Worldwide, in the six sectors identified to be affected by corruption in the Transparency International’s (TI) 2009 Global Corruption Barometer, 29 percent of respondents cited political parties as the single most corrupt institution, while 26 percent named civil service (public officials/ civil servants), 16 percent named parliament or legislature, 14 percent cited business or the private sector, 9 percent cited the judiciary, and 6 percent cited the media.
In the Philippines, 35 percent of respondents cited public officials and civil servants as the most corrupt, followed by political parties with 28 percent, legislature with 26 percent. Only 7 percent cited the judiciary, 3 percent for business and the private sector and 1 percent or media.
The Barometer presents the main findings of a public opinion survey that explores the general public’s views of corruption, as well as experiences of bribery around the world. It assesses the extent to which key institutions and public services are perceived to be corrupt, measures citizens’ views on government efforts to fight corruption, and this year, for the first time, includes questions about the level of state capture and people’s willingness to pay a premium for clean corporate behavior.
The Barometer is designed to complement the expert opinions on public sector corruption provided by TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index and the views of senior business executives on international bribery flows reflected in TI’s Bribe Payers Index. It also aims to provide information on trends in public perceptions of corruption. It enables assessments of change over time; in terms of the institutions deemed to be most corrupt, the effectiveness of governments’ efforts to fight corruption, and the proportion of citizens paying bribes.
The 2009 Barometer interviewed 73,132 people in 69 countries and territories between October 2008 and February 2009. The main findings are as follows:
Corruption in and by the private sector is of growing concern to the general public:
• The private sector is perceived to be corrupt by half of those interviewed: a notable increase of eight percentage points compared to five years ago.
• The general public is critical of the private sector’s role in their countries’ policy making processes. More than half of respondents held the view that bribery is often used to shape policies and regulations in companies’ favor.
• Corruption matters to consumers. Half of those interviewed expressed a willingness to pay a premium to buy from a company that is ‘corruption-free’.
Political parties and the civil service are perceived on average to be the most corrupt sectors around the world.
• Globally, respondents perceived political parties as the single most corrupt domestic institution, followed closely by the civil service.
• Aggregate results, however, mask important country differences. In 13 of the countries sampled, the private sector was deemed to be the most corrupt, while in 11 countries respondents identified the judiciary.
Experience of petty bribery is reported to be growing in some parts of the world – with the police the most likely recipients of bribes
• More than 1 in 10 people interviewed reported having paid a bribe in the previous 12 months, reflecting reported levels of bribery similar to those captured in the 2005 Barometer. For 4 in 10 respondents who paid bribes, payments amounted, on average, to around 10 per cent of their annual income.
• Results indicate that respondents from low-income households are more likely to pay bribes than those from high-income households when dealing with the police, the judiciary, land services and the education services.
Ordinary people do not feel empowered to speak out about corruption
• The general public does not routinely use formal channels to lodge bribery-related complaints: three quarters of people who reported paying bribes did not file a formal complaint.
• About half of bribery victims interviewed did not see existing complaint mechanisms as effective. This view was consistent regardless of gender, education or age.
Governments are considered to be ineffective in the fight against corruption – a view that has remained worryingly consistent in most countries over time
• Overall, the general public consider their governments’ efforts to tackle corruption to be ineffective. Only 31 per cent perceived them as effective, compared to the 56 per cent that viewed government anti-corruption measures to be ineffective. 77 percent of the respondents from the Philippines believe that the efforts of government to fight against corruption is ineffective.
• There were no major changes in recorded opinion on government anti-corruption efforts in 2009 when comparing those countries assessed in the last edition of the Barometer in 2007.
That is worth taking into consideration when we choose our leaders on this next election. Stop the motherhood statements and hasty generalizations about issues. The country is reeling ffrom poverty because of inequity of opportunities and government corruption. That begets moral decay pushing us further into crisis if we don't do anything and take action.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
NUMBERS DON'T LIE
The independent research organization Ibon Foundation in its study posted on its website during the Human Rights week last December said that the Arroyo government's human rights record is considered one of the worst in history, not just in violations of civil and political rights but also in the economic, social and cultural realm.
It said that 35-years after the Philippines ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR), the rights of millions of Filipinos are increasingly undermined and unmet daily such as the right to food, decent work, health, education, adequate standard of living, protection and assistance of families, among others.
I say number's don't lie. Here are the facts:
Right to food: Local food production, measured in kilograms per person per year, has fallen by over 30% since 1981. Rice imports increased 280% from 639,000 tons in 2001 to a record 2.4 million tons in 2008. Around 9.3 million households with 46.3 million Filipinos do not meet the 100% dietary energy requirement. Three million children aged 0-5 years are underweight, while three million more children aged 6-10 years old are malnourished.
Right to health: The Arroyo administration has the lowest record of health spending compared to the past three administrations. Since 2001, it allocated an average of only 1.8% for health, compared to 3.1% under the Aquino administration, 2.6% under Ramos, and 2.4% under Estrada. In the 2010 national budget, the allocation for health fell by 7.4% from 2009, or an average of only P1 per Filipino per day.
Right to education: For school year 2008-09, there were 4.7 million out-of-school youth in the country, consisting of 2 million elementary-age children and 2.7 million high school-age youth. Out of every 100 children who enter Grade 1, only 66 will finish elementary school, 43 high school and 14 college. This year, the government spent only P6 per Filipino per day on education while paying the equivalent of P21 on debt service.
Right to decent work: The period of 2001-2008 is the longest period of sustained high unemployment in the country's history, with an average unemployment rate of 11.3 percent. A record 1.24 million Filipinos were deployed abroad in 2008 or almost 3,400 leaving per day.
Right to adequate standard of living: Latest government data show that some 80% of Filipino families survived on daily incomes of P560 or less, with the poorest 10% of families having incomes of just some P88.Assuming an average family size of five, some 70 million Filipinos each are surviving on P112 per day. It is estimated that even using a low official poverty threshold of P41 per person per day, the number of poor Filipinos is at 27.6 million with at least 13 million urban poor residents in the country. Moreover, around 3.5 million families do not have electricity, 3.4 million families do not have access to safe drinking water, while 2.4 million families do not have sanitary toilets.
Ibon claims that the violations of these rights have intensified because of government's aggressive implementation of neoliberal globalization, which further liberalized the economy's vital sectors, and privatized public utilities and social services. These have destroyed the livelihood of many Filipinos and resulted in the unparalleled decline in the people's condition.
International human rights law declares the principle of protecting the full range of human rights required for people to have a full, free, safe, secure and healthy life. It maintains that the right to live a dignified life can never be attained unless all basic necessities of life such as work, food, housing, health care, education and culture are adequately and equitably available to everyone. The 1987 Constitution also recognizes that the national economy exists to serve the needs of the people and that the State has the duty to intervene when needed.
I have always maintained that our country has the best laws but administration's merely paid lip-service to it. The laws are either implemented 'ningas cogon' style or used to protect vested political and economic interest of those who holds the reins of power or those who are influence peddlers.
It is the government's duty to promote and protect these rights, and it should be made accountable for the increasing violations and greater numbers of Filipinos falling into poverty and deepening deprivation. The worsening state of human rights, whether civil and political or economic, social and cultural, only proves government's lack of seriousness in ensuring the welfare of its people and further reveals that it protects only the interests of the elite.
It said that 35-years after the Philippines ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR), the rights of millions of Filipinos are increasingly undermined and unmet daily such as the right to food, decent work, health, education, adequate standard of living, protection and assistance of families, among others.
I say number's don't lie. Here are the facts:
Right to food: Local food production, measured in kilograms per person per year, has fallen by over 30% since 1981. Rice imports increased 280% from 639,000 tons in 2001 to a record 2.4 million tons in 2008. Around 9.3 million households with 46.3 million Filipinos do not meet the 100% dietary energy requirement. Three million children aged 0-5 years are underweight, while three million more children aged 6-10 years old are malnourished.
Right to health: The Arroyo administration has the lowest record of health spending compared to the past three administrations. Since 2001, it allocated an average of only 1.8% for health, compared to 3.1% under the Aquino administration, 2.6% under Ramos, and 2.4% under Estrada. In the 2010 national budget, the allocation for health fell by 7.4% from 2009, or an average of only P1 per Filipino per day.
Right to education: For school year 2008-09, there were 4.7 million out-of-school youth in the country, consisting of 2 million elementary-age children and 2.7 million high school-age youth. Out of every 100 children who enter Grade 1, only 66 will finish elementary school, 43 high school and 14 college. This year, the government spent only P6 per Filipino per day on education while paying the equivalent of P21 on debt service.
Right to decent work: The period of 2001-2008 is the longest period of sustained high unemployment in the country's history, with an average unemployment rate of 11.3 percent. A record 1.24 million Filipinos were deployed abroad in 2008 or almost 3,400 leaving per day.
Right to adequate standard of living: Latest government data show that some 80% of Filipino families survived on daily incomes of P560 or less, with the poorest 10% of families having incomes of just some P88.Assuming an average family size of five, some 70 million Filipinos each are surviving on P112 per day. It is estimated that even using a low official poverty threshold of P41 per person per day, the number of poor Filipinos is at 27.6 million with at least 13 million urban poor residents in the country. Moreover, around 3.5 million families do not have electricity, 3.4 million families do not have access to safe drinking water, while 2.4 million families do not have sanitary toilets.
Ibon claims that the violations of these rights have intensified because of government's aggressive implementation of neoliberal globalization, which further liberalized the economy's vital sectors, and privatized public utilities and social services. These have destroyed the livelihood of many Filipinos and resulted in the unparalleled decline in the people's condition.
International human rights law declares the principle of protecting the full range of human rights required for people to have a full, free, safe, secure and healthy life. It maintains that the right to live a dignified life can never be attained unless all basic necessities of life such as work, food, housing, health care, education and culture are adequately and equitably available to everyone. The 1987 Constitution also recognizes that the national economy exists to serve the needs of the people and that the State has the duty to intervene when needed.
I have always maintained that our country has the best laws but administration's merely paid lip-service to it. The laws are either implemented 'ningas cogon' style or used to protect vested political and economic interest of those who holds the reins of power or those who are influence peddlers.
It is the government's duty to promote and protect these rights, and it should be made accountable for the increasing violations and greater numbers of Filipinos falling into poverty and deepening deprivation. The worsening state of human rights, whether civil and political or economic, social and cultural, only proves government's lack of seriousness in ensuring the welfare of its people and further reveals that it protects only the interests of the elite.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
THE CHALLENGE TO THE FILIPINO YOUTH
New cellphone units and latest gadgets.Facebook accounts. Vampire novels and movies. Youtube. 'Gimik' hotspots. Sarah Geronimo. Red Horse.
What I mentioned above are but just a few of the things that today's Filipino youth are busying themselves with. The exceptions are rare if there are any.
Many agree that the 2010 elections are one of the most significant political exercise for our nation. The results would determine what path this beloved country of ours will take in the next century. Nearly 80 percent of the registered voters are the youth of which many are first- time voters.
Now that the political camps are already at the height of campaign preparations,where are their agendas for the youth? More importantly, where is the youth power or youth vote? Is there such an animal? Is it significant to initiate a change? Or are they just imagined to project that the young sector is for this or that candidate?
When I was in college, as a student leader we where having problems getting the support and cooperation of our student constituency in our battle against tuition increases. Students were apathetic then and only a few where brave enough to join us for fear of reprisals.
I fear that such apathy is prevalent now. For the young people who have access to the latest technology, they are more interested in knowing the latest buzz on the internet. On the far end of the scale are the youth in lowest rungs of socio-economic ladder, whose interest is to eke out a daily leaving legally or otherwise.
Gone are days when the young answers the call to initiate change, radical as it may seem. Those where the days when idealism was up high in the virtue meter. Now, the young simply drown their frustrations on their country with a cold 1- liter of the dark red- colored bottle with matching 'fried highland legumes'. Or search for greener pastures far away.
I don't want to quote the much- abused national hero on calling on the youth as it often fell on deaf- ears. The call, rather is "Where are the youth?"
The time to merely state what's wrong, what should be done about it, the ideal is up. Stop the lip- service and useless talk.The time to act is now in our hands. That is the challenge of the Filipino youth is to make themselves significant and take the reins to steer this country to a path it deserves. Because the youth will inherit this nation when the present fades away into nothingness. Let us rise up to the challenge of the times.
What I mentioned above are but just a few of the things that today's Filipino youth are busying themselves with. The exceptions are rare if there are any.
Many agree that the 2010 elections are one of the most significant political exercise for our nation. The results would determine what path this beloved country of ours will take in the next century. Nearly 80 percent of the registered voters are the youth of which many are first- time voters.
Now that the political camps are already at the height of campaign preparations,where are their agendas for the youth? More importantly, where is the youth power or youth vote? Is there such an animal? Is it significant to initiate a change? Or are they just imagined to project that the young sector is for this or that candidate?
When I was in college, as a student leader we where having problems getting the support and cooperation of our student constituency in our battle against tuition increases. Students were apathetic then and only a few where brave enough to join us for fear of reprisals.
I fear that such apathy is prevalent now. For the young people who have access to the latest technology, they are more interested in knowing the latest buzz on the internet. On the far end of the scale are the youth in lowest rungs of socio-economic ladder, whose interest is to eke out a daily leaving legally or otherwise.
Gone are days when the young answers the call to initiate change, radical as it may seem. Those where the days when idealism was up high in the virtue meter. Now, the young simply drown their frustrations on their country with a cold 1- liter of the dark red- colored bottle with matching 'fried highland legumes'. Or search for greener pastures far away.
I don't want to quote the much- abused national hero on calling on the youth as it often fell on deaf- ears. The call, rather is "Where are the youth?"
The time to merely state what's wrong, what should be done about it, the ideal is up. Stop the lip- service and useless talk.The time to act is now in our hands. That is the challenge of the Filipino youth is to make themselves significant and take the reins to steer this country to a path it deserves. Because the youth will inherit this nation when the present fades away into nothingness. Let us rise up to the challenge of the times.
Monday, January 18, 2010
NEW POLITICS
One of the definition of the word "politics" that I can never forget from my college days is this college rendition:"Politics is the art of influencing others against the opposition of many."
Politics encompasses public governance including resource management,fund budgeting, service delivery and conflict management. Politics is a vehicle for bringing about socio- economic reforms, a means for change. It is a venue to select people who will serve. It is running government to help people run their lives. It is both a commitment and a form of service. Politics is "the greatest of all apostolates," said one Pope.
IS THERE TOO MUCH POLITICS?
Lydia N.Yu- Jose, chairperson of the Department of Political Science of the Ateneo de Manila University, in her introduction to the book Politics and Governance,Theory and Practice in the Philippine Context, said the expression "too much politics" is largely negative in connotation. The expression is also often use3d to describe deplorable and/ or ineffective human relations in arenas not directly connected with government or statesmanship.
Yu- Jose, says that "too much politics" is a way of saying that there is more than a tolerable amount of negotiating and compromise taking place, often in a non- transparent and seemingly arbitrary manner. The complaint of "too much politics" is not a protest against the nature of politics but a demand for the proper practice of politics,she argues.
ALTERNATIVE POLITICS AND LEADERS
Public governance must aim at establishing a free, democratic and peaceful society, responsible to the needs of the majority and based on gender equality.
Politicians should be sincere, trustworthy, God- fearing, just, humble and with a clear agenda and platform. A platform that is true and realistic. As electorates, we should a high- level of consciousness.
Seattle University professor Dr. Beverly A. Forbes enumerated the kind of leaders we need in the 21st century:
*We need moral leaders- leaders whose morality includes ethics, care, compassion, responsibility for others, justice, inter-dependence and honesty.
*We need leaders who see connections and patterns- people who see the relationship between issues- between the lack of meaning in our society and lack of opportunity for minorities and women; between the over-emphasis on status, powers and material wealth and the problem with drugs.
*We need leaders who model cooperation as well as competition- People who believe in win/ win situations as opposed to win/ lose situations.
*We need leaders who tackle issues- Who don't play with people's lives as they posture, define turf, engage in strategies to protect or enhance egos, who are more self-less and less self- serving.
*We need leaders who listen- And not just who are like them but to different voices- people on the margins, the women, the youth, the third sex, the differently- abled community.
*We need leaders who put people's lives above profit- Leaders who care as much about children as they are about cash; who are more concerned with an inner peace than outer- peace.
*We need leaders who can work with people- To get a job done and at the same time bring out the best in others.
*We need leaders who are emphatic- Who know what it is like to be without power, to be victims of the system, to be minority.
*We need leaders who don't separate the personal from the professional- Who know the importance of integrating body, mind, emotion and spirit. We need leaders who are expressive and emotional, who don't just analyze the pro's and con's of a situation or issue.
*We need leaders who are not tied to the status- quo. Who are not caught up in the hierarchy structure are those most able to stand up against it to change its course.
* We need leaders who shame power and are willing to empower others- Those who power that comes from respect in working with people as opposed to those who assume authority by merit of their position.
A REALISTIC VIEW OF POLITICS
Much of those enumerated are idealistic, that only God or the saints can qualify as leaders, as government officials. But, maybe we just need to change the attitude that politics is merely about power over others and an opportunity for self- interest( yes, the family and friends interests, too!).
We need to realize that being in government is not like business where we can recover financial losses during the campaign. Nor like a family where family members are part of the decision making- process. Or the oft repeated reasoning that 'it's our time now'. Definitely, everybody need to change.
The first change that ought to take place perhaps attitudinal. The way the politician and the people in general look at politics and political parties. Politicians in general look at politics as a way to gain power. Which is all right if the intention is to use that power to attain the good of the country and people.
Unfortunately, as it has happened in countless times, the politician may be adept at explaining that he seeking power for the benefit of the people but when he is in power, he alienates himself form the general good and concentrates his efforts at promoting his private good. The fact that he is a bastard is often over-looked. That is why people in general look at politicians with scorn and parties with derision.
Amid this popular perceptual problem with politicians and political parties is the fact that although there is an over- supply of pseudo politicians, there is a dearth of genuine parties in the country today. In this situation, people are relegated to the periphery of political decision- making.
No wonder, the masses of our people are reduced to mere spectators of the political game. In worse instances, are turned into mere pawns by the political players. And in the worst of scenarios, are the subject of willing mercantile transactions between ward dealers and the politicians.
Today, the dominant political personalities may have changed faces. But the structures of oppression remain. Poverty and all that it spawns- deprivation, ignorance, disease and marginalization of the masses- are still there.
The need for change remains a political dream. But there is a need to take action. That is the challenge. And the time to act is now. There is no time to lose. Start now. Believe it can be done. And it will be done.
Politics encompasses public governance including resource management,fund budgeting, service delivery and conflict management. Politics is a vehicle for bringing about socio- economic reforms, a means for change. It is a venue to select people who will serve. It is running government to help people run their lives. It is both a commitment and a form of service. Politics is "the greatest of all apostolates," said one Pope.
IS THERE TOO MUCH POLITICS?
Lydia N.Yu- Jose, chairperson of the Department of Political Science of the Ateneo de Manila University, in her introduction to the book Politics and Governance,Theory and Practice in the Philippine Context, said the expression "too much politics" is largely negative in connotation. The expression is also often use3d to describe deplorable and/ or ineffective human relations in arenas not directly connected with government or statesmanship.
Yu- Jose, says that "too much politics" is a way of saying that there is more than a tolerable amount of negotiating and compromise taking place, often in a non- transparent and seemingly arbitrary manner. The complaint of "too much politics" is not a protest against the nature of politics but a demand for the proper practice of politics,she argues.
ALTERNATIVE POLITICS AND LEADERS
Public governance must aim at establishing a free, democratic and peaceful society, responsible to the needs of the majority and based on gender equality.
Politicians should be sincere, trustworthy, God- fearing, just, humble and with a clear agenda and platform. A platform that is true and realistic. As electorates, we should a high- level of consciousness.
Seattle University professor Dr. Beverly A. Forbes enumerated the kind of leaders we need in the 21st century:
*We need moral leaders- leaders whose morality includes ethics, care, compassion, responsibility for others, justice, inter-dependence and honesty.
*We need leaders who see connections and patterns- people who see the relationship between issues- between the lack of meaning in our society and lack of opportunity for minorities and women; between the over-emphasis on status, powers and material wealth and the problem with drugs.
*We need leaders who model cooperation as well as competition- People who believe in win/ win situations as opposed to win/ lose situations.
*We need leaders who tackle issues- Who don't play with people's lives as they posture, define turf, engage in strategies to protect or enhance egos, who are more self-less and less self- serving.
*We need leaders who listen- And not just who are like them but to different voices- people on the margins, the women, the youth, the third sex, the differently- abled community.
*We need leaders who put people's lives above profit- Leaders who care as much about children as they are about cash; who are more concerned with an inner peace than outer- peace.
*We need leaders who can work with people- To get a job done and at the same time bring out the best in others.
*We need leaders who are emphatic- Who know what it is like to be without power, to be victims of the system, to be minority.
*We need leaders who don't separate the personal from the professional- Who know the importance of integrating body, mind, emotion and spirit. We need leaders who are expressive and emotional, who don't just analyze the pro's and con's of a situation or issue.
*We need leaders who are not tied to the status- quo. Who are not caught up in the hierarchy structure are those most able to stand up against it to change its course.
* We need leaders who shame power and are willing to empower others- Those who power that comes from respect in working with people as opposed to those who assume authority by merit of their position.
A REALISTIC VIEW OF POLITICS
Much of those enumerated are idealistic, that only God or the saints can qualify as leaders, as government officials. But, maybe we just need to change the attitude that politics is merely about power over others and an opportunity for self- interest( yes, the family and friends interests, too!).
We need to realize that being in government is not like business where we can recover financial losses during the campaign. Nor like a family where family members are part of the decision making- process. Or the oft repeated reasoning that 'it's our time now'. Definitely, everybody need to change.
The first change that ought to take place perhaps attitudinal. The way the politician and the people in general look at politics and political parties. Politicians in general look at politics as a way to gain power. Which is all right if the intention is to use that power to attain the good of the country and people.
Unfortunately, as it has happened in countless times, the politician may be adept at explaining that he seeking power for the benefit of the people but when he is in power, he alienates himself form the general good and concentrates his efforts at promoting his private good. The fact that he is a bastard is often over-looked. That is why people in general look at politicians with scorn and parties with derision.
Amid this popular perceptual problem with politicians and political parties is the fact that although there is an over- supply of pseudo politicians, there is a dearth of genuine parties in the country today. In this situation, people are relegated to the periphery of political decision- making.
No wonder, the masses of our people are reduced to mere spectators of the political game. In worse instances, are turned into mere pawns by the political players. And in the worst of scenarios, are the subject of willing mercantile transactions between ward dealers and the politicians.
Today, the dominant political personalities may have changed faces. But the structures of oppression remain. Poverty and all that it spawns- deprivation, ignorance, disease and marginalization of the masses- are still there.
The need for change remains a political dream. But there is a need to take action. That is the challenge. And the time to act is now. There is no time to lose. Start now. Believe it can be done. And it will be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
