By now, after three State of the Nation Addresses, we have become familiar with the stylistic flourishes that President Noynoy employs. One such approach is the shift to the individual and personal after summing up the “macro” accomplishments of his administration.
This time around, he resorted to assuring ordinary Filipinos that whatever achievements he could boast of, whatever benefits they enjoyed, were not the work of P-Noy alone, or of his officials, but of the people themselves: “Kasama ka sa gumawa nito (You are part of this accomplishment).”
I was tempted to ask, though I did not do so out loud, if P-Noy was also implicating all of “us” in the shortfalls and failures of his administration. Opposition congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay, who is touted as joining the UNA senatorial slate in next year’s polls, was quick to cite statistics on hunger, self-rated poverty and the rising costs of electricity and fuel when interviewed by a dzIQ reporter. And indeed, these were neglected areas in the President’s otherwise sweeping address.
Then again, as I pointed out during the post-Sona analysis (with anchor John Susi and “mom blogger” Noem Lardizabal-Dado over dzIQ), the Sona is not just a “report card” on the administration’s performance in the past year. It is also a “road map” of the year to come, as well as a clarion call to the nation to follow wherever it is the leadership wants to take us. You do not dilute the power of inspiration with a recital of failures. In fact, you want your audience to forget them at the moment. The time for difficult explanations and convoluted reasoning, though necessary, is not at the Sona.
* * *
But Noem and I believed that P-Noy did neglect key areas in his speech. One was the “Right of Information” bill, which almost passed in the last Congress, but seems doomed to start from scratch in the next, due in large part to the reluctance of the executive to endorse it.
Noem in particular was upset because, she said, the “blogging” community felt that access to government documents was necessary if they, otherwise ordinary citizens, were to gain the information they needed to make thoughtful commentaries.
I was amused at the elated response of the reproductive health community at P-Noy’s mention of “responsible parenthood” in relation to the never-ending shortfall in classrooms, books and school supplies. Many, including leaders of family planning groups and even Rep. Edcel Lagman, main sponsor of the RH bill, chose to see the glass half-full, saying this was by way of a subtle endorsement of the controversial bill.
I thought the President could have said more. And as Sen. Pia Cayetano pointed out: “He should just have come out with his support for the reproductive health bill if that is what he meant.” Still, this did not escape the ire of the Catholic bishops, with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines in what appears to be a knee-jerk response, tartly saying that P-Noy did not “really” mean support for responsible parenthood, but support for contraceptives.
A piece of advice for our President: You will never shake the bishops from their staunch opposition to reproductive health, family planning, or even responsible parenthood. Sugarcoating your terms will not soften their stance. Test their public support by saying what you really mean, and by endorsing the RH bill. Then you can try smoothing their ruffled feathers.
* * *
But I will admit I was somewhat swept away by P-Noy’s Sona rhetoric. And what he said is true. Filipinos now have greater reason to hold our heads up high. To borrow a phrase from Reagan’s campaign: It’s morning in the Philippines.
Only the most churlish, I think, would begrudge the rosy economic figures and the growing optimism among the business community, investors, and potential call-center employees.
But I would caution P-Noy from harping too much on the gulf between the rosy predictions of the foreign media and the locals’ persistent criticisms and cynicism. If I recall right, his mother, too, aired the same complaints. But part of being President is being able to put up with homegrown criticism, even if, as then President Fidel Ramos once said of the media: “Reading our newspapers, there are days I want to commit suicide; on other days, I want to commit homicide.”
However nettlesome, critical media are one of the blessings of democracy. A leader needs people who tell him the truth, who point out the gaps where supporters will only see achievements. The media can be allies—uncertain and wavering, true—but ultimately useful in that they tell the truth even if it is uncomfortable or unwelcome. Only then can a leader find his way to his ultimate destination.
* * *
I saw for the first time a current picture of James Holmes—the Colorado shooter was seated in a courtroom with his court-appointed counsel.
You don’t know whether to laugh out loud or hiss in anger at this innocent-looking person with a mop of hair dyed a ridiculous shade of orange. He doesn’t look so much like The Joker as a twisted version of Ronald McDonald.
Still, there he sat, goggle-eyed and seemingly out of it. I “felt the pain” of some of the parents of victims in the shooting, beholding this young man and wondering how such an appearance of innocence could harbor so much homicidal wrath.
Reports said it may take up to a year before Holmes’ trial can get underway. Maybe America can use the intervening days to ponder whether it can still afford such lax gun laws that anyone, even an orange-haired though intelligent misfit, can buy high-powered weapons and order thousands of rounds of ammunition online.