|
Founded in 1986
Founding Publisher/Editor:
Lito A. Gajilan
Columnists:
Atty. Michael J. Gurfinkel
Joseph G. Lariosa
Gani P. Tolentino
Ted L. Reyes
Atty. Reuben S. Seguritan
Photographers:
Butch Gata
Sheryl Garcia
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not reflect the opinion of the paper nor that of the publisher
|
|
For the past 20 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELECTION is usually the time when the public exercises its right to choose the leaders whom it believe are the right people who will provide a better life for the nation.
But in this coming May elections, particularly the senatorial race, do the Filipino people really have a choice?
There are two major parties running: the pro-Gloria Arroyo so-called Team Unity, and the Erap Estrada-backed Genuine Opposition.
It can be recalled that former President Estrada was booted out of power in 2001 because of allegations of rampant corruption. In 2005, President Arroyo nearly followed Estrada’s footsteps out of Malacañang because of widespread accusations that she cheated her way to victory in the 2004 presidential elections.
As such, it is not hard to assume that voting for the Gloria Arroyo party could mean condoning her alleged electoral abuse. And vice versa, supporting Estrada’s Senate 12 could be construed as letting him get away with the charges he is accused of.
What if the individual voter is someone who joined the throng at EDSA to demand Erap’s ouster, and later joined the call for Arroyo’s resignation or impeachment?
Compounding the problem is that neither party have a clear program of action. The opposition’s basis of unity is merely their hatred for Gloria. The pro-Gloria team is united by their being snubbed by the opposition and the convenience of running under a resource-rich administration party.
The pro-GMA and the pro-Erap divide in this coming Senate elections only confirmed the long -held belief that there is no real platform-based party system in the Philippines. Political scientists have always decribed the political party system in the Philippines as “tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee” - meaning, there is no fundamental ideological difference between or among existing parties.
What we have is actually a politics based on personalities who are running under political parties not because they believe in them but because they offer convenient vehicles for the politicians’ political ambitions.
The thing, however, with personality-based parties, is that they live and die with their creators. Unlike parties deeply rooted in ideology, personality-based political parties come and go. Classic examples would be Marcos’ Kilusang Bagong Lipunan and the Aquino-Cojuangco’s Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino.
KBL was virtually a monolith during the heydays of Marcos, while LDP lorded it over during the term of President Aquino. But KBL collapsed when Marcos was booted out of power in 1986, while LDP became a mere shadow of its own self when Aquino stepped down in 1992.
Perhaps that is the only good thing about personality-based political parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate sets May deadline for Immigration Bill
|
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: REUBEN S. SEGURITAN has been practicing law for over 30 years. For further information, you may call him at 212 695 5281 or log on to his website at www.seguritan.com
The US Senate is struggling to reach a consensus on immigration reform as immigrant rights advocates take to the streets anew to press for a solution to a seriously flawed immigration system.
Members of a Senate bipartisan group are working to meet a mid-May deadline to come up with an immigration reform bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled the immigration debate for the last two weeks of May.
Although President George W. Bush has repeatedly called for a comprehensive approach to immigration reform based on a guest worker program, senators from both sides of the political spectrum are still deadlocked on what to do with the 11 million undocumented migrants.
Not wishing to alienate his conservative supporters, President Bush has echoed the refusal of some Republicans to offer amnesty. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), for instance, insists that immigration reform must not reward those who have violated the law by offering a path to citizenship.
Pro-immigration groups, however, emphasize that earned legalization is not tantamount to amnesty. Previous bills containing earned legalization provisions specifically require that the undocumented migrant pass background and criminal checks, pay a hefty penalty in addition to any back taxes and filing fees. Depending on the length of residency in the US, some proposals require the applicant to exit the US first to be eligible for earned legalization.
Although it is unclear where the bipartisan talks are headed, there is a shared optimism that both sides are committed to the job of fixing the immigration system.
In a Reuters report, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research immigration expert, Tamar Jacoby said “I think I can see a sweet spot. But can they both stretch quite enough to get there, I don’t know.” The same report quoted Angela Kelly, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, “There’s a lot of good will and determination to get to an agreement, but especially now that they are looking at the details it’s pretty difficult.”
In the Chicago Tribune, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a member of the bipartisan group, commented, “We’ve made tremendous progress and there’s a real hope to get a to a bill of significance.”
As the Senate grapples with a widely acceptable immigration reform proposal, the real snag might occur when both Houses sit to consider the issue.
According to the Chicago Tribune, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is “reluctant to have Democrats alone face the wrath of voters opposed to a sweeping bill.” She will reportedly put off House deliberations on immigration reform until President Bush can deliver at least 70 Republican votes.
With all the political maneuverings going on, the bottom line for President Bush is that immigration reform is his last chance to leave a domestic legacy before the 2008 presidential elections take center stage. Hopefully, this legacy will honor America’s history as a nation of immigrants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“NEW York Times Magazine” recent cover story on Filipino migrant workers -- “A Good Provider Is One Who Leaves” -- spotlights the raw dilemma that stokes the unstaunched exodus of the country’s brains and brawn.
In this 10-page spread, Times senior writer Jason De Parle tracks how a swimming pool-maintenance man chucked his Rizal Memorial Stadium job. Emmet Comodas opted to clean pools 4,500 miles away where his Dharhan wages were ten times more than his Manila pay packet. That lifted his family of six from Leveriza penury. But a generation later, the decision still exacts costs.
Others have etched “a human face” on the over 9 million Filipino migrants whose remittances prop 14 percent of GDP here. “In no other sizable country do remittances loom as large as a share of the economy.” Most reports, however, are snapshots of the present situation.
Intra-generational analysis remains rare. San Carlos University, for example, tracked 3,327 Cebuana mothers, and their 3,080 children born in 33 barangays since 1983. Conclusions from this “Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey” shaped policy from World Bank’s health loans to Egypt’s programs on water and sanitation.
In contrast, De Parle zeroes in on one family: the Comodas. He draws on experience of living in a Pasay slum, in the early 1980s, to study urban poverty. He then traces how, over a generation, migration altered the Comodas lives almost beyond recognition. The result is an “opaque mirror that shows dim outlines” of what Filipino OFW families could look like tomorrow.
“Of 11 siblings in the generation (of Emmet and wife Tita), nine either became overseas workers or married one….The nine families… raised 35 kids”. And within that span, they moved from scrap-wood shanties, bordered by stinking canals,
to today’s semicircle of furnished blockhouses, with TV, water and flush toilets. The Comodas have medical care and sent kids through college. But Emmet missed all graduations.
“Deprived of their father, while sustained by his wages, the Comodas children spent their early lives studying Emmet’s example. Now they’ve copied it.” All five became OFWs. “What started as Emmet’s act of desperation has become his children’s way of life : leaving in order to live.”
“By any measure, the price was high, “ De Parle notes. Emmet’s son Boyet grew into manhood without a father. A son, in Abu Dhabi, has never seen his child Some think aunties are their mothers. Most “hardly know the sacrifices their (parents)made for the blessings of a migrant’s wage”.
“Overseas prosperity is a gift and an obligation”, the Comodas think. Their OFW children now remit money to parents, cousins, godparents, friends, etc. They know they won’t be repaid. “Everyone needs help, and you cannot say no,” explains a daughter.
`But it does spawn unwelcome dependence. And there’ve been squandering, infidelity, etc.. Loneliness is corrosive. A sordid chapter of migrant history was Manila and Tokyo cooperation in making “Filipinas in skimpy clothes became an export commodity”: from 17,000 in 1996 to more than 70,000 in 2004. When Tokyo cracked down – finally, Manila protested.
Thin research into “left behind” families find that, for now, migrant children do as well as, or better than, children whose parents stayed home But soaring remittance tallies cannot measure social costs, De Parle frets.. “I was with Emmet and his brother-in-law when they broke into a nostalgic version of ‘It’s So Painful, Big Brother Eddie,’ a 1980’s Tagalog classic that immortalizes every migrant’s fear.”
Despite a nearly failed marriage, a daughter of Emmet nonetheless says: “A good provider is someone who leaves.” The other horn of this raw dilmena is : “Not migrating has costs, too. Wrenching poverty… is difficult to tame in a force as brutal as labor migration.”
“Left-behind” families, like the Comodas found Good Shepherd nuns, who lived alongside the poor, “empowered” by training and projects. “Much of the credit belonged to Sister Christine Tan, who organized a network of prayer groups and cooperative stores”. She trained Tita and that unpaid community service instilled confidence.
“Once I found (Tita) studying an English newspaper with a dual-language dictionary. “What’s imperialism?” she asked,” De Parle recalls. “When Congress wanted a witness on urban poverty, Sister Christine had Tita testify.
In the Comodas guest room today stands a daughter’s large wedding picture. “The woman’s confident face shows no trace of a birthright of poverty…. Two generations of labor migration have given her more education, more money… power and prestige than her mother could have dreamed of on her own wedding day.”
True. But beyond abundance of possessions, what does a man’s life finally consist of?. For first-generation OFW couples, like Emmet and Tita, and the second that have replaced them, Browning’s lines ring hollow: “Grow old along with me/ The best is yet to be.” . And “Father” or “Tatay” as well as “Inay” and “Mama” mean little for many of their children. No camera can capture this loss and value-void.
No country broke free of penury just by remittances, warns the Migration Policy Institute. “Remittances can’t compensate for corrupt governments, nepotism, incompetence or communal conflict..” So, what does this unstaunched drain mean for this country as yet another generation scrambles for visas and airline tickets even before their diplomas are tucked up?
(juanlmercado@gmail.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT IS two weeks to election day. Our impression is no day passes without an election-related incident involving gunplay.
A trend we noticed is that as one survey after another reports the gains of the opposition, the bolder the repressive moves of the administration become. Violent incidents are taking place mostly in the provinces. Yet Maj. Gen. Benjamin Dolorfino, army commander of the National Capital Region is insistent on troop deployment in Metro Manila.
Over the objection of church and activist groups, Dolorfino openly declared he intends for his command to actively engage in “advocacy for honest, orderly and peaceful elections’ in Metro Manila.
In more normal climes under less politicized administration, we recall that as a safeguard to keep elections democratic, instead of the military, ROTC cadets who are deemed young and idealistic were deputized to guard the political exercise.
Playing dumb and innocent, Dolorfino asked “Would it be electioneering if I ask people to vote somebody who is God-fearing? Is it wrong for me to ask for people to vote for somebody who is physically, morally and intellectually qualified?”
We are afraid this is again part of the administration’s strategy which we called “the dumbing of the Filipinos”. That’s how “tanga”(dumb) these GMA followers think the people are.
Dolorfino said he had consulted the Commission on Elections and the Comelec officials approved his awareness campaign as long as the AFP remained non-partisan in the polls.
TANGA.
However, the general’s further announcement sounded ominous. He said the National Capital Regional Command planned to deploy 12 additional army troops in Metro Manila after the elections. Why? Is he worried his deployment before and during the elections will generate violent reactions from the Manilans? He said “There are barangays requesting continued deployment in Manila. Now some of the barangay chairmen from 37 barangays of District 3 of Quezon City would like also to have troops in their communities.”
TANGA, TANGA.
What’s happening in Metro Manila after the elections? Right now, rumors are rife that former President Estrada is “programmed” to be convicted of plunder by the Sandigan right after the elections. Leaks of this development were traced to Malacanang. Estrada’s lawyer, Rene Saguisag, has protested the recent haste with which the Sandigan is pushing the case. The Sandigan gave the Estrada lawyers no more than 30 days without extension to submit their closing memorandum.
What could possibly happen after the elections that it becomes important to hobble Estrada with a conviction and a possible change of confinement? Estrada is still a strong leader of the opposition. The senatorial candidates of the opposition have sought his endorsement. During the ongoing Sandigan trial, it has been reported the prosecution has failed to prove any of the plunder charges.
Abangan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Gurfinkel has been an attorney for over 26 years, and is an active member of the State Bar of California and New York, as well as the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Immigration Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. He has always excelled in school:
Valedictorian in High School; Cum Laude at UCLA; and Law Degree Honors and academic scholar at Loyola Law School, which is one of the top law schools in California.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
Four offices to serve you:
LOS ANGELES:
219 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203
Telephone: (818) 543-5800
SAN FRANCISCO:
966 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: (415) 538-7800
NEW YORK:
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2101, New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 808-0300
PHILIPPINES:
Heart Tower, Unit 701, 108 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Philippines 1227
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
