About hijacked lyrics

Of course there are advantages to using songs for one’s campaign infomercials. This practice helps ensure that a candidate’s projected image will stick in the minds of the electorate, thanks to that phenomenon called “Last Song Syndrome”. It is difficult to forget the faces that come to mind when humming a certain jingle, “Nakaligo ka na ba….” It’s all the more endearing (in its own strange way) if the tune is something thoroughly original, something that can be directly and solely associated with the candidate concerned.

However, “endearing” is not the attribute I would dare use for the practice of using already familiar songs in campaigning for a person. Just yesterday, my siblings left the television on. From where I was working, I could hear the familiar strains of a song “Pilipinas Kong Mahal.”, originally by Francisco Santiago That sound brought back great memories of the “Sandaan” compilation of historically significant ballads, as well as flag retreat back in my alma mater. This idyll was shattered though when my sister shouted, “Hey! Guess who used this song?!” Imagine my disappointment when I rushed to the TV and found the overly familiar face of a candidate juxtaposed with the song.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had a perfectly good, patriotic song ruined by a personal agenda. I can’t even listen to “Posible” anymore without recalling the face of another candidate, and the furor caused by the song’s original creator for the unauthorized use of it. I can only wonder how many anthems will go the same way in the next few months. Sure, it seems like common sense to use uplifting, stirring lyrics that can raise national consciousness towards lofty ideals, as some of our music is wont to do. It’s not that there’s anything illegal or morally wrong with it. However it does seem like a quite selfish, almost presumptuous thing to take a well-loved, otherwise uplifting work and reinterpret it for political purposes.

For one thing, this practice smacks of laziness; it would be just as profitable for candidates to commission good songwriters to create a wholly new jingle for their purposes, instead of borrowing already existing lyrics. One needs to pay songwriters for the rights to even use the song; surely paying a little extra for a completely original work would not be a problem for some of our future leaders. It’s been done. And it works.

Another problem with “politicizing” idealistic lyrics is in matching the spirit of the songs to the image of the person borrowing them. This wouldn’t be such an issue if our candidates all had good track records and unstained characters, or if they were all as patriotic as the songs make then out to be. However there just seems to be something ironic, if not wrong with using such positive lyrics to describe a candidate who leaves so much to be desired, or who has no intention of espousing these ideals once in office. It is a serious musical, if not literary injustice.

A third issue I have with suddenly “hijacked” music is the guilty by association factor. Before a song gets tagged by a candidate, it is the people’s property, something to be enjoyed by the multitude barring only differences in genre. Once a song gets used for campaigns, suddenly it becomes difficult for a few months (or worse, for a few years) to sing a suddenly politicized song in public, lest one be mistaken as supporting a politician’s campaign or agenda. Sure, one can say, “I just like the song, okay?” but the damage has already been done. Good music cannot carry a message for everyone anymore; it has to be sold by someone. Whatever happened to ideas for ideas’ sake? Why do we need faces to market our principles?

Oh yes, that’s politics for you.

I earnestly pray and hope that our candidates will stop hijacking our already abused musical repertoire in order to win a few more votes. If they must give us Last Song Syndrome, let it be with something created specifically for that purpose. If this is done, our good music can be left in peace while candidates can stop forcing badly rhyming achievements and twisted meters into our eardrums. We can stop deleting songs from our playlists, and we can freely teach these lyrics to our children without them getting too politicized. We want to create citizens of the Philippines, not citizens for ___(insert name of candidate here). After all, there is a reason why “Noypi” was touted as a “second national anthem” for some time, and not as the anthem of so-and-so.

Youth2010 forum!

DLSU students are no strangers to long lines: adjustment, basketball tickets, and the occasional large event. None of these queues though ever measured up to the sheer length and breadth of the line to get into the Youth2010 Presidential forum. Considering the touted apathy of the youth today, it was almost surreal to see a whole line of students stretching all the way from the elevators in Yuchengco building....to around the Velasco Building. (Note that it's about a hundred meters or so from point a to point b).

People were camping out as early as before 8am just to get into the Yuchengco auditorium. For those who couldn't get in, they had the option of watching the event broadcast in the classrooms in the SJ building. Watching at home was also an option, since ABS-CBN televised the event. A good number of my friends (including my sister) resorted to this, completing their forum experience with loads of snacks. As for me, I did end up sitting right on the steps of the 8th floor balcony. It wasn't the most comfortable place to be, but at least the view was great.

So here's the rundown on the major players in today's auditorium:

The panelists (students from DLSU-Manila, other DLSU campuses, Benilde, UA&P, and St. Scholastica) : Kudos to the students for coming up with good questions for the forum. It was great to hear queries that were not run-of-the-mill or generic, but rather specific for each candidate's known platform and campaign situation.

The audience: Quite responsive, and varied too---in contrast to what I remember of most presidential forums. Though of course sometimes there were lapses in decorum. I also love how eager some people were to rush up to Gibo and Noynoy after the forum. Mga Lasalyano talaga!

Ted Failon: Maybe he's not everyone's first choice for a host in a political forum, but at least he did his job. And tried to keep a straight face throughout most of it. It was good that he was able to remind some of the candidates to answer the questions properly, or to clarify their points. Kudos to him for trying to extend the students' attention span as well.

Now for the Presidentiables (in order of seating arrangement!)

Noynoy Aquino: For a man who has a fair chance at being the hero of the hour, he was considerably less than stellar today, especially when compared to other candidates. All of a sudden his position on the RH bill somehow changed (consider this in the light of his defending it on more than one occasion in 2009). He was considerably defensive with regard to questions regarding his accomplishments, such as in the arena of fighting graft and corruption. Although he is clear on his position about holding the current administration accountable for his deeds, he still shows a clear lack of a concrete platform as well as the "ground" knowledge to properly explain his stand.

JC De los Reyes: A considerably pro-life, pro-Catholic, moral stance, actually. At least he had enough evidence to explain his views regarding population and more. As a slightly conservative writer, I agree with some of his views. What I don't agree with is his stance about sex education---I do not think that "sapat na ang natural na kaalaman". Now the truth is that a lot of Filipino parents are not comfortable with their kids discussing questions about sex. I believe that schools have a very important role in sex education, particularly in the scenario when one or both parents is unwilling or worse, unavailable about the topic. The objection though to the modules about sex ed is well-founded however: too much emphasis on acts regarding sex, and not enough character formation or teaching about maturity with regard to this intimate topic.

Dick Gordon: Ever the crowd-pleaser, apparently. Maybe it's because of his confidence: "They are ready for Dick Gordon". Or maybe it's his very expressive way of talking. His "manner" (as we used to say in debate parlance) is great. I am not so sure about the "matter" or content aspect. Although his suggestion of raising teachers' salaries to 40,000 was much applauded, his idea of giving the Kindle e-book device to schools may not be so feasible. It's much too expensive to procure, much more maintain in our public school system.

Jamby Madrigal: If there was someone who knew how to ride on the emotions of the crowd, it was her. Unfortunately a lot of her speeches became tirades against big institutions like multinationals, and worse yet, slightly pointed attacks against her opponents. So much for "konting personalan" She did mention a point about bringing resources straight to those who need it, like farmers and small and medium industries. She didn't say how she'd do it though.

Joseph Estrada (who should have taken center seat): Story has it he was filming his infomercial today, so he deigned not to show up for the forum. Now while this saved him from the potential risk of becoming today's comic relief (admittedly a number of LaSallians turned up in hopes of watching him struggle through the forum), this might have serious adverse ratings on his campaign. Especially as he was pointed out to be the only candidate not to make an appearance.

Nick Perlas: Unfortunately this man suffers from a case of obscurity in the eyes of many young voters. Still he did raise a few points such as the need to conduct language education for children in an age-dependent manner (first the vernacular, then Filipino, then English). He ended up beating around the bush though with the question about call centers, preferring to expound on his knowledge of the agricultural sector before bringing it in a roundabout connection to the call center industry issue. Not a good move.

Gibo Teodoro: Clearly he was quite confident in this forum (and not just because it was on home turf). Although he did rankle a good many students with his safe answer about President Arroyo's accountability post-election, he did have a point in saying that he would be unable to answer the question fairly at this time. Even if Jamby Madrigal and the others ganged up on him (which was not fair). Despite this, he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of legislation, government procedures and other aspects of leadership. And he had the support of all of his fans (who nearly whisked away my camera in their enthusiasm). If he continues to display a growing backbone and make the right steps, he might stand a chance of winning the votes of even the non-university crowds.

Eddie Villanueva: Word for the day in his vocabulary: moral bankruptcy. While of course many Filipinos do appreciate and share his stance regarding credible leadership, the same may not always be said for his penchant for quoting from the Bible. He also quite failed to address the more practical points of governance (or maybe because no one asked him much about these things) And by the way, he ought to check some of his quotes. Quezon said, "My loyalty to my party ends where my DUTY to my country begins." And it's LaSallians, not LaSallites.

Manny Villar: First time he showed up in a forum. And maybe if today's experience was unnerving enough, it might be a cause for him to reconsider any further appearances. If ever, he did receive quite a number of catcalls from the crowd. He also unfortunately acquitted himself quite poorly in some of the questions, particularly the one about his platform for the rich and middle-class voters. "High tide...low tide?" What did have to do with anything? Clearly he underestimated the DLSU audience.

Analysis

Of course it is easy for the candidates to come up with answers for fora. Usually the questions are easily anticipated (unless one is caught off-guard the way that Villar was). The best way that one can use political fora as a means for gauging candidates is to check for matter and consistency. Do candidates actually expound on their points or resort to motherhood statements? Do they insult or degrade their opponents instead of pitching themselves well? Do they have a consistent stance on issues? Is their platform feasible?

Gordon definitely wins in terms of charm and appeal to the crowd. In terms of matter though, I'd have to go with Gibo. Admittedly he argues his points concisely, without resorting to technical terms or defensive measures. In terms of "below the belt factor", referring to meanness on stage, Jamby gets my vote. She spent a lot more time putting down institutions or individuals as opposed to making a case for her presidency. Noynoy lost a good bit of shine today--more than I've ever seen compared to the other fora I've followed. How far can Cory magic get him?

This forum is all well and good for LaSallians, but I do wonder how (or even if) it can impact the majority of the electorate. Sure, Gibo is the choice of a good many of my schoolmates. But outside campus, a different story holds. Green sure isn't the color of the electorate...it could be yellow, or both shades of orange.

Still, if there had been a polling machine in DLSU today, it would have been a hard race between Gibo, Gordon, and Noynoy. And if a backhoe and several tons of refuse were allowed on campus, some open space might have been dug up for some candidates to contemplate, or stay in till the storm passed.

Back in time for the action

Seems like it's a good time to get commenting again.

I know I'm supposed to be finishing up work, but this business of refurbishing the blog couldn't really wait. After all, I don't know if I'll have time to tweak layouts after tomorrow.

What's tomorrow? Presidentiables forum at De La Salle University. Like a good many people, I'm planning to turn up early on campus just to score a good seat in the event. Actually I don't care if I end up sitting on the floor of the balcony, for as long as I get to hear what's going on and just what the candidates have to say (or what they don't have to say) for themselves

Rumor has it that at least 4 of the notable candidates confirmed their attendance tomorrow. Somehow I wonder whether about one or two of them are being prudent in deciding to come to De La Salle University. It will take serious restraint on the part of some of the students attending the forum to keep their reactions in check. At least my friends and I were just joking about borrowing a certain infamous backhoe to dig a hole in the middle of the football field to fill up with all the trash from the landfills in order to show a certain point to a particular candidate.

This slightly sordid joke though is just a symptom of one thing that some of the candidates (especially the presidentiables) should take into account: there are just some people who aren't amused, much less persuaded by cheap gimmicks and catch jingles anymore. Has the young electorate begun to be more critical and discerning with regard to their choices?

out of the pea soup

After having a well earned lead in NaNoWriMo (one month to write 50k words...am at 30k already), I finally have time for this sort of blogging again.

Never before have I been so ambivalent about politics. The lines getting blurred:

-No one having a clear stand on issues such as the RH bill, disaster relief, mental health, etc. So far, the same old problems are being tackled in the same old ways.

-Candidacies and eligibility issues. So can Erap run? Bayani Fernando? Who else may be disqualified?

Sometimes I wonder how many red herrings, big bad wolves, dark horses and balimbings will come up.

more COMELEC horror

Even as I type this, I'm listening to my schoolmates discussing the terrible registration process. Apparently, a friend of mine tried to register earlier today. He got to the COMELEC office at about 8am, only to find out that there was a 1000-person cutoff that day!

So the date is October 29. I really wonder if the higher-ups in the COMELEC know what's happening in some precints...

voters and mental health

I know, this isn't something that is always on candidates or voters' minds when election period comes up. Still, it's something worth considering. Are there candidates who will make it a point to promote mental health and wellness in the Philippines?

I mean this in several ways. Firstly, there is the need to provide better interventions and support for various sectors in our society who have difficulties with cognitive-psychological matters. I refer to the differently-abled both young and old, the elderly in our hospitals, hospices, and homes for the aged, those diagnosed with psychological disorders, people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder due to trauma from calamities or violence, and people who need reintegration in their communities following displacement, release from prison and other circumstances. Our doctors, nurses, community workers, staff in mental-health institutes and wards, teachers and even caretakers need to be taught how to help these individuals achieve what they can in our society. Opportunities need to be created for people who are differently-abled and the elderly so that they can adequately contribute to society instead of being somehow shut away at home or in special institutions. Our local government units need to provide systems to help families and groups rehabilitate themselves using their own resources and capabilities instead of relying on hand-outs.

We also need candidates who will understand the need for holistic health-care, employment and educational systems that will not just equip Filipinos with the rudiments for survival, but also encourage them to develop their full-potentials (self-actualize as psych people like to say). Our health-care needs to address not just disease prevention and cure, but even familial and community attitudes towards communicable diseases, mental disorders, and physical disabilities. We are so used to marginalizing and stigmatizing those who are unwell. We are steeped in ignorance about how to properly care and support those are on the road to recovery. We need to integrate the Filipino moral and spiritual beliefs with ongoing scientific practice to promote the overall welfare of the sick.

Our employment system needs to look beyond the aspects of fair compensation and benefits, but also at the possibility of human resources development. We need to train our workforce to achieve more than just competency, but also a sense of purpose and a willingness to know more and improve in their chosen occupations. We need to improve our vocational and technical training so that opportunities and advancement will still be possible for those who will be unable to pursue anything beyond a high school degree. We also need to look into the social support that our overseas workers and their families receive. Along with the need to protect and care for our OFWs, we also need to help their families cope with the stresses caused by separation from their loved ones, and ensure the integrity of the family even over distances.

Our educational system also needs to acknowledge the various strengths and capabilities of individual Filipino children, and use these good points to prepare them to become sound, contributing individuals to society. From an early age, we need to encourage children to develop confidence in their own academic abilities, to ask questions, investigate for answers, and interact cooperatively with their peers instead of worrying about what facts they know and how they measure up to other students. By increasing their thirst for knowledge as well as giving them the logistical, material, and mental means to critically and constructively examine the world, our young people will eventually be able to pick up the knowledge they will need in their academics. In a country where teachers may not always be present, it is important for those already in the field to give our children the means to become their own teachers, in a more experiential, practical way. Our educational system also needs to examine the reasons for our high dropout rate, and look at practices that will care for students as whole individuals who will be willing and able to pursue their studies. We need to consider family factors, community difficulties and mindsets, and even physical problems that may deter the youth from studying. Otherwise we will be looking at our youth as merely statistics and test scores.

Lastly, but definitely not the least, mental health and wellness can be promoted by upholding the roles of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychometricians, social workers, SPED teachers, and other specialists concerned with the mental and psychological growth and interventions in the lives of Filipinos. We need to regulate our mental-health practitioners and ensure they are properly licensed.We also need to provide means for our specialists to deepen and broaden their knowledge in psychology, sociology, and other related fields--not just in the Philippine context. Development and added education should be available to people who seek to pursue a life in this form of helping profession. There is a need to extend the mental-health practitioner's role to more than just crises intervention (e.g. post-Ondoy scenario), but also as a part of an individual's or a community's overall growth. Our practitioners need to be able to contribute in making our social systems more humane and productive for Filipinos.

I have yet to hear of a candidate who will see these points clearly and uphold them in his or her platform. I call on my fellow psychology students, and even already practicing teachers, psychologists and specialists to please consider these things when choosing which candidates to vote for. Although our society does not place a direct emphasis on mental health, this component is nonetheless essential to the lives and continued sustainable development of the Filipino people. In these times rife with calamity and unrest, our role is not just in conflict management and distress mitigation, but it should progress to rehabilitation, reintegration and eventually adaptive development in these new circumstances. We will need political will to make this feasible---and we will need the support of our public servants to make all of this a reality.

A vote for mental health? I hope we can count on it!

nation building

Of course I'm going to write about the typhoons. I'm not planning to make this entry about the presidentiables' actions during recent events, or about the speed and quality of the government's response. I prefer to write though about the opportunities that this situation presents.

I don't just mean the opportunities our public servants now have to improve urban and rural planning, curb illegal logging, reduce Manila's trash, and relocate squatters. What I mean are the opportunities to sustain the best in the Filipino people. In the past three weeks, I've seen and heard of many stories in the relief centers, in the devastated communities, or in odd places which were spared. Some of the stories appalled me with the knowledge that some people can be so self-serving or even brutal in times of need. More often though, I heard stories of people who had little to begin with in terms of material possessions, but gave what they could to their suffering neighbors. I have met people who spent days and nights in the relief centers, packing and sending out goods to many communities. I have run into individuals who dared to go into the flooded communities even when the waters had yet to go down, just to save lives, run medical missions, or give much needed help and support. I have even heard of those who gave up their lives that others may live.

These stories cut across all classes and divisions. Distance didn't matter---help came even from abroad. From the cousin who sent part of her savings all the way from overseas to an aspiring scholar from a GK village who lost no time in hurrying to a flooded community to help clean it up, I saw heroism everywhere. And it is this heroism that our future leaders should nurture and protect.

Imagine if our so-called politicos could emulate, inspire, and uphold this nobility of spirit. Imagine if we Filipinos could feel such love and dignity each day because the leaders of our land work to make sure we will have cause to hold our heads up high. Imagine if our public servants could unite communities instead of playing "divide and conquer" just to stay in office.

Sure, our politicians can and should work out the logistics of rehabilitation to prevent a reprise of this kind of disaster. Sure, our leaders should prove that they are capable of setting communities back on their feet, free from mud and raging waters. However, these leaders should also decide what is it that they represent to their constituents. Are they the kind of servant-leader who will be in solidarity with those who suffer, who will not only comfort them in their hour of need, but give them the opportunity to use their diligence and effort to bounce back from calamities? Or are they the sort of politicians who will exploit such a dire scenario to make their names known, to grandstand in front of the media and whitewash their names just to give an illusion of altruism?

If our effort becomes self-serving, then it can hardly be called heroism at all. We are a country that coined the term "bayanihan". The act of heroism, or becoming a hero. Which is what we need nowadays.