The toughest and the most talked debate in America unfolded where two of the highly respected senators between the Democrats and the Republican showed their prowess in answering questions and giving their opinions which concerns both economic and social interests and those of transcendental importance.
As expected, both of them addressed issues confronting America and gave their stands and solutions to the given cases. This debate served as their last hurrahs before the people will finally choose between Sen. Obama and Mccain and be declared as the next US president.
The debate between the two followed standards patterned that of the formal and usual debate we have seen but somehow put some twists to it wherein they were speaking in a formal situation in order to convey and communicate their stands and views to the people with supporting details.
They were also following a structured content and used
language with the highest level of formality appropriate for the audience and purpose. Basically, they were speaking audibly to an audience using some appropriate eye contact, variation of voices and body language.
They were using specific relevant issues, examples, statistics and evidence to support and corroborate their claims in a given case. Thus, they were incorporating these information into their speeches as part of a debate, in a relevant and appropriate way.
Moreover, both of them had their own substance, style and strategy in attacking each other which offer a comprehensive guide to the audience of who to vote. Developing their own personal style brings them to a speed in standing skills by which the audience may be persuaded by their thoughts and feelings which provides them with a thorough grounding on who to vote and who best fits for the position.
As a whole, formalities and standards in debating were followed and applied for one common purpose which is to persuade and convince the audience to believe in you and to convey your messages well to them and in this case, to gain most of all the trust and confidence of the people of America.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
cha cha
Seen from all angles, the latest scandal that has wracked the presidential office should only lead to either an impeachment, resignation or even a cha cha by its occupant. But if Mrs. Arroyo goes, will that solved the real problem? Will her departure and, possibly prosecution, guarantee that briberies, malversation, fraud and nearly all other violations of every provision of the Constitution and other laws involving this high office won't happen again?
Some Filipinos may be debating the issue, and going through the motions of deciding whether charter change is timely and necessary, and if so, how much change there should be, or whether the changes are likely to mean anything. But however much it is debated, and however much the Senate and other sectors may oppose them now, what’s likely is that constitutional amendments, or even a totally new Constitution, will be in place for ratification by next year.
The reasons are obvious, or should be. Not only is there a confluence of domestic interests to which Constitutional amendments would be politically and economically advantageous. The United States, a far from disinterested observer of events in its neo-colony, also favors and regards Constitutional amendments as critical to its economic interests.
The domestic interests are best summed up in two words: political dynasties. Although the country’s so-called lawmakers have gotten around the term limits in the 1987 Constitution by making their wives, sons, daughters, and other relatives run in their place, and by running now for Congress, and now for the Senate, a new Constitution without those limits would be more desirable.
The elimination of term limits would allow them as well as their relatives to run for parliament as often as they like. With the elimination of term limits, there would be no fixed terms, their staying on in parliament being dependent solely on their party or coalition’s numerical dominance.
Most of the majority party governors and mayors could also end up as provincial or state ministers and members of the provincial or state parliaments that a federal form of government—the twin to the proposal to shift to the parliamentary system—would have to create.
As for Mrs. Arroyo, while she would have to step down once a parliament is in place, she could very well run for MP in her and Bong Pineda’s spheres of influence in Pampanga - and, who knows, aspire once more for the post she’s now clinging to like a barnacle, depending on what the specifics of the parliamentary system and the federation would be.
Beyond that, however, and it’s something that has so far escaped scrutiny, are those amendments to the Constitution and Philippine policies the U.S. wants, other than the shift to a parliamentary system and to a federation.
Primarily those changes involve provisions in the Constitution and policies that restrict foreign investments in key economic sectors, as well as foreign ownership of the mass media and public utilities.
In addition to prohibitions on foreign ownership of the mass media and public utilities, current policies also restrict foreign ownership of telecommunications to 40 percent. Sixty percent Filipino ownership is required for those firms that wish to contract with the Philippine government in the construction of water, telecommunications, and transport systems as well as electric power distribution. Only Filipinos may own rural banks, while foreigners are limited to 51 percent equity in insurance companies.
Only Filipino-owned sea craft may engage in domestic shipping. Foreigners are barred from serving as crew members of Philippine ships. No foreign ownership of educational institutions, or of land and rice and corn processing plants is allowed.
In the view of the United States, the European Union, Japan, and their local agents and spokesmen, all these “hamper development”.
The loudest and earliest proponent of Constitutional amendments to remove these restrictions agrees. Fidel V. Ramos was not coincidentally also the most aggressive of all Philippine presidents since Corazon Aquino in globalizing the Philippine economy (read: allowing the unrestricted entry of foreign capital and removing all protection for local industries), and in whose term the Mining Act of 1995 - which converts the entire country into potential mining areas - was passed.
Much has been made of the current Philippine senators’ opposition to Constitutional amendments via Congress’ being convened into a “constituent assembly.” Expect this resistance to dissipate as soon as it becomes clear to the Senate majority that it’s in the interest of everyone in the political and economic elite - the landlords, the big businessmen, themselves and the U.S. overlords of this country included—that not only is a shift to a parliamentary system and to a federal form of government achieved, but that those pesky nationalist provisions of the Constitution and the policies to which they gave birth are excised from whatever Constitution will emerge in 2006.
Filipinos may yet conclude that charter changes as envisioned by Ramos and company are not the cure-all to the country’s problems - poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth, inadequate social services, and other perennial crises - its advocates claim them to be. But whatever they may think isn’t likely to matter. Before the year is over the holders of elite power and their U.S. patrons will ram cha-cha down their collective throat.
Some Filipinos may be debating the issue, and going through the motions of deciding whether charter change is timely and necessary, and if so, how much change there should be, or whether the changes are likely to mean anything. But however much it is debated, and however much the Senate and other sectors may oppose them now, what’s likely is that constitutional amendments, or even a totally new Constitution, will be in place for ratification by next year.
The reasons are obvious, or should be. Not only is there a confluence of domestic interests to which Constitutional amendments would be politically and economically advantageous. The United States, a far from disinterested observer of events in its neo-colony, also favors and regards Constitutional amendments as critical to its economic interests.
The domestic interests are best summed up in two words: political dynasties. Although the country’s so-called lawmakers have gotten around the term limits in the 1987 Constitution by making their wives, sons, daughters, and other relatives run in their place, and by running now for Congress, and now for the Senate, a new Constitution without those limits would be more desirable.
The elimination of term limits would allow them as well as their relatives to run for parliament as often as they like. With the elimination of term limits, there would be no fixed terms, their staying on in parliament being dependent solely on their party or coalition’s numerical dominance.
Most of the majority party governors and mayors could also end up as provincial or state ministers and members of the provincial or state parliaments that a federal form of government—the twin to the proposal to shift to the parliamentary system—would have to create.
As for Mrs. Arroyo, while she would have to step down once a parliament is in place, she could very well run for MP in her and Bong Pineda’s spheres of influence in Pampanga - and, who knows, aspire once more for the post she’s now clinging to like a barnacle, depending on what the specifics of the parliamentary system and the federation would be.
Beyond that, however, and it’s something that has so far escaped scrutiny, are those amendments to the Constitution and Philippine policies the U.S. wants, other than the shift to a parliamentary system and to a federation.
Primarily those changes involve provisions in the Constitution and policies that restrict foreign investments in key economic sectors, as well as foreign ownership of the mass media and public utilities.
In addition to prohibitions on foreign ownership of the mass media and public utilities, current policies also restrict foreign ownership of telecommunications to 40 percent. Sixty percent Filipino ownership is required for those firms that wish to contract with the Philippine government in the construction of water, telecommunications, and transport systems as well as electric power distribution. Only Filipinos may own rural banks, while foreigners are limited to 51 percent equity in insurance companies.
Only Filipino-owned sea craft may engage in domestic shipping. Foreigners are barred from serving as crew members of Philippine ships. No foreign ownership of educational institutions, or of land and rice and corn processing plants is allowed.
In the view of the United States, the European Union, Japan, and their local agents and spokesmen, all these “hamper development”.
The loudest and earliest proponent of Constitutional amendments to remove these restrictions agrees. Fidel V. Ramos was not coincidentally also the most aggressive of all Philippine presidents since Corazon Aquino in globalizing the Philippine economy (read: allowing the unrestricted entry of foreign capital and removing all protection for local industries), and in whose term the Mining Act of 1995 - which converts the entire country into potential mining areas - was passed.
Much has been made of the current Philippine senators’ opposition to Constitutional amendments via Congress’ being convened into a “constituent assembly.” Expect this resistance to dissipate as soon as it becomes clear to the Senate majority that it’s in the interest of everyone in the political and economic elite - the landlords, the big businessmen, themselves and the U.S. overlords of this country included—that not only is a shift to a parliamentary system and to a federal form of government achieved, but that those pesky nationalist provisions of the Constitution and the policies to which they gave birth are excised from whatever Constitution will emerge in 2006.
Filipinos may yet conclude that charter changes as envisioned by Ramos and company are not the cure-all to the country’s problems - poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth, inadequate social services, and other perennial crises - its advocates claim them to be. But whatever they may think isn’t likely to matter. Before the year is over the holders of elite power and their U.S. patrons will ram cha-cha down their collective throat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)