House should vote for Filipino vets

The Fil-Am issue

House should vote for Filipino vets

By REP. MIKE HONDA & REP. DARRELL ISSA | 9/17/08 4:49 AM EDT 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13506.html

 

Recently, Manuel Braga attended the funeral of yet another friend and World War II veteran.

As the body of James Mijares was lowered into a grave, all Braga, 81, could think was that another friend had died waiting for something he earned that never arrived: the veterans’ benefits the U.S. government promised in 1942.

Braga and Mijares, both Filipinos, fought in World War II under the U.S. flag. Ironically, the weekend of Mijares’ funeral was also the 67th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ordering into service the Armed Forces of the Philippines, an American commonwealth. But the U.S. Congress went back on its promise in 1946 when it passed a bill that specifically yanked benefits from Filipino veterans.

As Congress comes back into session this month, we will have in the House of Representatives one more opportunity to right this wrong. In April, the Senate passed the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act by an overwhelming 96-1 vote, with all the World War II veterans from that chamber standing behind their Filipino comrades.

Now it is our turn in the House. And this is not just about benefits for a few surviving heroes; it is also about our honor as a country and a legislative body. If we are a country of promise making, we should also be a country of promise keeping.

More than 250,000 Filipinos fought, bled and sometimes died next to the soldiers of America’s “Greatest Generation.” Many suffered through the infamous Bataan Death March and many, such as Braga, later served during Japan’s occupation. Braga’s legs were wounded by the Japanese, and he was infected with tuberculosis as he fought a guerrilla war, holding out even after the Japanese Army pushed Gen. Douglas MacArthur from Corregidor, the last American stronghold in the Philippines.

Of all the Filipinos ordered into combat by Roosevelt, only 18,000 are alive today, with each passing day bringing another funeral.

The bill before the House would qualify these men to receive benefits for which other WWII veterans are eligible. It would use the same disability and income formulas for their Filipino comrades.

Those who oppose the bill argue that foreigners would be receiving veterans’ benefits. Let us not forget that, during WWII, the Philippines had been a commonwealth since being acquired by the United States in 1898 during the war against Spain — and that it was made subordinate to the American military.

Most importantly, when these men bled all over the Pacific Theater, they bled for the same cause as our soldiers who came from Kansas and California. They bled because of the same flag and from bullets fired by the same enemy.

Some argue this bill would take benefits away from American veterans. That is not true. The bill is fiscally responsible, paying for itself by closing a loophole that gives double payments to some veterans. The loophole would be closed for future instances but would not revoke benefits from any veteran currently receiving them.

Further, the act actually enhances benefits for other American veterans. Only one-third of its $853 million would restore benefits to Filipino veterans. The other two-thirds would pay for benefits such as adaptive automobile equipment for American veterans with severe burns and would help veterans obtain life insurance.

This bill responsibly refocuses priorities and fixes a mistake we made as a government more than six decades ago. One American virtue is that when we have made mistakes as a country, we have had the courage to fix them. This fix needs to happen soon so that it will be meaningful.

The hourglass has only a few grains left for old heroes such as Braga. He has been fighting for this recognition since 1969, when he joined a group seeking equity. Most in that group, including Mijares, have died waiting.

Funerals are sad enough occasions for Braga. We can, and should, give him the recognition he deserves before it is too late.

Rep. Mike Honda, a Democrat, and Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican, represent California in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

Urgent Appeal: RESPECT RULES OF WAR IN MINDANAO!

PRESS STATEMENT
August 27, 2008
REF:     ATTY. ZAINUDIN MALANG
             0928-5000432 
           
RESPECT RULES OF WAR IN MINDANAO!

 
Even as people are still reeling from events in Lanao del Norte, field reports from our colleagues in civil society continue to be disturbing.  Now that fighting has shifted to Moro areas, we hear of insufficient time given to civilians to vacate their villages before AFP bombardment begins.  We hear of food blockades against internally displaced people.  We hear of NGOs being prevented from delivering urgently needed relief items and media personalities being prevented from covering the humanitarian crisis.  We hear of a high ranking national official of DSWD complaining about the assistance to displaced families (25 kilos of rice, per family, per month) as being too “big”!
 
Therefore, we remind ALL PARTIES AND COMBATANTS of the Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions on the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, particularly on the protection of civilian populations.   Civilians enjoy protection from dangers arising from military operations (Art. 13-1).  Neither should they be subjected to attack (Art. 13-2), nor should acts of hostility be directed at places of worship (Art. 16).  Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited (Art. 14).
 
We call on United Nations humanitarian agencies, international organizations such as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and other members of the international community to insist upon their mandate and duty to deliver aid to the victims of conflict.  The concept of Right to Protect (R2P) necessarily includes the duty to protect.
 
We call on our friends in the media to equally report suffering by ALL communities.  We wish to remind them that 85% of the civilian victims of the 2000 and 2003 all out wars were Moros.   We remind them further of the public’s need to be provided with ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE reports from ALL SIDES to the conflict.  Recall too the writings of Noam Chomsky on manufacturing public consent to support a war by playing up unchallenged claims of successful military operations and attrocities of enemies.
Impartiality!  Neutrality! Non-Discrimination!  These are the basics of International Humanitarian Law.
ALLIANCE OF MUSLIM ADVOCATES OF LAW
BANGSAMORO LAWYERS’ NETWORK
MUSLIM LEGAL AID FOUNDATION, INC.
BANGSAMORO CENTER FOR LAW AND POLICY
UP MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (COLLEGE OF LAW)
ATENEO DE MANILA MUSLIM LAW STUDENTS

 

Letter of Concern Re: Mindanao

Please see the following letter regarding the Mindanao situation written by German friends. Mindanao has been used as a political bargaining chip - not least of all by GMA. Whether this is just another attempt to create a “crisis” situation to prolong her stay in power, or it is a situation where the MILF is calling the shots, innocent (and desperately impoverished) citizens are falling victim.

Please write to:

Chief Justice Reynato Puno

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Office of the Chief Justice

Padre Faura St., Ermita, 1000 Manila

Fax no: +632-5268129

E-mail: mpm@supremecourt.gov.ph

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Malacanang Palace,

J.P. Laurel St.

San Miguel 1005

Manila

PHILIPPINES

(correct address: Dear President)

Telefax: (00 632) 736 2495;

(00 632) 733 2107;

(00 632) 736 1010

Email: opnet@ops.gov.ph

Office of the Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process (OPAPP):

Presidential Advisor

Hermogenes Esperon Jr,

7 / F Agustin I Building, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Tel. Nos. 00636-07-01 to 06 and 636-3801 to 06
Fax No. 00638-2216

Email: osec@opapp.gov.ph

Ghazali Jaafar

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

Vice-Chairman for Political Affairs

Telefax: 0063644290174

Philippine Consulate General in New York
556 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036 US
Email: newyork@pcgny.net
(212) 764-1330
Fax: (212) 382-1146

Dear,

I would like to express my serious concern regarding the current conflict in central Mindanao. Due to the recent outbreak of war in Mindanao more than 70,000 people had become internally displaced and rely on humanitarian aid and on the conflicting parties to stop fighting. I would like to appeal to all actors in the conflict, the MILF, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) as well as local politicians and other armed groups to refrain from the use of violent force and adhere to the agreed peace process.

The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) recently issued by the Supreme Court has stalled the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA). While I consider this a major setback in the quest for peace, I believe that the Supreme Court shouldn’t allow itself to become a stumbling block in resolving a political conflict that requires a political solution. I therefore appeal to the Supreme Court to lift the TRO and allow the peace process to move forward.

There is a need for continued consultation, transparent dialogue and information on the MOA, not only in Mindanao, but in all of the Philippines. The MOA is the result of 110 consultative sessions between the MILF and the GRP since 2004. It embodies important aspirations of the Bangsamoro struggle, such as the right to self-determination as well as the commitment of the government to address the historic inequalities at the root of the conflict.

It is vital that these aspirations will not be used for any other agenda and that the accomplishments of the peace process will be honoured. Particularly those politicians who may feel threatened by the changes the MOA will bring about should be reminded of the fundamental right to self-determination of the Bangsamoro people as recognized under international law. The GRP should clearly intervene here to prevent further escalation. Inflammatory propaganda and militarisation on behalf of those who may loose from the MOA must not poison the relationship between the people of Mindanao.

With regard to current discussions on a charter change in connection to the MOA, I would like to point out that while there will indeed be a need for comprehensive legislative action with the signing of the MOA, it is premature to pursue these changes before the presidential election in 2010. According to the timeframe of the MOA it will take the parties twelve (12) months after the signing to proceed with the plebiscite and a total of fifteen (15) months to complete the negotiations and resolve all outstanding issues on the Comprehensive Compact. Given this timeframe there won’t be enough time to undertake charter changes via the GRP-MILF talks.

I appeal to all actors in the conflict to listen to the peaceful voices of the civilians and refugees in Mindanao – the Bangsamoro people, indigenous people and migrant settlers alike and to address the grievances at the root of the conflict.

Kind Regards,

 

Basil Lime Honey Lemongrass Chicken

So now that I’m here at my parent’s house enjoying the quiet life…so far from the craziness of international political activism (and missing it like I can’t explain!) In the meantime I’m enjoying taking care of my family. Today I made some really good chicken by combining different recipes and fudging around a bit, so I figured I better write down what I did before I forget in case I wanna make it again! Of course, all measurements are approximate

Basil Lime Honey Lemongrass Chicken

about 1.5 lbs. of chicken breast

which I cut into strips (for faster marinating - don’t forget to cut against the grain) about an inch thick and then marinated in:

3 cloves (2 tbsp?) minced garlic

1 tbsp minced ginger

juice of 1 lime

3 stalks of lemongrass (which I cut in half, tied and muddled)

1/4 honey

1/4 c. minced basil

black pepper

I pounded the chicken a bit when it was in the marinade and marinated for about 2 hours.

then, i toased about

2 tbsp sesame seeds in a wok (had some extra, really old sesame seeds around the house)

I stir-fried the chicken on high and took it out when half cooked. Of course, while frying, I put a little salt to bring out some flavor. Then I took out the chicken and  stir-fried 3 stems of scallions just until soft, re-added the chicken and cooked it till it was just about done. Then I added:

2 tbsp soy sauce

1 tbsp vinegar

2tsp brown sugar

the sesame seeds

1 tbsp flour

which i had mixed together beforehand to make a sauce. I also aded the rest of the marinade. When it seemed the four had cooked out and the sauce was kinda thick, I added vegetables (some frozen veggies and a can of bamboo shoots that I had onhand) and some cashew nuts. I cooked it till all the vegetables were soft and everything was coated. I tasted it a couple times while it was cooking and added additional salt, soy sauce (it was quite bland as listed, so I actually added a  lot more salt) and pepper.

 

I served this 2 ways: over plain rice and also as a filler with bihon and rice paper, to make Vietnamese-style summer-roll inspired idea (thanks to my Brisbane Viet Tan peeps!). Both were really really good! I just used whatever vegetables I had on hand, but next time I’d like to try broccoli, cauliflower, baby corn, snow peas, muchrooms…all the usual in Chinese stir fry. I’d also probably add more ginger (my ginger was still frozen and so I had a hard time peeling it, and we were out of ginger powder) and cashews - i only added a handful of cashews to this batch and i think they didnt really lend anything to the dish in their small quantity. I’d also make more sauce on a second attempt - the sauce was really good! Also, now that I think of it I think you’re supposed to add salt to marinades (helps with osmosis?), so i’ll look it up and try it or not accordingly next time.

best of all, the tanglad, basil, and spring onion came fresh from my mommy’s garden (aka growing in random places in the backyard). yay!

 

NOT Watching the Olympics!

As my family watches the opening games of the Olympics without me (ironically, I can convince national policymakers to change major public policy, but my own family is a whole different story), I ask you to take a moment and consider all the reasons why NOT to support the opening games!

Before listing the numerous reasons, please remember that you not watching CAN make a difference, 1) Because even those of us who think we don’t have a lot of political power, even those of us in our comfortable first world homes, have the ECONOMIC power to impact the major coporations that support the growth that China hopes to reap from the games, 2) Because the Nielsen ratings can tell whether or not your tv is tuned to the Olympics station (without you reporting) - everyone, and especially the corporations that have spent major money for advertising as well as the Chinese government, will be watching to see if the many campigns to boycott the Olympics actually have an impact.

(By the way, they just announced Bush is sitting next to Putin and joking around. GREAT!)

The Tiananmen Massacre

Visitors to the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing will be in a city that fewer than twenty years ago was the site of a massacre of innocent civilians by their government. As you enjoy the athletic events and the sights of the city, you may find yourself at street corners, subway stops, in parks or near hospitals where ordinary Chinese men and women were murdered.

US Campaign for Burma

Don’t Watch the Olympic Ceremonies: Human rights activists inside Burma have called on people around the world to not watch the Olympic ceremonies because of China’s support for the Burmese military. You can still support the athletes in what they do, support the Chinese people, and support the Games for what they stand for, but don’t support the Chinese government’s policies.

The Dalai Lama’s Olympic Handshake

The Beijing Olympics should be a moment to bring citizens around the world together. But the Chinese government still hasn’t opened meaningful dialogue on Tibet, or made progress on Burma and Darfur — and global activists’ messages are too often lost in a firestorm of accusations about being anti-Chinese.

Free Tibet

The Chinese government claimed human rights would improve in Tibet and China if Beijing won the right to host the 2008 Olympics. Instead of improving, the human rights situation in Tibet has deteriorated. As Beijing counts down to the Opening Ceremony, the Chinese government is already plotting to punish Tibetans for daring to call for freedom.

Save Darfur

While China continues to be Sudan’s largest economic and diplomatic ally, the genocide in Darfur continues in Darfur. China has done very little to help end the suffering. The Save Darfur Coalition along with our partner groups are working to get China to take action (see our joint statement on China and Darfur) and we need your help but time is running out.

Darfur’s Torchbearer

By revoking the visa of 2006 Olympian Joey Cheek at the very last moment because he had the nerve to speak out about Darfur and the Chinese government’s support for Sudan’s barbarous regime, Chinese authorities guaranteed that the opening of these Games would focus as much on politics as on sports. The burden now is not on China’s critics but on its government.

 

Police State of the Nation

First, it seems I was not the only one who picked up on the complete lack of logic in Ermita’s statement, (see Ellen Tordesillas: “’Let the people be judge of GMA,’” Ermita said. The survey score is the people’s judgment.” Mon Casiple: “They illogically echoed each other, chorusing that ‘it is the people who will decide the popularity of the president, not surveys.’ As if the ones surveyed are not a cross-section of and scientifically representative of the people.” Conrado de Quiros: “It’s as if she’s saying, ‘What has being elected or serving the people got to do with being president?’ No, more than that, it’s as if she’s saying, ‘What has being disliked, detested and reviled by the people got to do with me leading them wherever I damn please?’”

Anyway, another gut reaction to another great thing Ate Glo has done. In preparation for the SONA address, several barangay leaders were “asked” to impose curfews and prohibit public drinking. This weekend, 120 people were rounded up and detained for violating this (I don’t even know what to call it…temporary and suddenly declared ordinance?), but, like so many, later released when it was found that none of the men had any criminal records or posed any actual threat to the safety and security of their communities. (see full story)

So despite our strong proclivity to brush such actions off as yet another unnecessary action, and one not so important because no one was actually harmed, I would like to point out several things wrong with this situation and how they contribute to the deterioration of our democracy:

1) This curfew is supposedly a city ordinance that applies only to a few barangays and, and uncoincidentally, barangays with high poverty levels. Yet, the very imposition of the curfew is illegal. It is difficult to believe there is an actual ordinace; it has no record. Furthermore, even if such ordinance exists, it must be published. Rehashing some of the arguments from GMA’s infamous curfew after the Manila Pen Incident last year:

1. As an inherent and extraordinary power of the State, police power is exercised through legislation. A curfew imposed without any law or legal order is illegal and unconstitutional. (Atty. Theodore Te)

2. The President has no authority to curtail freedom of movement. Also, such a directive needs to be in writing and has to be published. (Atty. Marichu Lambino).

3. The curfew imposition is unlawful and contrary to the Constitution — our right to liberty, our right to travel, our constitutionally guaranteed rights that cannot be curtailed or disregarded by executive order. Even curfews imposed in town and barangays need local ordinance. (Sen. Francis Pangilinan)

4. There is no right in Philippine law to impose a curfew on ALL PERSONS. There is only the ability to impose a curfew on minors. (Thanks to Dissenting Opinion. See also PCIJ.)

These legal arguments are, of course, in addition to all the overlooked  guarantees of personal liberty in the constitution.

2) The City “asked” barangay leaders to impose this curfew. Asked, in reality of course meaning the QC police went to the barangay chairmen and told them to impose a curfew. This not only brings into question whether or not barangay officials actually told their communities, but also the right of the City police department to basically co-opt the barangay. I don’t know the answer to this and I must admit that reading the Local Government Code of 1991 hasn’t left me with a clearer picture, but the LGU code as well as the 1987 Constitution portray an overwhelming spirit of the autonomy and limited sovereignty of the barangay, and are more explicit that the role of the city is “oversight.”

3) More generally, this temporary, suddenly-proclaimed, so-called ordinance is in direct violation of the basic legal principle that good law requires consistency and prior notice. A legal system where new ordinances can pop up all willy-nilly and be arbitrarily enforced is not systematic at all. It takes away one of the main purposes of democracy, which is some guarantee that government will be rational and not subject to the whims of a person or small group. Arbitrary laws (and the arbitrary imposition of laws) are authoritarian. (See Railway Express Agency, Inc. vs. New York, “Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.” Kennedy’s opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas for expanded argument)

4) Once again, people were arrested, detained and then released and this is supposed to be alright.

• If the ordinance was real, why were they released? If they were guilty of committing a crime their arrests were justified and they should not have been released. Their relsease, at the mercy and benevolence of the authorities, would have been another example of arbitrary justice and patronage. It takes away from democracy becasue one’s fate is not longer determined by a ratinal legal system, but by the will of hte authority.
• More likely, the ordinance did not exist to begin with and the police rounded these people up becasue they could. The police simply wanted to assert their authority and send a clear message that if GMA can arrest people for doing something ordinary on a Saturday night, don’t even thinkabout speaking or acting against her. The people were then released after it was demonstrated that none of them had criminal records supports this second theory - the police basically rounded them up hoping to find a reason to continue detaining them, but couldn’t.
• Similar arrests, detainment and then release after it was shown that there was no need for the detainments in the first place have happened before. (Think the Manila Pen incident - a big hoopla and then all were unconditionally released for lack of case). The ability of the police to detain at will and then release without consequence. Detainment without being charged. This is basically a form of de facto imprisonment without reason. Check the Guantanamo arguments.

5) And the kicker, 120 people were arrested for drinking on a Saturday night! Come on people, open your eyes. What do people do on Saturday nights? They sit around with their friends, throw back a couple beers, and make kuwento. In most neighborhoods, but especially in urban poor communities, where homes are too small and hot and going to a bar will add to expenses, you sit and drink in front of your house. Filipinos work hard. Filipinos suffer. And now, you want to arrest them for one of the small joys they have?

Welcome to the police state of the nation.

 

Ermita’s Daily derrrr Moment

Reading the Inquirer website today over my morning coffee, I clicked on the first headline in the nation column, an article titled: “Let people be the judge of Arroyo.” Of course, my immediate reaction to this statement was a jubilant, “OK!”

But, much to my chagrin (and half-laughing, half-yelling at the computer screen), what I went on to read was a series of incredibly incoherent statements by EDSA hero-come toady marionette, Executive Secretary Ermita. A rundown:

The article begins by summarizing the Palace’s stance with “The people, not surveys, should judge President Macapagal-Arroyo’s performance.”

Um, excuse me, but isn’t the whole point of surveys to reflect the sentiments of the people? The Palace is not willing to go so far as to question SWS’s methodology, so in essence it accepts that the surveys that say the President has a negative 38 percent rating are sound measures of the nation’s sentiments. So, although Ermita accepts that SWS survey results = the people’s judgement, he says that people, and not the survey should judge the President. Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Ermita then went on to reiterate that much-loved Malacañang phrase: running and managing the country “is not a popularity contest.”

Well, I too will reiterate my main message in “Ready to Serve,” holding public office in a democracy is largely a popularity contest. You are always under obligation to answer to the will of the people; you serve only at the pleasure of the people. Telling the people that “you may hate me but I don’t care, what I’m doing is good for you,” is demeaning, it strips the citizenry of their dignity, and illustrates how this administration is just another perpetuator (patron) of the clientelist system.

Ermita then went on to “wonder” why all the good things that the President has done for the people haven’t been recognized, like the Katas ng E-VAT, NFA rice subsidies, and the ever-present “infrastructure projects” that supposedly create jobs.

So, the Presidency is not a popularity contest. Can anyone honestly and convincingly make the argument that these actions, are not populist in nature? Keep them poor, keep them dependent, and as a result we will keep them quiet.

Then, after refusing to question SWS’ methodology, Ermita went on to say “What is important is for the people to feel the effects of what the President is doing, so that they will see that the President has real concern over their plight.”

Oh, the people feel it alright. the highest inflation in 14 years, increasing rates of hunger, 71% of the people self-identifying as poor or very poor and 59% saying their situation has worsened in the last year, a decrease in personal optimism (in other words, a decrease in HOPE) and rise in economic pessimism. Of these and numerous other indicators, what hits me the most (and what should hit the President) is the decrease in hope, which is all that far too many families have. We feel what the President is doing alright, talagang ramdam na ramdam namin.

I only wish the President felt what she is doing to us. Despite my salty rhetoric I still have some faith that she is capable of mercy.

And finally, just for laughs, Ermita threw in that the President will prove in the SONA that “is a very active performing achiever, performing political leader, performing President.”

So, the record national disapproval ratings of the President, measured scientifically by a reputable (indeed, the Palace quotes SWS when it has results which are favorable to the administration) institution are not enough to prove that she is not doing a good job. We should look at the effects on the ground and the real difference in people’s lives. Okay. But wait, forget looking to the ground, a speech she will deliver next month will be enough to prove she’s doing a good job!

Yeah. The tortuous logic Secretary Ermita. Then again, he doesn’t actually like her, so maybe he’s incoherent on purpose. Sa abangan…

 

The Market NYC on 490 Hudson

So lots of people have seen me hawking the jewelry collection I brought back to the U.S. from the Philippines. It’s mostly freshwater pearls, semi-precious stones (like jade, turquoise, amethyst, jasper, etc) and murano glass.

Well, this Saturday, I’ll be showing off this stuff, some other pieces I’ve made, pieces I acquired in Thailand (mostly from Burmese traders who snuck them across the border, so they’re actually from Burma), as well as other Southeast Asian fare, such as woven bags, home decorations, etc.

I really hope that this takes off and can turn into a livelihod project for collectives and rural villages. So if you’re wandering around the Lower West Side anytime between noon and 7 on Saturday, please stop by! (The Market showcases a lot of stuff from young designers in the area, so you wouldn’t just be coming for me:))

The Market NYC at Hudson

490 Hudson Street (between Christopher and Grove)

12-7 on Saturday

Some examples of stuff:

 

Thought for the day: Filipinos do not suffer from a lack of discipline

Thought for the day:

I’ve heard so many people say that the Philippines is not advancing because there is something culturally wrong with Filipinos. Perhaps by far the most popular statement is that “Filipinos have no discipline.” I’ve even heard some old timers yearn for the early days of Marcos because people at that time “had so much discipline.”

I would like to vehemently disagree. The problem is not that Filipinos have no discipline. The problem is that Filipinos have too much discipline. The problem is that Filipinos have so much discipline and are so well-taught not to speak up against figures of “authority,” that they just grin and bear it even when they see something wrong happening. Filipinos have so much discipline that they stay fervently loyal to particular people, names, groups and areas, even when these objects of their loyalty have moved far beyond whatever it was they or their predecesors did to earn that loyalty in the first place. Filipinos have so much discipline that they listen to their parents when choosing a course or career; they make life decisions based on their parent’s natural proclivity towards stability rather than their own natural proclivity towards greatness. Filipinos have so much discipline they work and work extra hard in a system that makes the its perpetual victims because “that’s just the way it is.”

The problem is not a lack of discipline. It’s too much discipline.

 

Election Forensics - Regression Analysis of Philippine Elections

I’ve been avoiding posting for the last couple months because I promised myself the next post would be my long paper on election forensics. Finally, after much delay, here it is.

The paper is divided into two parts. The first is a regression analysis with percent voter turnout as the dependent variable and the socioeconomic variables of total popuation, voting age population, gender, urban/rural classification, municipal income classification, education, age, percent overseas Filipino workers, religion, marital status and household size as the independent variables. This test was run for all municipalities in the Philippines. Statistically significant positive relationships were found for percent voter turnout and municipal income class, education level, percent OFW, some religious groups and household size. Statistically significant negative relationships were found for percent voter turnout and urban classification and the Iglesia ni Kristo religious group. The second section held these socioeconomic variables as the independent variables, but tested percent support for gubernatorial candidates identified as “new entrants” or “reform” candidates in the 2007 elections. Except for the factor of age for Gov. Tupas of Iloilo, these tests failed to yield statistically significant results. These results indicate that socioeconomic characteristics are related to voting behavior, as there are clear relationships with voter turnout, but who certain groupd do or do not vote for is still unclear. This disconnect suggests the failure of campaigns to target voters based on social groups, and suggests that doing so may be an effective alternative to traditional campaign methods.