Because I am one of those annoyed, I am also tempted to express my disgust of the noticeable intensified appearances of some public officials which started recently in various media, be it TV, radio and newspapers. When they were criticized by some sectors, as expected, they deny that what they are doing are not part of their political posturing in preparation of the upcoming elections. Some reasoned out that while they are using their agency's budget, such is justified because it is part of their agency's intensified public awareness campaign of their official programs and services.
We heard that a congressional investigation is being held about the controversy and maybe, just maybe, it bears a good fruit. Already, Comelec reportedly said that they cannot run after those concerned officials, or cannot prohibit them, because, technically or legally speaking, they are not engaging in premature campaigning since the concerned officials are not candidate yet.
Those concerned public officials should know more than anybody else as to their real motive and purpose. The public is not that stupid that they cannot distinguish whether or not they are promoting their official agency's programs and projects or simply engaging is some political stunts. Those concerned public officials know it of course, but they will never admit it.
I suppose that the moment there is already a doubt or some legitimate questions as to the motive or real purpose, the burden to disprove such allegations should have been on the part of those concerned officials themselves. However, that supposition does not or never be true in our system.
No violation
True, if we base on our written laws, on the surface, there could be no violation of any law ever committed, particularly on the rules on premature campaigning. But why they choose to be too legalese? Answer: Because we are government of laws. But why they do not help in enriching the spirit and essence of our laws by not doing something suspicious or a suspect? Answers: Because they believe that they can ultimately and easily get away with those complaints.
Are the written laws the only ones capable of violation? What if there are other aspects of human conduct that suggest that those are not proper and must be restrained? Should the other aspects of human behavior or conduct be disregarded? Answer: Because that is the nature of their family or personal values. Besides, we should not talking virtues of human conduct in the high echelons of government, especially when politics is involved.
Models
I fear that this strategy of national public officials will soon be replicated without restraint by some local government officials who, admittedly, are also notorious in this kind of practice. Soon they will invade local media facilities using local funds for these types of gimmicks justifying the same as an intensified public awareness campaign of local government programs and projects. In short, they are just following a model established by national officials. Their real common purpose: In aid of their election or re-election, what else.
Prior to such intensified media propaganda, the other gimmick were: Displaying of posters (streamers or tarpaulins) extending their greetings to various occasions such as community fiesta, feast day of a saint, birthday greetings, graduation greetings, and such other related petty gimmicks just to catch public attention for them. Another is printing their names on the walls of every government cars and equipment, to the extent that their name is even bigger than the name of the LGU or their agency.
I cannot help but recall what a former superior had told me one time about this cheap political gimmickry: St. Peter will say onto them the moment when they knock on the Gate of Heaven – that He cannot anymore locate their names in the Book of Life because they were all printed many times over already in different places when they were still on earth. What if this will be true or will come true?
Inadequate institutional mechanisms
If it is true that those concerned officials are only engaging some legitimate public awareness campaign and not making premature political posturing, then such is a tacit admission that their institutional promotional mechanisms are not really working lately; thus they have to do it by themselves. We know that this is a shallow an cheap justification.
They may also add that such public awareness campaign mechanism is very important and urgent, thus it has become necessary that their agency officials should to do the awareness campaign which all must done when election is upcoming. Fool!
I can accept that those are legitimate public awareness campaigns when those concerned officials doing infomercials must categorically declare at the same time that they are not or will not be running for any elective position in the forthcoming elections. For instance, they may include a statement in their ads saying: “This is only public awareness campaign. I am not and will not run for any elective position in the forthcoming elections.” Or something to that effect. It is just like that of cigarette which contains a printed warning: “Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health!”
Those congressional investigations should be done behind closed doors because those live TV or radio coverage are even, directly or indirectly, helping them in promoting their image. Their exposition on TV or on radio are in effect free promotion.
I think it was Gerry Spence who wrote said that when a person is talking and he is saying differently as to his real motive and purpose, the censors of common sense from his audience will notice that in due time, and soon, the credibility of that speaker will be lost totally.
We heard that a congressional investigation is being held about the controversy and maybe, just maybe, it bears a good fruit. Already, Comelec reportedly said that they cannot run after those concerned officials, or cannot prohibit them, because, technically or legally speaking, they are not engaging in premature campaigning since the concerned officials are not candidate yet.
Those concerned public officials should know more than anybody else as to their real motive and purpose. The public is not that stupid that they cannot distinguish whether or not they are promoting their official agency's programs and projects or simply engaging is some political stunts. Those concerned public officials know it of course, but they will never admit it.
I suppose that the moment there is already a doubt or some legitimate questions as to the motive or real purpose, the burden to disprove such allegations should have been on the part of those concerned officials themselves. However, that supposition does not or never be true in our system.
No violation
True, if we base on our written laws, on the surface, there could be no violation of any law ever committed, particularly on the rules on premature campaigning. But why they choose to be too legalese? Answer: Because we are government of laws. But why they do not help in enriching the spirit and essence of our laws by not doing something suspicious or a suspect? Answers: Because they believe that they can ultimately and easily get away with those complaints.
Are the written laws the only ones capable of violation? What if there are other aspects of human conduct that suggest that those are not proper and must be restrained? Should the other aspects of human behavior or conduct be disregarded? Answer: Because that is the nature of their family or personal values. Besides, we should not talking virtues of human conduct in the high echelons of government, especially when politics is involved.
Models
I fear that this strategy of national public officials will soon be replicated without restraint by some local government officials who, admittedly, are also notorious in this kind of practice. Soon they will invade local media facilities using local funds for these types of gimmicks justifying the same as an intensified public awareness campaign of local government programs and projects. In short, they are just following a model established by national officials. Their real common purpose: In aid of their election or re-election, what else.
Prior to such intensified media propaganda, the other gimmick were: Displaying of posters (streamers or tarpaulins) extending their greetings to various occasions such as community fiesta, feast day of a saint, birthday greetings, graduation greetings, and such other related petty gimmicks just to catch public attention for them. Another is printing their names on the walls of every government cars and equipment, to the extent that their name is even bigger than the name of the LGU or their agency.
I cannot help but recall what a former superior had told me one time about this cheap political gimmickry: St. Peter will say onto them the moment when they knock on the Gate of Heaven – that He cannot anymore locate their names in the Book of Life because they were all printed many times over already in different places when they were still on earth. What if this will be true or will come true?
Inadequate institutional mechanisms
If it is true that those concerned officials are only engaging some legitimate public awareness campaign and not making premature political posturing, then such is a tacit admission that their institutional promotional mechanisms are not really working lately; thus they have to do it by themselves. We know that this is a shallow an cheap justification.
They may also add that such public awareness campaign mechanism is very important and urgent, thus it has become necessary that their agency officials should to do the awareness campaign which all must done when election is upcoming. Fool!
I can accept that those are legitimate public awareness campaigns when those concerned officials doing infomercials must categorically declare at the same time that they are not or will not be running for any elective position in the forthcoming elections. For instance, they may include a statement in their ads saying: “This is only public awareness campaign. I am not and will not run for any elective position in the forthcoming elections.” Or something to that effect. It is just like that of cigarette which contains a printed warning: “Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health!”
Those congressional investigations should be done behind closed doors because those live TV or radio coverage are even, directly or indirectly, helping them in promoting their image. Their exposition on TV or on radio are in effect free promotion.
I think it was Gerry Spence who wrote said that when a person is talking and he is saying differently as to his real motive and purpose, the censors of common sense from his audience will notice that in due time, and soon, the credibility of that speaker will be lost totally.
We, Ilocanos has a term for this: balbalatong!
Still another antidote: Why don’t we just reject these officials during the elections in order to show once and for all that this gimmick, this bad habit, is not really effective and but an outright foul? It will give a lesson to others who are planning to do the same. We can do it; we must do it!
Regulatory mechanisms
I am wondering why there is no mechanism, or proposal to this effect, that would regulate this practice of government officials. A board perhaps (not commission because this term now connotes something bad) that would examine the contents and set-up of the supposed ads prior to airing, or printing, or actual display or exhibition to the public, just like what they do to movies.
Limitations or terms and conditions should also be provided, such as providing suspension of the ads when the concerned official will be running for elective post. There should likewise be disclosure requirements about certain facts, like the source of the funds and amount used, and among others.
Still another antidote: Why don’t we just reject these officials during the elections in order to show once and for all that this gimmick, this bad habit, is not really effective and but an outright foul? It will give a lesson to others who are planning to do the same. We can do it; we must do it!
Regulatory mechanisms
I am wondering why there is no mechanism, or proposal to this effect, that would regulate this practice of government officials. A board perhaps (not commission because this term now connotes something bad) that would examine the contents and set-up of the supposed ads prior to airing, or printing, or actual display or exhibition to the public, just like what they do to movies.
Limitations or terms and conditions should also be provided, such as providing suspension of the ads when the concerned official will be running for elective post. There should likewise be disclosure requirements about certain facts, like the source of the funds and amount used, and among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment