More than 80,000 OFW lives in Taiwan are in great danger. Day to day, Filipinos in Taiwan endure racism and experience violence from Taiwanese people without protection from their government. The Taiwanese people are outraged because of the death of a Taiwanese fisherman allegedly shot by the Philippine Coast Guard in Philippine Territory. Though true that we should have acted more prudently on the matter, according to international law expert Miriam Santiago, the hostile acts against the Filipinos in Taiwan is already considered an act of aggression from the point of view of international law.
As a man of reason, I cannot fathom how the death of one Taiwanese be blamed to the entire Filipino people. Much more, cause the lives of some 87,000 OFWs to be in danger.
Taiwanese Media and Taiwanese Government can ease the Tension, if They want to
Media is one of the most potent agent of change in society. In fact, public opinion can be shaped by the media. A government both has the power to influence and the power to police, among its many powers. Under these premises, I wanted to know how the Taiwan Media reported the incident to cause the entire Taiwan people to go mad against 87,000 OFWs in their country. Second, why is there an inaction from their government to protect the well being of our Filipino brothers there? Did their media played the Filipino people as the antagonist in their reports? Does their government, whose president has become very unpopular, has a hand in it?
Whatever the answers to these questions are, one thing is for sure: Taiwan Media and Taiwan Government can do something to ease the tension in Taiwan.
Taiwan Needs Us Too
87,000 OFWs contribute to the economy of Taiwan. These 87,000 workers are professionals, technical, skilled workers. Very few of them are domestic helpers. In other words, the Taiwan economy will suffer a great deal of self inflicted pain should they choose to lose the OFWs either by sending them home or by scaring them away.
We Have Issues Back Home
We have to admit that we have issues back home. PNoy administration is very weak on Foreign Policies and in managing international affairs. What on Earth have our officials been doing that allowed this minor political crisis to escalate this big, endangering the lives of our brothers overseas? Are they even aware of the incident? Our officials have to wait for a deadline set by Taiwan to act. This made us look bullied before the whole world! Much worse, the action made was poorly thought out. The president didn’t even affix his signature on the letter delivered by his “personal” representative. We have very bright experts on Foreign Affairs, PNoy should make use of their intelligence if he doesn’t have his own.
PNoy government should have learned from the Manila Hostage crisis. Its aftermath is still being felt today. In fact, we’re still paying for that blunder.
It is sad to admit, but the Philippines has made herself a kontrabida in Southeast Asia. As Alex Magno puts it:
In three years, we have made ourselves the least liked in the neighborhood.
The Cambodians do not like us because of what they consider President Aquino’s ill-manners during the Phnom Penh Asean meeting. The Indonesians cast a wary eye on us because, the year before when they hosted the Asean summit, President Aquino closeted himself in his room and avoided the functions. At the Vladivostok Apec summit, we misrepresented Singapore’s foreign policy positions. We escalated the spat with China without close consultations with our Asean partners.
When the Thai prime minister paid Manila a visit, presidential sister Kris publicly speculated about a possible romantic link between her brother and the guest. The Thai prime minister is very happily married.
Malaysia, of course, blames Manila for letting the Lahad Datu incident happen. The Vietnamese probably feel we are not consulting them enough about the South China Sea claims.
China does not like us because of the way we handled the South China Sea issues. Hong Kong does not like us because of the unfortunate Luneta incident. Now Taiwan does not like us too.
The president has to realize that as president, his audience is not only the Filipino people but the international community. His words and actuations are heard and seen by the world. He is not allowed to make poorly thought out personal opinions concerning the nation because words from his mouth are heard by the world and becomes a national policy. In other words, when a president opens his mouth, he is not only talking to the Filipino people, he is making a proclamation for the whole world to hear in behalf of all Filipinos. His predecessor understands this so much so she did not entertain ambush interviews during her time to avoid saying the wrong words that could further damage our international reputation.
Law, Not Blood
Ultimately, we have the international law to govern us in this incident. I am positive that this can be settled peacefully, without further damaging international relationships. Miriam Santiago already offered her analysis and what actions the Philippines can do should worse comes to worst. Let us use the collective intelligence of experts to come up with the best solution to this crisis. But while we are still figuring things out, let’s pray for our Kababayans overseas.
Originally posted at sipipoyako.blogspot.com
Given the manner by which the Filipino Electorate vote, (majority of which poorly educated) it is my humble view that the criteria required by our Constitution both from the voter and the candidate are not enough to ensure that competent leaders will be elected. The criteria for a voter are age and residency while the criteria for a candidate include basic literacy.
I now consider taking the unpopular position first taken by John Stuart Mill in his book “Considerations on Representative Government”. In this book, he drew a correlation between education and competence as a voter. Here, he points out that educated men make better decisions. Thus, not all votes should be equal and that voting should be limited to the literate.
Though this position sounds unpopular (or even discriminatory to some), it is my considered belief that the principle of “one man, one vote, one value” only works for, and thus, must only be observed in educated societies.
In a country like ours, where majority of the 50 million voters are not well educated and candidates are not required to have certain educational attainment, the principle of “one man, one vote, one value” is counterproductive and inefficient. This is proven by every election outcome in our country including the one we had today.
In conclusion, the most apparent solution to this dilemma in Phililippine election is revisions in our charter. We can start by adding literacy as a prerequisite to vote and demanding certain educational attainment from candidates.
Hopefully, the inclusion of these criteria if ever, can develop our country into an educated society. Then we can meet the implicit goal of our electoral system which is “one man, one vote, one value”
The word fickle can be defined as “given to sudden change of behavior”. It is synonymous to the terms erratic, changeful, unstable. Thus, the term fickle mind can mean unreasonable. In some usage, it can mean idiotic precisely because it is not guided by reason.
The word insinuation, meanwhile, is defined as an “indirect and usually malicious implication”. It is synonymous to the terms allusion, hint, indication. But because of its malicious nature, insinuation is seen as slanderous especially if the allegation is without basis.
So the question is, How can the insinuation of a fickle mind be dangerous? Given that a person with fickle mind follows no logic and knows no reason, in plain words idiotic.
My answer is, Since the idiot man is not a credible man, there is certainly no danger in terms of causing damage to the reputation of the man whom the insinuation is directed to. The danger lies in both the doer and the receiver of the insinuation.
When making insinuations, the doer of the act becomes hostile regardless if the doer is fickle minded or not. Why hostility is dangerous is self explicatory. Supplementary, the receiver of the insinuation always suffers from trauma. It is always traumatic to be accused, regardless of existence of basis.
Since insinuations are both hostile and traumatic, the inevitable end of this is a severed relationship. That is its ultimate danger. May it be from a genius or from a fickle mind, insinuation damages fraternal bond. It separates us from each other.
Though men are regarded rational, we are also ruled by our emotions which makes us unstable. Our emotions had made us all fickle minded. We are prone to making baseless imagined speculations. We maliciously hint falsehood against each other. We envy each other. We bring each other down as we traverse to the top. The animal inside us is still alive after centuries of our scientific progress and technological advancement. There is a part in our morality which failed to achieve positive growth. I am declaring this not to be self righteous, but to expose my own weakness.
As I realized this dent in my morality, I have taken this position: I will exert all effort in resisting to conform with this culture of cruelty. I will not cause unnecessary harm to my brethren for the purpose of realizing my dreams. I believe that we will not be weighed based on our carnal achievements. We will be judge based on our spiritual purity. Let our physical manifestations on Earth purify our spirit.
Until we learn to be selfless, hostility and trauma will be thrive in us and with us. As a human, I am fickle minded. And these are my dangerous insinuations.