I was active with the Toastmasters Clubs for almost two decades. From my experience with them, I got educated with some ways on how to become an effective communicator although to confess, I did not reach the level of a good public speaker that my late father, Napoleon, was. Using the toastmasters’ way of rating, even His Excellency, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, may not get very high marks as a speaker.
The State of the Nation Address delivered by the president did not employ vocal variety, for one. His father Ninoy (I had the privilege of hearing him deliver few speeches) used varying inflections of his voice with dramatic impact. The president has a good speaking voice. From an appreciable pedigree, it is pleasantly baritone. But his delivery last Monday was unmistakably monotone. He started and ended his statements with predictable oneness. The substantive points of his speech did not get the necessary highlights in sound they otherwise deserved.
However, given that the SONA was not aimed to entertain, it certainly contained a meaningful challenge to me, as his listener.
The president particularly convinced me that I should be “personal” against corruption. His “matuwid na landas” message was clear. I should not let present corrupt ways pass nor allow atrophy to set in to forget past shenanigans. In the president’s plea, I must be ready to help him expose the grafters and those who pillaged public fund in the hope that the stolen money could be used to the benefit of every citizen. In fact, he wanted all of us to be personally angry at all forms of corruption.
Several months back, I wrote a call to the Ombudsman to investigate an obvious prejudice to the government. I did not know it was what the president wanted. Along the North Reclamation Area of Cebu City, not far from the waterway that serves as a boundary between Cebu and Mandaue cities, we can see hundreds of very large concrete culverts. They are not stock piled. Their being used as a fence until the elements pulverize them was but a happy discovery although in that serendipity of a ploy it has to fail miserably. Indeed, serving as a perimeter fence rather than as a water channel, they are clearly not used for the purpose they were made.
If we go by the book, some high-ranking government official must have signed a purchase request for these culverts. I understand that this is the procedure. The starting block is the PR. It should provide the reason why the culverts were needed in the quantity and quality desired.
The PR identified the project. It hopped from one table to another and in each stop a signature was added to add credence to its viability. It was supposed to have been verified and meticulously scrutinized to add weight to its urgency. Technical men evaluated it and programs of work and estimates were written including the schedule of implementation to mark the project start and completion.
What I am saying is that whoever conceived of the project for which these culverts were intended can, at present, be easily identified. But, by the legal presumption of regularity, I want to believe that he was honest in proposing that undertaking. Prosecution therefore is not recommended.
I hope that the Ombudsman starts an inquiry into why these culverts, in hundreds of thousands of peso value, are not utilized. The anti-graft office should consider spanking some officers for allowing these materials to rot, figuratively. It should take it personally that some officials are responsible for this wastage.
Today we are faced with such climate change that water continues to inundate the lower portions of our city. Surely these culverts can help mitigate the flooding problem. The inquiry by the Ombudsman will reorient these concerned officers into doing something positive out of what could have been a corrupt project.