Posts
by Ronald Jabal
Wedges and Quirks in RH Bill Passage: The presence of partisan actors
However, current members of both Houses of Congress do not simply wish to reflect the sentiment of the majority. There are various actors and issues that impinge and affect their decisions in adopting RH as part of the agenda.
And we can chart the various “intervening” factors that one way or the other affects the passage of the RH bill using a number of conceptual frameworks and theories in agenda setting and policy formulation.
We can readily see that there are numerous actors in the policy arena not just the general public. There are both visible and hidden actors in policy development.
With the number of actors to contend with and face in the deliberations of the RH bill, surely, Senators and Congressmen are faced with a number of policy options and a wide array of influences that will eventually affect their decisions.
Unfortunately, these actors do not think alike. They compete and offer different solutions. The interplay of national, local and personal interests between and among these actors can surely affect Congressmen and Senators’ decision-making processes in RH bill.
Clearly the indecisiveness and the reluctant support of members of Congress to the RH bill can be probably rooted to the various interests that they have to weigh.
Questions that continually hound Senators and Congressmen include among others:
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how would media paint me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how the Church look at me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how the President view me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, will my political party like or dislike me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how would the civil society see me?
· Will my chances in the next election be diminished or improved?
It is this hemming and hawing – the interplay between the initiator and the trigger device plus the resultant event – that continues to pose a huge wedge and stumbling block in the passage of RH bill.
The middle ground: is this the high ground?
Given the seeming stalemate among the actors which has seriously placed a huge cloud of doubt in the passage of the current RH bill, a compromise can be reached and this is where a political operator and/or advocacy specialist can come into play.
A compromise method which accepts the mixture of both mandate and independent theories in representative democracy is being proposed. This means utilizing the survey results (public sentiment/mandate) and aggregating pro-RH bill sentiments from various political and non-political actors in the policy arena can further advance the cause of RH bill in both Houses.
The Pulse survey results plus other surveys and studies that can show groundswell of support from all over the country and various sectors/industries should be highlighted all the time in various forums. While public forums and academic circles help, the media should be used as the perfect conduit to drive/expand support to the RH bill.
It can help if pro-RH Senators and Congressmen come out publicly, declaring their support to the RH bill which is one way of showing all actors (general public, elected and appointed officials, civil society) that congressional support is present, palpable and “countable”.
To date, while NGOs and POs assume they have the support of more than 100 congressmen and a number of Senators, only very few have publicly endorsed the bill. Publishing the names with their signatures in full page advertisements can surely create the buzz and a bandwagon effect to others who may felt “alone” in their struggle against the RH bill.
Numerous surveys and studies have already indicated the absence of Catholic votes and the pitiful support of the laity in CBCP’s pronouncements. The pro-RH bill should capitalize on these and continually air these studies/surveys/sentiments in public – in all forums.
What the Church has is a perception of might and it does not have the numbers. The Pro-RH can simply demystify the Church is mighty myth and even fearful politicians will support the RH bill. If the Church resorts to “dirty tactics”, these should be exposed right away and ventilated in the press. The Church uses the press all the time, why can’t the pro-RH bill tap the press as well.
The pro-RH bill needs a human face. It needs one spokesperson that the press can go to. The current campaign is not as organized as the CBCP. There should be a need to consolidate, regroup and plan specific messages to specific channels of communication. Numbers may/will come when perception is won.
While pro-RH bills groundwork the press, they also need to do more personal visits with pro-RH Senators and Congressmen assuring them public support. Using public support, watered down influence of the Church and expanded support from a number of civil society groups, they should be able to convince Senators and Congressmen to support the RH bill.
The pro-RH bills can also make an effort to make the population/RH proposals an election issue (that is if the current Congress is unable to pass it). Demanding from current prospective candidates through public and media pressure their respective position on the RH bill is one way of letting the public know who is supportive or against RH.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The saga of the Reproductive Health Bill: a blow or an affirmation of representative democracy? (Part 1)
by Ronald Jabal
The issue of the current Reproductive Health Bill remains a heated and controversial issue as the first RH bill that was ever filed in Congress. And the polemics between the pros and cons have always marred the passage of bill which remains crucial in population management - yet another policy issue that has remained elusive in a country that is exponentially expanding every year.
Central to this RH bill is political dynamics of the numerous actors involved from agenda setting up to policy adoption. However, what are not normally highlighted in the numerous debates are the roles of Congressmen (both from the House of Representatives and the Senate) i.e. should Congressmen listen to the overwhelming sentiment of the population most of whom are voters or should they listen to themselves and adopt a personal stand on this issue which is not supportive of the majority’s sentiment.
Clearly, the RH bill foregrounds the age-old dilemma of what is the real meaning of representative democracy.
Some political theorists argued that the proper function of the representative assembly in a true democracy is not to initiate policies on its own but only to register the policy preferences of the popular majority it represents.
This is sometimes called the Mandate Theory. In this view, as long as the representative assembly (i.e. Congress) confines itself to registering its constituent’s views, representation involves no significant departure from democratic principles. But when the assembly begins to make policy on its own, in either ignorance or in defiance of its constituents’ desires, it becomes a kind of oligarchy.
But others argued it is neither possible nor desirable in modern nation. For those who espouse “independence” theory, the representative must initiate – and not merely register policies. For them, representatives should exercise their judgment on public affairs independently and without surrendering the final decisions to their constituents
Clearly, this divide is shown in the RH bill debate.
The recent nationwide survey of Pulse Asia (October 2008) on the RH bill shows a number of results that should prompt Congressmen in both Houses to adopt RH as part of its agenda and move to pass the bill. The survey results that could be use to facilitate passage of the RH bill are as follows:
1. The Pulse survey says a big majority of Filipinos (82%) thinks government should not only educate couples regarding modern methods of family planning (both natural and artificial) but also provide them with services and materials on these methods.
This view is articulated by big to overwhelming majorities (76% to 91%) in all geographic areas and socio-economic classes. In addition, exactly the same percentage says that it is the government’s duty to provide the people with knowledge, services, and materials on modern methods of family planning.
Less than one in ten Filipinos (6% to 8%) disagrees with either view while indecision on these matters is expressed by 10% to 13% of Filipinos
2. The Pulse survey shows that about four in ten Filipinos (44%) say the government should pass a law specifying the number of children couples may have Only two in ten (19%) are undecided on the issue.
Across geographic areas and socio-economic classes, big pluralities to small majorities (45% to 58%) in Metro Manila, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Classes D and E favor the idea of government passing a law on the number of children couples may have.
3. The Pulse survey also once again shatters the alleged fear of Congressmen and Senators of an overwhelmingly backlash from the Catholics if they publicly support the RH bill. Results show that while 49% of Filipinos say couples should follow what their religion tells them about family planning, 44% are ambivalent as regards the possibility of their church or religion influencing their vote for a candidate advocating modern family planning methods.
This is a good indication that almost half of Filipinos are either ambivalent on the Church dictates or do not agree that couples are obliged to abide by the teachings of their religion on family planning
4. On top of the above-mentioned results, Congressmen and Senators should take refuge on the results that show when it comes to the impact of their church or religion on their decision as to whether or not to vote for a candidate supporting modern family planning methods, indecision is the predominant public sentiment at the national level (44%) and particularly in the rest of Luzon, the Visayas, and Classes D and E (42% to 52%).
5. Interestingly, Congressmen and Senators should take most important note of the results that show most Filipinos are aware of the reproductive health bill pending at the House of Representatives (68%) and are in favor of the bill (63%) and only 8% are not in favor and 29% are ambivalent on the matter.
Majorities ranging from 56% in the Visayas to 79% in Class ABC are in favor of the bill. Surprisingly, those 8% of who not supportive of the bill is not 100% against it. Based on the survey results, among the 8% of Filipinos who do not favor the proposed legislation, additional survey findings show that:
(1) 47% agree with the need to promote information and access to natural and modern family planning methods;
(2) 69% agree with the provision of the bill recognizing the rights of women and couples to choose the family method they want;
(3) about the same percentages either agree or disagree (36% versus 35%) with the inclusion of sex education in the school curricula; and
(4) 44% believe government funds should be used to support modern family planning methods. Indecision on these issues is expressed by 20% to 33% of Filipinos while disagreement is articulated by 10% to 35%. Public disagreement is most manifest in relation to the proposal to include sex education in the school curricula (35%)
If the survey results alone were to be used by Congressmen and Senators in the adoption of the RH agenda and its eventual passage, the RH bill will clearly pass both Houses and will soon be enacted into law.
If both Houses of Congress were only to reflect the sentiments of the majority of the Filipinos most of which are voters (and who most probably voted them in office), then the RH bill’s passage is as sure as the rise of the morning sun.
The issue of the current Reproductive Health Bill remains a heated and controversial issue as the first RH bill that was ever filed in Congress. And the polemics between the pros and cons have always marred the passage of bill which remains crucial in population management - yet another policy issue that has remained elusive in a country that is exponentially expanding every year.
Central to this RH bill is political dynamics of the numerous actors involved from agenda setting up to policy adoption. However, what are not normally highlighted in the numerous debates are the roles of Congressmen (both from the House of Representatives and the Senate) i.e. should Congressmen listen to the overwhelming sentiment of the population most of whom are voters or should they listen to themselves and adopt a personal stand on this issue which is not supportive of the majority’s sentiment.
Clearly, the RH bill foregrounds the age-old dilemma of what is the real meaning of representative democracy.
Some political theorists argued that the proper function of the representative assembly in a true democracy is not to initiate policies on its own but only to register the policy preferences of the popular majority it represents.
This is sometimes called the Mandate Theory. In this view, as long as the representative assembly (i.e. Congress) confines itself to registering its constituent’s views, representation involves no significant departure from democratic principles. But when the assembly begins to make policy on its own, in either ignorance or in defiance of its constituents’ desires, it becomes a kind of oligarchy.
But others argued it is neither possible nor desirable in modern nation. For those who espouse “independence” theory, the representative must initiate – and not merely register policies. For them, representatives should exercise their judgment on public affairs independently and without surrendering the final decisions to their constituents
Clearly, this divide is shown in the RH bill debate.
The recent nationwide survey of Pulse Asia (October 2008) on the RH bill shows a number of results that should prompt Congressmen in both Houses to adopt RH as part of its agenda and move to pass the bill. The survey results that could be use to facilitate passage of the RH bill are as follows:
1. The Pulse survey says a big majority of Filipinos (82%) thinks government should not only educate couples regarding modern methods of family planning (both natural and artificial) but also provide them with services and materials on these methods.
This view is articulated by big to overwhelming majorities (76% to 91%) in all geographic areas and socio-economic classes. In addition, exactly the same percentage says that it is the government’s duty to provide the people with knowledge, services, and materials on modern methods of family planning.
Less than one in ten Filipinos (6% to 8%) disagrees with either view while indecision on these matters is expressed by 10% to 13% of Filipinos
2. The Pulse survey shows that about four in ten Filipinos (44%) say the government should pass a law specifying the number of children couples may have Only two in ten (19%) are undecided on the issue.
Across geographic areas and socio-economic classes, big pluralities to small majorities (45% to 58%) in Metro Manila, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Classes D and E favor the idea of government passing a law on the number of children couples may have.
3. The Pulse survey also once again shatters the alleged fear of Congressmen and Senators of an overwhelmingly backlash from the Catholics if they publicly support the RH bill. Results show that while 49% of Filipinos say couples should follow what their religion tells them about family planning, 44% are ambivalent as regards the possibility of their church or religion influencing their vote for a candidate advocating modern family planning methods.
This is a good indication that almost half of Filipinos are either ambivalent on the Church dictates or do not agree that couples are obliged to abide by the teachings of their religion on family planning
4. On top of the above-mentioned results, Congressmen and Senators should take refuge on the results that show when it comes to the impact of their church or religion on their decision as to whether or not to vote for a candidate supporting modern family planning methods, indecision is the predominant public sentiment at the national level (44%) and particularly in the rest of Luzon, the Visayas, and Classes D and E (42% to 52%).
5. Interestingly, Congressmen and Senators should take most important note of the results that show most Filipinos are aware of the reproductive health bill pending at the House of Representatives (68%) and are in favor of the bill (63%) and only 8% are not in favor and 29% are ambivalent on the matter.
Majorities ranging from 56% in the Visayas to 79% in Class ABC are in favor of the bill. Surprisingly, those 8% of who not supportive of the bill is not 100% against it. Based on the survey results, among the 8% of Filipinos who do not favor the proposed legislation, additional survey findings show that:
(1) 47% agree with the need to promote information and access to natural and modern family planning methods;
(2) 69% agree with the provision of the bill recognizing the rights of women and couples to choose the family method they want;
(3) about the same percentages either agree or disagree (36% versus 35%) with the inclusion of sex education in the school curricula; and
(4) 44% believe government funds should be used to support modern family planning methods. Indecision on these issues is expressed by 20% to 33% of Filipinos while disagreement is articulated by 10% to 35%. Public disagreement is most manifest in relation to the proposal to include sex education in the school curricula (35%)
If the survey results alone were to be used by Congressmen and Senators in the adoption of the RH agenda and its eventual passage, the RH bill will clearly pass both Houses and will soon be enacted into law.
If both Houses of Congress were only to reflect the sentiments of the majority of the Filipinos most of which are voters (and who most probably voted them in office), then the RH bill’s passage is as sure as the rise of the morning sun.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Keeping the music alive for the Dugong’s dance of joy
by Ronald Jabal
Mang Carding was just about to set sail for his daily routine of gathering bangus fry in the pristine waters of Barangay Mapalad, Dinalungan Aurora, when he saw two large white sea animals rolling side by side in the shallower, low-tide areas of the water, engaged in an almost playful banter.
Focused more on gathering bangus fry that day, taking advantage of the lantapin season where calmer seas prevail, Mang Carding almost ignored the antics of these sea visitors.
But his jaw dropped when he moved closer and found out these are not regular sea creatures but what they have recently found out as dugongs or sea cows – thanks in part to mass media and to the information given by local officials.
He was witnessing a dance of joy- dugong style. Dugongs are unique marine mammals that have distinct distinguishing marks: wedge-shaped tail that is deeply notched at the midline, hence in ancient times seafarers have mistakenly called them mermaids.
They have front flippers. Males have two tusks (the upper incisors) that may grow as long as 10 inches. Adult dugongs can grow up to three meters long and weigh more than 400 kilograms.
What Mang Carding witnessed was indeed, a dance of joy, confirmed Fisheries Technologist Alex de Vera of the Municipality of Dinalungan. Himself a witness of numerous dugongs sightings, de Vera has even seen butandings in the area, previously referred to, by local fisherfolk, as “camouflage” (as in the military uniform called camouflage”), owing to the spots on the skin of this mammoth sea animal.
It is a “dance of joy”, de Vera said, because it is in Dinalungan that these dugongs have found an abundance of food – the seagrass called Halophila spinulosa.
“Ang Dinalungan po ay isa sa may pinakamalaking sea grass reserves sa Pilipinas kung kaya’t nandito po ang mga dugong. Kumbaga parang naging feeding ground na ang Dinalungan, Aurora ng mga dugong, (Dinalungan has one of the biggest sea grass reserves in the Philippines. Hence, it has become the feeding ground of dugong)” de Vera said.
Dinalungan is located at the northern part of Aurora province, 80 kms from Baler, the provincial capital. It is bounded on the northeast by Casiguran municipality, on the northwest by Quirino Province, on the southeast by Casiguran and on the southwest by Dipaculao municipality.
De Vera’s observation was confirmed by a study called the Participatory Coastal Resources Assessment (PCRA). The PCRA was conducted by a multi-sectoral study group composed of members of the local community, the officials of the Dinalungan Aurora and technical experts from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
In the PCRA study, it was disclosed that a meadow of the seagrass Halophila spinulosa at the deeper portions of the coastal municipality was found and is believed to be one the largest sea grass reserves in the country and in the world.
“The new finding would place Dinalungan on the global map, holding the northernmost record of H. spinulosa occurrence,” the study said. The study furthered that these sea grass meadows along the Dinalungan coastline could be critical areas as ‘refueling’ stations for dugongs and marine turtles migrating north and south of eastern Luzon. “
Without these ‘refueling’ stations, albeit thin and scarce, the migrating endangered herbivores might not be able to make it to areas where food is bountiful.
Hence, the municipality of Dinalungan has two strong reasons to protect and conserve these scarce H. spinulosa meadows: (1) world’s northernmost record of occurrence of the species, and; (2) these meadows are probably critical ‘refueling’ stations of dugongs and turtles frequently sighted in its waters.
By creating ordinance(s) and programs protecting these beds will not only keep its place on the global map (being the northernmost place where H. spinulosa is found) but also will ensure the continued existence of the endangered dugongs and marine turtles,” the study concluded.
The sightings of these dugongs in Dinalungan, Aurora are of significant importance to marine conservationists as data from late 90s showed that these sea mammals can only be seen in very few places namely Palawan, Romblon, Guimaras and Davao Oriental. There were also reported sightings in Catanduanes, Mindoro, Cuyo, Iloilo and Pandan, Antique.
Since 1982, the International Union for Conservation of Nature-World Conservation Union classified dugong as vulnerable to extinction.
Mang Carding was just about to set sail for his daily routine of gathering bangus fry in the pristine waters of Barangay Mapalad, Dinalungan Aurora, when he saw two large white sea animals rolling side by side in the shallower, low-tide areas of the water, engaged in an almost playful banter.
Focused more on gathering bangus fry that day, taking advantage of the lantapin season where calmer seas prevail, Mang Carding almost ignored the antics of these sea visitors.
But his jaw dropped when he moved closer and found out these are not regular sea creatures but what they have recently found out as dugongs or sea cows – thanks in part to mass media and to the information given by local officials.
He was witnessing a dance of joy- dugong style. Dugongs are unique marine mammals that have distinct distinguishing marks: wedge-shaped tail that is deeply notched at the midline, hence in ancient times seafarers have mistakenly called them mermaids.
They have front flippers. Males have two tusks (the upper incisors) that may grow as long as 10 inches. Adult dugongs can grow up to three meters long and weigh more than 400 kilograms.
What Mang Carding witnessed was indeed, a dance of joy, confirmed Fisheries Technologist Alex de Vera of the Municipality of Dinalungan. Himself a witness of numerous dugongs sightings, de Vera has even seen butandings in the area, previously referred to, by local fisherfolk, as “camouflage” (as in the military uniform called camouflage”), owing to the spots on the skin of this mammoth sea animal.
It is a “dance of joy”, de Vera said, because it is in Dinalungan that these dugongs have found an abundance of food – the seagrass called Halophila spinulosa.
“Ang Dinalungan po ay isa sa may pinakamalaking sea grass reserves sa Pilipinas kung kaya’t nandito po ang mga dugong. Kumbaga parang naging feeding ground na ang Dinalungan, Aurora ng mga dugong, (Dinalungan has one of the biggest sea grass reserves in the Philippines. Hence, it has become the feeding ground of dugong)” de Vera said.
Dinalungan is located at the northern part of Aurora province, 80 kms from Baler, the provincial capital. It is bounded on the northeast by Casiguran municipality, on the northwest by Quirino Province, on the southeast by Casiguran and on the southwest by Dipaculao municipality.
De Vera’s observation was confirmed by a study called the Participatory Coastal Resources Assessment (PCRA). The PCRA was conducted by a multi-sectoral study group composed of members of the local community, the officials of the Dinalungan Aurora and technical experts from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
In the PCRA study, it was disclosed that a meadow of the seagrass Halophila spinulosa at the deeper portions of the coastal municipality was found and is believed to be one the largest sea grass reserves in the country and in the world.
“The new finding would place Dinalungan on the global map, holding the northernmost record of H. spinulosa occurrence,” the study said. The study furthered that these sea grass meadows along the Dinalungan coastline could be critical areas as ‘refueling’ stations for dugongs and marine turtles migrating north and south of eastern Luzon. “
Without these ‘refueling’ stations, albeit thin and scarce, the migrating endangered herbivores might not be able to make it to areas where food is bountiful.
Hence, the municipality of Dinalungan has two strong reasons to protect and conserve these scarce H. spinulosa meadows: (1) world’s northernmost record of occurrence of the species, and; (2) these meadows are probably critical ‘refueling’ stations of dugongs and turtles frequently sighted in its waters.
By creating ordinance(s) and programs protecting these beds will not only keep its place on the global map (being the northernmost place where H. spinulosa is found) but also will ensure the continued existence of the endangered dugongs and marine turtles,” the study concluded.
The sightings of these dugongs in Dinalungan, Aurora are of significant importance to marine conservationists as data from late 90s showed that these sea mammals can only be seen in very few places namely Palawan, Romblon, Guimaras and Davao Oriental. There were also reported sightings in Catanduanes, Mindoro, Cuyo, Iloilo and Pandan, Antique.
Since 1982, the International Union for Conservation of Nature-World Conservation Union classified dugong as vulnerable to extinction.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Lack of Awaressness on HIV/AIDS still hounds sex workers
by Ronald Jabal
In an age where AIDS seems to be in the consciousness of every Filipino, lack of appropriate information remains to be a problem, ironically, among those who are most vulnerable to this serious health risk. And this vital information should be a major heads up to campaign planners devising strategies on HIV/AIDS.
In a recent FGD conducted by an NGO in Zamboanga City, majority of the respondents disclose that they still do no know how to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS "because they don't know about the infection".
They said they do not know if individuals are infected because "hindi nila alam ang HIV/ADS at hindi nakikita sa katawan ng tao".
Some of them blame the information materials being distributed, stressing the materials no longer have "impact" among target groups. These materials are apparently merely being thrown away as they lack the "visuals". They continue to demand "fear" tactic to help most vulnerable groups understand the consequences of getting this virus.
But others admitted that they know the risks and yet they continue to engage in unprotected sex thereby exposing them further to possibility of contracting the disease. The reason: reduced sensation; clients insist on not using condoms; and self-confidence that they are safe anyways. More than anything else, for some, the issue is attitudinal.
To help arrest the growing problem, the FGD participants had these to say:
In an age where AIDS seems to be in the consciousness of every Filipino, lack of appropriate information remains to be a problem, ironically, among those who are most vulnerable to this serious health risk. And this vital information should be a major heads up to campaign planners devising strategies on HIV/AIDS.
In a recent FGD conducted by an NGO in Zamboanga City, majority of the respondents disclose that they still do no know how to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS "because they don't know about the infection".
They said they do not know if individuals are infected because "hindi nila alam ang HIV/ADS at hindi nakikita sa katawan ng tao".
Some of them blame the information materials being distributed, stressing the materials no longer have "impact" among target groups. These materials are apparently merely being thrown away as they lack the "visuals". They continue to demand "fear" tactic to help most vulnerable groups understand the consequences of getting this virus.
But others admitted that they know the risks and yet they continue to engage in unprotected sex thereby exposing them further to possibility of contracting the disease. The reason: reduced sensation; clients insist on not using condoms; and self-confidence that they are safe anyways. More than anything else, for some, the issue is attitudinal.
To help arrest the growing problem, the FGD participants had these to say:
- Capitalize on life stories of people living with HIV/AIDS and videotape them whenever possible
- Strengthen information dissemination through TV
- Do away with fliers; use flip chart during interpersonal sessions
- Visuals visuals visuals
- Scare away
- Casual conversation is best in information sharing (no more lectures)
- Involve mayor and barangay officials in info drive
- Distribute IEC materials and coupled with educational conversation
Interestingly, participants are heavy users of TV and are less likely to read newspapers. Men who have sex with men are more Internet savvy preferring to stay online most of the times to look for sex.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Conversations with Dr. J on Public Relations (PR)
(Note: Dr. J has always been my "self-brand" since I started doing PR work. I will soon realize it when I finish my PhD. Anyway, I wish to share a recent interview on me and my work)
What inspired you or drove you to enter the PR industry?
I wanted to be part of the action. I just didn’t want to write about it. I was a reporter and I was happy with what I was doing at the beginning. I got to meet a lot of high-level personalities in the fields of politics and business. I hobnobbed with them and chronicled what they were doing.
However, after while, I found myself wanting to be part of events not as a chronicler but as a participant. I found myself wanting to shape what can happen and what will happen with reporters willingly writing about it. I guess it is this power of the PR that attracted me to the industry.
More than muscle, this power involved psychology – an expression of wit, elan and creativity that people around me feel and follow without them feeling my physical presence. As PR I shape, mold, convince, and persuade without people knowing they are being shaped, molded, convinced and persuaded. I thought that was magic and the magic remains. This is wizardry without the robe and the wand.
What was your greatest break?—or event that led to your continued success?
The greatest break occurs every time one falls, at the heels of mistakes, and at the moment of wrong decisions. The learning after these falls make one better than ever. I had a number of these “falls” during my early years. I had become a PR manager at the age of 22. I didn’t know the intricacies of PR. I didn’t know who to trust and not to trust. My naivete in the industry at that time showed all over.
But I slowly rose from the doldrums and the quagmire of a number of missteps and wrong curbs. I gained more confidence and never looked back. I put up my first PR agency at the age of 25. I suffered yet another series of mistakes.
Owning an agency is far different from being a mere employee. Relationships are a lot different when you are on your own. From bad pitches to new clients and proposals being copied and to new ideas being stolen from you, I suffered all. The tenacity of spirit however raged on. I rose from these challenges, albeit bruised, but with my name as my brand intact. And the brand stuck, people remembered and more people trusted. On top of my PR agency, I put up an events company and a small “out of home” ad firm.
Learning from past experiences and rising from these challenges are the greatest breaks one can ever experience in an industry that hates mediocrity, stupidity and frowns on onion-skinned personalities. Guts, wit, patience, charm, luck and a lot of creativity and intelligence with a gracious sprinkle of good conversational skills spell for a good recipe in PR.
What was the greatest challenge that you experienced?
The greatest challenges had always been instances where morality is at stake. This is when personal motives clash with moral upbringing. And there were many instances in my career that are reminiscent of this dilemma. Should I take a client that a lot of people believed to be corrupt? Should I take a client that has already been caught bribing people? Should I take a client that requests me to ruin the competitor?
These were real cases and dilemma that had to face. I had to contend with my moral values. If I were to decide using my Catholified upbringing that exalts good deeds and vilifies bad ones, I would not have taken these clients.
However, these cases were challenges to me. Similar to a lawyer, I took on these clients and presumed them to be innocent until proven guilty. If lawyers win or lose cases in the courts of law, I challenged myself to win these cases in the courts of public opinion.
I didn’t look at these cases using my moral lenses. Instead, I looked at them as challenges on how good a PR I have become. While I was crucified by many in these chapter of my PR life (now I called my Dark Ages), I, at that time, viewed them as testimonies to my capabilities as a PR to shape, mold, convince and persuade the public to cast a good eye to my clients.
What do you think was the trait that you held on to and helped you succeed in the industry?
The constant drive to challenge myself has been the guiding post of my career. I have never been contented despite successes. My incessant desire to inquire, path-find and discover new areas where my capabilities as PR will be tested to the limits has, for weird reasons, been a mark of whatever little success I am enjoying as PR.
What advice can you give aspiring practitioners like me?
I only have one advice and this is short: just be happy with everything you do and continue pushing yourself to do better. Challenge is a word that is on top of my list all the time. But a word of caution: in your drive to challenge and carve out successes, never step on other people. If you can blend well and still come out as a winner, that is a sweet success. Remember, we PRs win not through brute force but the power of the mind and the charm of our words.
What inspired you or drove you to enter the PR industry?
I wanted to be part of the action. I just didn’t want to write about it. I was a reporter and I was happy with what I was doing at the beginning. I got to meet a lot of high-level personalities in the fields of politics and business. I hobnobbed with them and chronicled what they were doing.
However, after while, I found myself wanting to be part of events not as a chronicler but as a participant. I found myself wanting to shape what can happen and what will happen with reporters willingly writing about it. I guess it is this power of the PR that attracted me to the industry.
More than muscle, this power involved psychology – an expression of wit, elan and creativity that people around me feel and follow without them feeling my physical presence. As PR I shape, mold, convince, and persuade without people knowing they are being shaped, molded, convinced and persuaded. I thought that was magic and the magic remains. This is wizardry without the robe and the wand.
What was your greatest break?—or event that led to your continued success?
The greatest break occurs every time one falls, at the heels of mistakes, and at the moment of wrong decisions. The learning after these falls make one better than ever. I had a number of these “falls” during my early years. I had become a PR manager at the age of 22. I didn’t know the intricacies of PR. I didn’t know who to trust and not to trust. My naivete in the industry at that time showed all over.
But I slowly rose from the doldrums and the quagmire of a number of missteps and wrong curbs. I gained more confidence and never looked back. I put up my first PR agency at the age of 25. I suffered yet another series of mistakes.
Owning an agency is far different from being a mere employee. Relationships are a lot different when you are on your own. From bad pitches to new clients and proposals being copied and to new ideas being stolen from you, I suffered all. The tenacity of spirit however raged on. I rose from these challenges, albeit bruised, but with my name as my brand intact. And the brand stuck, people remembered and more people trusted. On top of my PR agency, I put up an events company and a small “out of home” ad firm.
Learning from past experiences and rising from these challenges are the greatest breaks one can ever experience in an industry that hates mediocrity, stupidity and frowns on onion-skinned personalities. Guts, wit, patience, charm, luck and a lot of creativity and intelligence with a gracious sprinkle of good conversational skills spell for a good recipe in PR.
What was the greatest challenge that you experienced?
The greatest challenges had always been instances where morality is at stake. This is when personal motives clash with moral upbringing. And there were many instances in my career that are reminiscent of this dilemma. Should I take a client that a lot of people believed to be corrupt? Should I take a client that has already been caught bribing people? Should I take a client that requests me to ruin the competitor?
These were real cases and dilemma that had to face. I had to contend with my moral values. If I were to decide using my Catholified upbringing that exalts good deeds and vilifies bad ones, I would not have taken these clients.
However, these cases were challenges to me. Similar to a lawyer, I took on these clients and presumed them to be innocent until proven guilty. If lawyers win or lose cases in the courts of law, I challenged myself to win these cases in the courts of public opinion.
I didn’t look at these cases using my moral lenses. Instead, I looked at them as challenges on how good a PR I have become. While I was crucified by many in these chapter of my PR life (now I called my Dark Ages), I, at that time, viewed them as testimonies to my capabilities as a PR to shape, mold, convince and persuade the public to cast a good eye to my clients.
What do you think was the trait that you held on to and helped you succeed in the industry?
The constant drive to challenge myself has been the guiding post of my career. I have never been contented despite successes. My incessant desire to inquire, path-find and discover new areas where my capabilities as PR will be tested to the limits has, for weird reasons, been a mark of whatever little success I am enjoying as PR.
What advice can you give aspiring practitioners like me?
I only have one advice and this is short: just be happy with everything you do and continue pushing yourself to do better. Challenge is a word that is on top of my list all the time. But a word of caution: in your drive to challenge and carve out successes, never step on other people. If you can blend well and still come out as a winner, that is a sweet success. Remember, we PRs win not through brute force but the power of the mind and the charm of our words.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Philippine Daily Inquirer is leading source of Senate Agenda
by Ronald Jabal
Senator Mar Roxas succinctly pointed out the raison d’être of every single elected government officials during a recent hearing of the Legacy-affiliated banks fiasco: that Senators and Congressmen are elected to represent the voice of their constituents.
He stressed that the reason why he along with other Senators are there in the Senate because they represent the “voice of Aling Grace (one of the victims of Legacy-affiliated banks) and vowed to continue representing these “voices” for as long as they are in the Senate.
One may call it grandstanding “in aid of election” but there is a modicum of truth in Senator Roxas’ statements. Indeed, Senators and Congressmen are called “representatives” because they represent the “voices” of those who elected them into their respective offices. But when does “representation” stop or does it ever stop?
This question has hogged political philosophies for ages. One of the oldest and most debated issues about democracy concerns the proper relationship between representatives and their constituents.
And this article participates in this debate. Do Senators really listen to their constituents? Do voters’ concerns/issues matter to them in between elections? Is the public agenda part of theirs? Are there other agenda in the Senate’s agenda?
I recently conducted a content analysis of all the Senate Resolutions (as one major source of Senate's agenda) filed in the 14th Congress, and found alarming results.
The top ten Senators who filed the most number of resolutions are Senator Miriam Santiago, topped the list with 27% of the total number of resolutions filed. She is followed by Senators Manuel Villar, Loren Legarda, Lito Lapid, Jamby Madrigal, Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, Richard Gordon, Pia Cayetano, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Gregorio Honasan.
Close to 64% of the Senate Resolutions filed in the 14th Congress in the Senate are inquiries in aid of legislation. Surprisingly, two out of five or 19.4% of the resolutions are meant to commend individuals and institutions that have excelled or were given awards here and abroad. It is followed by calls for investigation in aid of legislation and by the expression of the “Sense of the Senate” which mostly expresses the stand/position of Senators on a number of issues.
Of the 808, Senate Resolutions considered 41% came from Senators’ personal assessment and analysis .
Close to 24% of the Senate Resolutions are based from press reportage. These resolutions directly quoted from press reports and/or culled from various news sources and media outfits.
Some 20% of the Senate Resolutions are based on personalities. Only 15% is based from demands or statements from interest groups and individuals.
Of the Senate Resolutions that used the press as basis, there is an apparent preference for Print (mostly coming from the Philippine Daily Inquirer) Close to 91% of the Senate Resolutions that used Press as a legislative prompts, used Print while a measly 2% is based on Internet (web presence of major TV and print outfits). There are very negligible results from TV and Radio.
The results of the cross-tabulation between Senators and legislative prompts show interesting results. Senator Miriam Santiago showed preference for the Press as her “legislative prompts”. She heavily used the press as her source of information in filing for resolutions. She beat by a thousand miles media personality Senator Loren Legarda who only used the Press in 10 of her Senate Resolutions.
Interestingly, there are Senators who are “heavy praisers” i.e. those that issued the most number of commendation resolutions. Topping the list is Senator Manny Villar. A distant second is Senator Lito Lapid.
Looking at the forest
Senators based their agenda in filing Senate Resolutions on the combination of personal initiatives and constituents’ interests. Senators are clearly aware that “representative” democracy does not necessarily mean just representing the “voices” of their constituents but also asserts their personal assessments of situations.
This is consistent with a liberal democratic framework where the representative has a particular role to play: he is responsible to his electorate but he is not its delegate; he represents a geographical collection of opinions but is not required to surrender his own.
There is however an alarming finding. Senators’ preference on media coverage as a source of agenda in Senate Resolutions is worthy of note. By relying on press coverage, Senators maybe basing their resolutions on mediated reality i.e. only those considered by the press as important are being covered.
These issues covered by the press and have been made part of Senate Resolutions as Senate agenda may not be important in the eyes of the larger constituencies. Other issues which could be more important may not be part of the media coverage and therefore outside the Senators radar.
In such a case, Senators are in danger of practicing (mis)representative democracy – where press coverage supplants the real issues of their constituents or their own personal initiatives in formulating their agenda.
With heavy reliance on press coverage, Senators may end up representing media agenda and not public interests – a fatal blow on the much-vaunted democracy in the country.
Senator Mar Roxas succinctly pointed out the raison d’être of every single elected government officials during a recent hearing of the Legacy-affiliated banks fiasco: that Senators and Congressmen are elected to represent the voice of their constituents.
He stressed that the reason why he along with other Senators are there in the Senate because they represent the “voice of Aling Grace (one of the victims of Legacy-affiliated banks) and vowed to continue representing these “voices” for as long as they are in the Senate.
One may call it grandstanding “in aid of election” but there is a modicum of truth in Senator Roxas’ statements. Indeed, Senators and Congressmen are called “representatives” because they represent the “voices” of those who elected them into their respective offices. But when does “representation” stop or does it ever stop?
This question has hogged political philosophies for ages. One of the oldest and most debated issues about democracy concerns the proper relationship between representatives and their constituents.
And this article participates in this debate. Do Senators really listen to their constituents? Do voters’ concerns/issues matter to them in between elections? Is the public agenda part of theirs? Are there other agenda in the Senate’s agenda?
I recently conducted a content analysis of all the Senate Resolutions (as one major source of Senate's agenda) filed in the 14th Congress, and found alarming results.
The top ten Senators who filed the most number of resolutions are Senator Miriam Santiago, topped the list with 27% of the total number of resolutions filed. She is followed by Senators Manuel Villar, Loren Legarda, Lito Lapid, Jamby Madrigal, Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, Richard Gordon, Pia Cayetano, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Gregorio Honasan.
Close to 64% of the Senate Resolutions filed in the 14th Congress in the Senate are inquiries in aid of legislation. Surprisingly, two out of five or 19.4% of the resolutions are meant to commend individuals and institutions that have excelled or were given awards here and abroad. It is followed by calls for investigation in aid of legislation and by the expression of the “Sense of the Senate” which mostly expresses the stand/position of Senators on a number of issues.
Of the 808, Senate Resolutions considered 41% came from Senators’ personal assessment and analysis .
Close to 24% of the Senate Resolutions are based from press reportage. These resolutions directly quoted from press reports and/or culled from various news sources and media outfits.
Some 20% of the Senate Resolutions are based on personalities. Only 15% is based from demands or statements from interest groups and individuals.
Of the Senate Resolutions that used the press as basis, there is an apparent preference for Print (mostly coming from the Philippine Daily Inquirer) Close to 91% of the Senate Resolutions that used Press as a legislative prompts, used Print while a measly 2% is based on Internet (web presence of major TV and print outfits). There are very negligible results from TV and Radio.
The results of the cross-tabulation between Senators and legislative prompts show interesting results. Senator Miriam Santiago showed preference for the Press as her “legislative prompts”. She heavily used the press as her source of information in filing for resolutions. She beat by a thousand miles media personality Senator Loren Legarda who only used the Press in 10 of her Senate Resolutions.
Interestingly, there are Senators who are “heavy praisers” i.e. those that issued the most number of commendation resolutions. Topping the list is Senator Manny Villar. A distant second is Senator Lito Lapid.
Looking at the forest
Senators based their agenda in filing Senate Resolutions on the combination of personal initiatives and constituents’ interests. Senators are clearly aware that “representative” democracy does not necessarily mean just representing the “voices” of their constituents but also asserts their personal assessments of situations.
This is consistent with a liberal democratic framework where the representative has a particular role to play: he is responsible to his electorate but he is not its delegate; he represents a geographical collection of opinions but is not required to surrender his own.
There is however an alarming finding. Senators’ preference on media coverage as a source of agenda in Senate Resolutions is worthy of note. By relying on press coverage, Senators maybe basing their resolutions on mediated reality i.e. only those considered by the press as important are being covered.
These issues covered by the press and have been made part of Senate Resolutions as Senate agenda may not be important in the eyes of the larger constituencies. Other issues which could be more important may not be part of the media coverage and therefore outside the Senators radar.
In such a case, Senators are in danger of practicing (mis)representative democracy – where press coverage supplants the real issues of their constituents or their own personal initiatives in formulating their agenda.
With heavy reliance on press coverage, Senators may end up representing media agenda and not public interests – a fatal blow on the much-vaunted democracy in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)