|
Friday, October 10, 2003
Editorial: Changing society
In explaining why she changed her mind about not running for president, Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said the problems of the country compelled her to break her promise. There’s a higher cause and that cause, she said, is national interest.
Let’s not go into the question of whether she did change her mind and whether she used the “I-won’t-run” pledge of Dec. 30, 2002 as a tool of manipulation. Questions that are likely to be flogged to death before the presidential campaign ends.
For now, let’s just consider the task of “changing society” which she added on top of her agenda of solving the country’s problems.
Change society? Someone once said that it would take the liquidation of one or two generations to change society. We don’t share that kind of pessimism.
But, surely, removing the culture of corruption and greed and replacing it with the virtue of honesty and patriotism would be awesome and formidable for any democratic president fettered by term limit and political lobbies.
Changing society is a disturbing plank of any presidential bet’s platform. People remember the catchphrase “reforming society” that then president Ferdinand Marcos used as a major reason for dismantling democracy and installing dictatorship.
If the next president could solve the basic problems of the country, topped by poverty and crime, and provide the essential services, that would be enough relief for an oppressed and over-burdened nation.
Anyway, enough for the time being to assure the public it’s not being had by politicians again.
Punishing perjurers
A bill filed in the House of Representatives would impose a higher penalty on perjury or lying under oath.
Congress members are sore over cases of whistleblowing in which witnesses at congressional hearings lie through their teeth and get away with it.
Legislators’ ire is shared by concerned citizens who see witnesses make accusations in complaint or affidavit and then retract.
Whether in Congress or outside it, whether it is a former employee testifying about secret deposits of the President’s husband or a cab driver complaining he was whacked by the mayor, the effects of retraction are the same.
The public is taken for a ride. Public interest is subverted by the falsehood in testifying or falsehood in changing the testimony.
The higher penalty sought by the bill is not enough, though. Loopholes in the law on perjury must be plugged.
And this: Perjury must be prosecuted, giving little or no discretion to the prosecutor and requiring no more than proof of the first testimony and the subsequent retraction.
boo. . .
More than 20 Kaoshiung buses of the Cebu City Government were reportedly used to haul thousands of urban poor residents to the Cebu City Sports Complex where President Arroyo distributed land titles and health cards and checks.
Whether the bill for the buses was charged to city taxpayers or paid by the urban poor groups, the busing or “hakot” proclaims that the activity was plain political campaigning.
But then how else could it be? What’s saddening is that they don’t even disguise anymore the violation of the intent of the election law.
(October 10, 2003 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
