|
For the past 17 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOU know it’s election time for Filipino associations and organizations in this side of the barangay when your e-mail and mailbox are flooded and swamped with poison letters.
One would think that being thousands of miles away from the Philippines, we would be insulated from the politicking and dirty tactics that characterized Philippine politics. The rotten political system and all-consuming political bickering back home were among the major reasons that many of our kakabayans left the country. But alas, it seems that when some of us migrated to the US, this brand of destructive politicking was among the possessions that we stuffed in our balikbayan boxes and lugged all the way here.
We could not help but be saddened by the proliferation of these poison letters, which, almost always, malign the person of candidates to elective positions and hurl below-the-belt accusations. Whether these allegations have some grain of truth in them is a totally different issue altogether.
This leads us to the question: If the purpose in running for leadership positions is to serve the Filipino community, do these wannabe leaders have to trash fellow Filipinos? All these poison letters do not seem to be compatible at all with the avowed goal of serving the community. The only interest that these ad hominem attacks serve is that of the letter-sender and the small clique s/he supports.
Why not stick to issues, particularly those that affect the lives of thousands of Filipino immigrants here? By doing so, would-be leaders can transform the campaign period into a meaningful educational and information campaign about issues close to the community’s heart. Now, that would be service.
What is pathetic is that some supposedly leaders of the Filipino community stoop down to the level of political Neanderthals just to get elected. And to what? To an organization whose raison d’être has degenerated to holding parades and beauty contests?
Not even the corrupt Capitan Tiago of Jose Rizal’s Noli me Tangere resorted to such despicable acts just to head a comite de festejos. (NP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river, he wrote, in his Gallic Wars: “alea iacta est” [The die is cast.]
His point was that once you’ve decided to gamble, you must abide by the result, good or bad.
The other linguistic result of this river-crossing is that to cross Rubicon is also used to mean “to take a decisive, irrevocable step.”
Similarly, when JT Mallonga, the vice-chairman of the Eastern Region of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), issued an invitation to a town hall meeting without prior clearance from the NaFFAA region chair or national officers, it could be said that the die is cast.
He had crossed the Rubicon river.
The meeting is to provide Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) candidates for office “an opportunity for a productive and fruitful exchange of views and ideas about the most important issues facing PIDC and its role in the community today” as well as the community “to know their candidates better, and be active participants in a serious discussion of the issues.”
This move was seen by the camp of Gani Puertollano, PIDCI presidential candidate, as a political stunt by those that favor Ludi Hughes, his opponent. They claim that the organizers of the town hall meeting were closely associated with Hughes.
Besides not following protocol, that is, involving PIDCI in the process, they also say that a meeting of the minds of representatives from both camps should have been sought prior to any announcements.
Any plan for public debate intended for candidates to a public office, they add, includes this basic courtesy.
Within NaFFAA itself, it caused a fuss in its national leadership involving Loida Nicolas-Lewis, national chair (who comes from this region); Greg Macabenta, vice-chair; and Doy Heredia, chief of staff. It issued a memorandum addressed to Eastern Region chairman, Arnie Rosario, cautioning him “to immediately ensure that NaFFAA Eastern Region remains non-partisan.”
Although Mallonga, Jose Ramos and Lito Pernia, presidents of the New York and New Jersey chapters of NaFFAA, are members of the organizing committee, Rosario, region chair, in his response to Nicolas, said that he was “not informed nor notified to join” the planning process. He appealed to region leaders to “exercise professionalism, decorum, proper channeling and protocol as necessary.”
Rosario adds in his e-mail: “It is sad to say, where is unity; true leadership and friendship if all of these are being tolerated to prevail?”
Mallonga could have considered these e-mails as a set-back but like Caesar who crossed the Rubicon which separated Cisalpine Gaul, was not troubled. He carried on and prevailed.
According to sources, he was able to persuade NaFFAA officials into reversing its position.
Hence, in an e-mail sent on Sept. 29, NaFFAA, having been “assured of its impartiality especially since it will be conducted by radio announcer Lino Celle,” “affirmed the holding of the community town hall meeting” as organized by its New York and New Jersey chapters.
It was signed by Loida Nicolas Lewis, Doy Heredia, Ludy Corrales, Angie Cruz, Arnie Rosario, JT Mallonga, Ludi Hughes, Joe Ramos and Lito Pernia.
From this list, one can draw a conclusion of the relationship between some of the signatories and Hughes.
The idea or the “message,” as Mallonga refers to it, of holding a public debate or a candidate’s forum, is not only reasonable but also an important element in an election process.
The problem, however, is when the organizers are perceived by the opposing side or by the community as partial to a particular candidate.
Immediately, eyebrows are raised and questions abound. Not even radio announcer Celle is considered impartial because of a perceived friendship he has with Hughes.
Also, the spontaneity by which this meeting was planned fails to substantiate the true intent of the organizers; it only gives a compelling reason for the opposing side to decline the invitation since it is being forced upon them.
True, it may not matter who the organizers are but at this stage, it is quite difficult to accept that as a reasonable argument. The die is cast.
Mallonga, like Caesar, has to take a decisive, irrevocable step to save face. And that is, the meeting has to be held. In his mind, even a compromise to incorporate his suggestions to PIDCI’s own version of presenting candidates is acceptable.
Even if this town hall meeting were held, as I said previously, it will not result into a meaningful exercise in democracy if the opposing candidates were not present and if it were attended only by organizations which are considered belonging to Hughes’ camp. It wouldn’t look credible, would it?
Again, Hughes and her slate of candidates would only be the ones affected come election day, which is unfortunate.
Would a court injunction help to stop PIDCI election this Saturday, Oct. 1?
Perhaps. But what would this action prove to our community? This is only a parade: why would people resort to this kind of behavior? This just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Out of a molehill, people are creating a mountain of reasons for our community to get deeply divided. There are more relevant issues and causes we could all be fighting for. We have more formidable Rubicons to cross.
Certainly, this parade is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pseudo-journalists swell RP ranks
|
|
|
|
Chicago, ILLINOIS --- An item in the Manila Bulletin buried in the hodgepodge “Around the Nation” (Sept. 6, 2005) section with a headline, “Most slain journalists not properly trained for job – study, has prompted me to revisit the issue of why Filipino journalists are getting killed.
The study of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) also revealed that since 1986 there have been 54 slain journalists in the Philippines, reinforcing widespread reports that the Philippines is the most dangerous place to be for journalists.
And the entry of untrained journalists into the journalism profession finds parallelism to the entry of movie stars into politics. While journalists need bachelor’s degrees in journalism, politicians should have at least degrees in public administration for their basic training.
So, like politicians, many journalists, including publishers, are now practicing the trade even without learning some rudiments of journalism. They are missing such basic journalism standards as learning to read and write, to gather information while observing ethics, to expose wrongdoings without fear or favor, to get all sides of a story (objectivity), to advocate for a free flow of news and to print or to broadcast only the truth (accuracy).
Low Salaries
The top editors’ salaries in the Philippines are at the bottom of the totem pole, so speak. If editors are making minuscule salaries, you can just imagine how low salaries of reporters or photographers can get.
What makes matter worse is that non-journalists are now crowding journalists out. They are public relations practitioners in disguise as journalists. They also want to make money at the expense of gathering information important to the public. Some of them are political has-beens, trying to keep their clouts, although their credibility had been in doubt.
The CMFR survey said that, “journalists who were killed in the line of duty had college degrees in fields not related to journalism or mass communication.” It added, “... 62 percent of the slain journalists were graduates of other courses, 25 percent finished high school, and 13 percent had no record of educational attainment.”
Melinda Quiros-de Jesus, CMFR executive director, suggested that journalists should be properly trained in media ethics to help them in covering their beats especially the most difficult ones, like “elections and politics.” She said publishers and networks (owners) should take full responsibility in training their reporters on media ethics. Excuse me, if reporters to be hired come from journalism schools, publishers and networks owners will no longer find a need to train them in ethics because they know if they violate their ethics, they will get fired.
But no matter, how hard you train reporters, ethics violations will persist as long as reporters are underpaid. They will be prey to bribes just to write stories or to take photos favorable to certain politicians. “Hello, Garci?”
Avoid Bolles’ Mistake
But if reporters will avoid the fate of Don Bolles, an investigative reporter of Arizona Republic, who was blown to pieces in a car bomb explosion in Phoenix, Arizona nearly 30 years ago, perhaps, the number of journalists who will be killed in the Philippines will decline. No other journalist in America was killed after Bolles.
Students in US journalism schools are told that Bolles, Pulitzer Prize nominee for investigative reporter, would record all of his telephone conversations and personal interviews. He would save all the audiotapes and reporter’s notebooks in anticipation of legal action. Sometimes, when he went out for a face-to-face interview, he would write details of the meeting on a sheet of paper -- time, place, name of interviewee -- and mail it to himself, in the event of his disappearance. When he parked his car, he often placed a pebble or a piece of cellophane tape on the hood so that he would know if someone had tampered with the engine.
But on that fateful Thursday morning on May 27, 1976, Bolles received a phone call from a tipster who claimed to have information about a fraudulent land deal. The deal supposedly involved clout-heavy people in Arizona politics.
He made a deal to meet the man, next Tuesday, after the Memorial weekend, at the Clarendon House hotel at 11:15 a.m. But it was on that day that he did not tape the hood of his brand new 1976 Datsun car. When he backed up his car to go on his way to his date at the state capitol, his car exploded.
But the murder of Bolles did not scare off journalists from looking into organized crime. Some 38 reporters from Arizona and many other states worked together in an unprecedented united effort to complete Bolles’ work. The resulting series was published nationwide. It helped launched a national investigative reporting movement. It also resulted in the conviction of one man, who was convicted twice by two separate juries for ordering the killing of Bolles in 1976. Most of the players in Bolles murder are now dead.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investigate wiretapping of GMA
|
|
|
|
|
IT may be a bit late but the initiative of Sen. Rodolfo Biazon to investigate the wiretapping fiasco, in reference to the Garci tapes, is a correct move. The investigation should be objective this time because the impeachment trial, which focused on the wiretapping scandal, is over.
At least it cannot be said that the Biazon probe would be colored by partisan politics. It is clear from the reports yesterday that Biazon would focus on the national security implications of wiretapping a president, and her name need not necessarily be Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Many questions remain unanswered in the wiretapping case. For instance, was it a project of the opposition to ferret out data that could impeach a sitting President? Or was it just a moneymaking scheme of some disgruntled officers and men in the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP). There is also a theory—rather remote—that the United States did the wiretapping itself as part of its divide-and-rule policy on its former colony. Is there a basis to this theory?
The truth is, we know nothing. Biazon had the occasion to ask National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales last week whether he had investigated the wiretap. And Gonzales proved to be a disappointment since he could not answer any of the legitimate questions of the senator. I think that more than the legislature, it should be the executive branch who should do the investigation first. Up to now, we have not heard of any conclusive report about the wiretapping.
The wiretapping investigation by the House initiated by Rep. Gilbert Remulla had its purpose. That purpose, which was to highlight the possible involvement of President Arroyo in the election scandal, is now over specially since the impeachment trial has been terminated. The real one, this asking of critical questions vital to the nation’s security, should begin.
Can you imagine the leaders of other countries being subjected to wiretapping? Can you imagine that being done to leaders like Britain’s Tony Blair, US President George W. Bush, or Hu Jin Tao of China? If wiretapping at that high level occurs, I am sure their security services would be very alarmed.
At the end of the probe, we hope that Senator Biazon would be able to answer the question on what is supreme, national security or partisan politics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
