OPINION | Aquino's combative stance breeds more Noytards

By now, you’ve noticed how onion-skinned President Benigno S. Aquino III is. He has become alarmingly combative of his critics, as if he’s in a shooting rampage in a target range. And the list of individuals and institutions he has attacked is growing longer each week, including TV broadcasters, corrupt senators, former justices, a New York-based newspaper, and even an independent, co-equal branch of government. 

If he continues this combative stance, it might even become the only legacy he leaves behind. “The Complaining President”, we might read in textbooks in the future, for being such whiner, like a slacking, blue-collar worker complaining to his “Boss” when his indolence is pointed out. 

The proliferation of Noytards

I don’t worry at all if this is what he leaves behind. What I am more worried about is his loyalists, these so-called “Noytards”, are becoming more like him each day. If PNoy was a god, then he had created these clones in his “image.” 

These imbeciles loiter the hallways of social media, bullying or picking a fight against any netizen expressing their disgust or disapproval of Aquino. To be fair, there are a lot of imbecile anti-PNoys out there who disapprove without knowing exactly what to disapprove of and why. But these imbecile pro-PNoys do not discriminate their targets; they attack anyone, even those with reasonable grounds for dissent.

Take the case of one Noytard who came lingering in my blog’s Facebook page the other day.

He responded to my comments regarding a piece of news about Aquino’s comments regarding the passage of the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill (APDB). He is questioning if I had taken Aquino out of context when I opined how shameless the President is for questioning the scrutiny politicians like him could get once the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill. 

Let us take another look at what PNoy said in the article:

"Ang hirap nga nito 'yung kawawa na rin kaming mga pulitiko kung tutuusin," Aquino said. "Kapag pulitiko ka dapat bawasan 'yung karapatan mo, dapat mas mataas 'yung scrutiny sa'yo, 'di ba? 'Pag papanatili ng magandang pangalan, 'pag sa pulitiko ka, mali [ang] dynasty," he added. (Source: PNoy on anti-dynasty law: “Kawawa kami”)

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Why is this statement shameless? Because the President is using a defensive tone and wording in favor of politicians like him when it comes to public scrutiny of their actions. He described politicians like him as, "kawawa" (pitiful) once their right or "karapatan" are limited by the potential passage of APDB.

What made his statement even more defensive is what succeeded the aforementioned quote, which did not come out in the Philippine STAR article, but in a GMA News Online article:

Pero kunwari, sa medicine, magretire ang doktor mo. Doktor ang anak niya. Una mong susubukin ang anak niya," he added.

If the President is really committed to reform, he wouldn't use examples like this one. If a doctor retires, even if the successor child is a doctor, you wouldn't want to be treated by that person if you don't know his or her professional track record, right? Some apples fall far from the tree, just as the current president has exhibited in refusing to certify APDB as urgent and allowing it to linger in a Congress dominated by political dynasties. Aquino's actions are as doubtful as the bill's passage in the House of Representatives.

The intolerance of others' opinion

Back to the Noytard: Perhaps he has limited understanding of contextualization, that's why he was shameless enough to question if I interpreted Aquino's statements correctly. He also accused me of being "subjective" in my opinion for calling the President shameless and not true to his word. This is despite the fact that both the Philippine STAR and GMA News Online noted PNoy's apparent defense of politician's rights.

This Noytard must have been unaware that as we look at facts from different realities, there can be no single, comprehensive, and correct interpretation of a statement. Subjectivity is the very nature of opinions, and while opinions are informed by facts, I have not failed to state such facts.

As his comments are already offensive and bordering towards personal, I opted to delete them and ban the user from my Facebook page. Instead of stopping, he resorted to attacking my blog in his timeline.

This is just one evidence that Aquino is breeding netizens as shameless as him. When he is banned for his inappropriate actions on Facebook, this imbecile netizen calls me an enemy of democracy, even as he himself bastardized democracy by opting to silence my opinions.

Opinions as hallmarks of democracy

What every Noytard and even President Aquino has to realize is that in a true democracy, opinions are crucial and tolerated, regardless if they're positive or negative. It is a feedback mechanism from which the government can draw ideas for improvement of performance.

Tolerance means allowing something, such as a belief, to exist even though we dislike or disagree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true.

But if a President has the nerve to dismiss criticisms, it should be worth questioning if he is indeed listening to his "bosses." In a true democracy, a president is humble enough to admit mistakes and lapses committed, instead of stubbornly defending policies that have been declared unconstitutional and making excuses for his allies and political party.

With the number of netizens adopting Aquino's combative stance growing each day, having second thoughts on posting one's opinions is now becoming a grim reality. This kind of intolerance is a form of bullying and dictatorship, as it pushes one's opinions down another's throat and proclaims a sense of infallibility among those imposing their frame of mind.

Hence, a reminder to my readers: it is your choice to visit and read my opinions in this blog. You are free to disagree and express your disagreement to my opinion as long as you maintain your decency in expressing so. In a tolerant world, there are no negative or positive opinions, just opinions.

THE POOR MUST FACE REALITY TOO!

Photo courtesy of AP/Bullit Marquez.

This is sort of a follow up to my previous post: "Putting Our Best Foot Forward" last May 2, 2012.

"The government should face reality. If they don't, how will they know the problem, how will they solve the problem," said Renato Reyes, secretary general of the left-wing group Bayan, regarding a recent effort by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to cover up slums on the side of a river which runs through the route of the delegates attending the 45th Asian Development Bank Summit this week.

“The government should face reality." It's funny he could say that without realizing the relativity of the concept.

Who should face reality here? Is it the government, who spends billions on a Conditional Cash Transfer program to help the poorest of the poor, arise from their destitute condition? Who works with financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (among others) to curb rampant poverty and deprivation in this country? Oh, we’ve seen reality alright. We see it every day, and I think the ADB sees it too throughout their years of being headquartered behind their walled compound in Ortigas Center. In fact, we are already saturated by images of this reality on our TV channels because they made an industry out of documenting about such reality. Hence, I think it would be unreasonable to say that the government is not facing reality. In fact, it is a belated statement, one that was made when some solutions have already been implemented and are still being implemented today. It must be outrageous to think that poverty would disappear in the days leading to the ADB summit, right Mr. Reyes?

Back to my earlier question. If it isn’t the government, who then should face the reality? Is it the upper class who has invested heavily on our country’s economy, provided jobs for the majority, and are taxed heavily? Is it the middle class, who has toiled to get and finish a degree in order to contribute brains, sweat and time to the progress of family and Motherland so that it may not live in indigence? Or is it the poor, who are very much aware of the reality they are stuck with and yet have acted little in the face of such poverty?

Take the case of that community under the bridge, whose view from the street was covered by sheets of galvanized iron by the MMDA. Have they faced the reality that by living on those banks, they are endangering themselves to floods and diseases, as well as contributing to pollution because of the lack of proper sewage system for their homes? I don’t think so. Have they faced the reality that by moving from the province to this already crowded city they would live worse than their subsistence existence in the province? I came from a tiny island in the Visayas whose people have relied on farming and fishing for years and yet were able to send their children to school and improve their lives. That is how we faced reality there. I wonder how these poor people could simply look at reality in the eye and do nothing.

The problem lies on the fact that the poor think that it’s not their choice to be poor. Such belief is not just passé, but also a huge moral flaw on their part. Exchanging a content and sufficient agricultural life in the province is their choice. Getting in to marriage without any plans early in life is their choice. Having sex without protection, having too much sex and kids in the process – it’s all a choice. The government, the upper class, and the middle class were not conspiratorial to all these choices. And even if they are at some point, the choice is still theirs. Do I want to be stuck in such reality for the rest of their lives or am I going to exhaust all possible means to get ahead and rise from the ladder? Such belief statements in life have to be let go by the poor if they are to elevate themselves from the reality of poverty.

The odds are in favor of those who dare. For decades, we, as a people have supported our brethren who  dared to rise out of poverty. Whether people in government, the upper class, the middle class -- we have made steps to assist and support those who are willing to face the reality and solve it. But this doesn’t mean the end is on sight. While ironic, Mr. Reyes’ words do serve as a wake up call. There are still a lot of things to be done aside from covering the blemishes. But the truth remains: those who saved themselves rather than waiting to be saved have been rewarded well. Those who are eager to be saved have been given a helping hand.

I wonder where Mr. Reyes was when all of that was happening.

In another reality, I suppose. After all, they are other group here who’s not facing reality (or rather, facing a different reality – a rather violent and fast-paced one). Those in the left-wing are well aware of such reality and yet what part have they done in order to solve the problem? Have they organized fundraisers or charities for the construction of homes for informal settlers? Have they worked with our system of governance in order to put to justice elements in our society that maligns the poor? Have they been kind to our benefactors in the fight against poverty and deprivation? Are they merely spotlighting the cons instead of highlight what is good in what we’ve done as a nation too?

The left movement should face reality. It’s time that they contribute to nation-building instead of nation-tearing. It’s not that that they should turn 180 degrees on their beliefs. All I’m saying is that they should try meeting the rest of the nation halfway. After all, we only have one common goal in mind, to convince the rest of the world that "It's More Fun [to live] in the Philippines!" TSS