Why did not the newspaper (not The STAR) report that in its headline? Why did it not report the standing ovation and prolonged applause from the audience? Instead it reported the applause was probably meant only to soften Sen. Frank Drilon. On the main points of the speech the President’s position on charter change was lumped up with other pressing issues like the budget deficit. How could the near unanimous and spontaneous applause of a motley crowd which included Philippine officials, the entire Congress, diplomats, and guests be interpreted as meant for the sake of one man? What is the basis for the report? If that were indeed the case then we should ask how one man could hold the country hostage because he is against constitutional reform. The public is misled by a deliberate attempt to downplay the applause for charter change and consequently its implications for the country. If I had not been there to see it with my own eyes and feel the audience response and read only this newspaper’s report I would not have known the truth.
If I had not been there as countless other Filipinos and read only the newspaper’s account of the President’s state of the nation, the inference was that we do not have a democracy. We have a tyranny of one man, holding the entire country hostage by refusing to act on what the Constitution mandates Congress to do. And he is not even the head of the nation. He is just the Senate President but because of the country’s peculiar structure he could hold up necessary reforms if he so wanted. Is the entire country merely at the mercy of Drilon’s intransigence and his followers in the Senate? I do not believe so and the sooner we remove this disabling obstruction to political and economic reforms, the better it will be for our country.
Predictably, the President opened her speech with the case of Angelo de la Cruz and she made no apologies for saving his life. At the same time she also reiterated her commitment to the fight against terrorism. As she said it does not mean a change in policy, but in pursuit of that policy that she saved the life of Angelo de la Cruz. More thoughtful Filipinos or Americans and Australians for that matter ought to understand that bravery (our history is replete with examples of how we fought and sacrificed lives by the side of our allies) wisdom and restraint can co-exist. It is a world view tempered by a commitment to values. I like especially when she said, "I cannot apologize for being a protector of my people."
They are able to build houses, educate their children, set up small businesses because their hard-earned dollars when translated into pesos enables them and their children to move up the social ladder. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding we are unable to draw up a program that would help both the OFs in particular and consequently the country in general. The Turkish government has accepted the fact that they are an exporter of labor and set themselves to the task of negotiating with governments where their nationals go and getting the best deals for them. For example, while there I read the Turkish government was negotiating for a surcharge to the country of destination for every departing citizen to cover for the cost of education and other costs of developing their skills.
Former Senator Loren Legarda may mean well when she said the government should concentrate in creating jobs at home so that "Filipinos would no longer have to risk lives and limbs just to earn a living even in war-torn countries like Iraq. She misunderstands the issue. That does not mean we should not work hard to create more jobs. It only means we must begin thinking of how to mobilize OFs and give them what they deserve as an economic engine of our economy. For example, while in exile in London we fought for the right of unification of Filipino families which we ultimately won in the European court. That is one way with the correct perspective in mind. Did you see the rally of Filipinos insisting on going anyway to Iraq despite Angelo de la Cruz? Some creative thinking must be made not to violate their freedom to travel and work wherever they so desire on the one hand, while protecting their lives and well-being on the other.