dangers-for this particular country-of a parliamentary system that reposed power in the hands of a unicameral body. That presumes the unicameral body will not act like a mob, a presumption the House has refuted repeatedly over the years, when it used its power to try to achieve the most wretched ends. Not the least of them trying to prevent their own-like Romeo Jalosjos and Mark Jimenez-from being brought to justice. And now to rake in as much loot as they can while the country grovels in misery.
A friend of mine is right: Don't they worry this spectacle goads taxpayers not to pay taxes?
The second thing this proves is that John Locke's proposition is perversely right for this country. Perversely because when he said, "Government governs best that governs least," he meant that government shouldn't interfere too much with the natural course of life because that is best regulated by the private sector and the market. Here, that is true for a completely different reason. That is, the government does not pose a good to society, it threatens harm to it. The less government governs, the less harm it wreaks.
That conclusion is inescapable. What astounds me, in particular, is the way government manages to reward, rather than punish, itself for failure. Crime riots, and the PNP asks for more people and arms, and get them- when crime riots precisely because they do nothing about it, other than commit it themselves. The countryside withers, and the congressmen ask for more Countryside Development Fund, also called pork barrel, and get it-when the countryside withers precisely because of the CDF. The country goes bankrupt, and the President asks for close to a trillion pesos in budget, and gets it-when the country has gone bankrupt precisely because of her.
I remember again what the Rabbi said in "Fiddler on the Roof" when asked if there was a proper blessing for the Czar. He replied, "Yes, there is: May God bless and keep the Czar-far away from us." We may invoke the same blessing upon our government.
I agree wholeheartedly with Miriam, but with a caveat. Why only senators and congressmen? A mass suicide of the executive and judiciary as well would cleanse this country more thoroughly than the Great Flood.
posted by Dante at 10:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home