What a Joke!

courtesy of Jacob Mentz
The future of our country depends on each election.

As our nation inches ever so closely to the 2013 midterm elections, I dread the choices our countrymen must face. There are a lot of familiar faces, to be sure, but it's almost like there is no choice. It does seem that a lot of things are changing for the better. 

COMELEC Chair Sixto Brilliantes hit the nail on the head when he called the party-list system "a joke." It really is, seeing as many of these groups do not represent the marginalized in our society. Since when are the people from entire regions in the Philippines "marginalized?" Only in many politicians' heads, I assume. 

The whole point of the party-list system is pretty noble. It aims to give the truly marginalized of society (the disabled, the poor, etc.) a voice in Congress. The problem is, many of those who are elected into position do not really represent the marginalized. How can they, when some of them have millions of pesos in net worth? The notion that they represent the poor is simply misguided. 

This misused system is sometimes used as a loophole to get around the constitutional ban on dynasties (yes, if you know how to read, you'll find out that the concept of dynasties is unconstitutional). Indeed, the Philippine government is treated as a business by some families, many of whom have more than 10 members in elective offices across the country. 

I guess that there's nothing we citizens can do about this, at least by way of legal strategy. Congress simply has refused to enact an enabling law that would really punish dynasties. The only reason these families flourish is that they know they can get away with it. 

We can, however, be wise with whom we choose on that 2013 ballot. We can choose to be smart and avoid those who try to represent people whom they could not be more different from. We can choose to avoid people whose entire families are already in position. 

Otherwise, let's not kid ourselves into calling this country a democracy. Because we really don't have a choice. Unless there are valid choices, there really is no democracy in this country. 

The Death of Freedom

Freedom of speech is one of the most sacred freedoms we have in the Philippines. It has toppled dictators, exposed wrongdoing, and spread a lot of good. 

On September 12, 2012, freedom of speech -- over the internet, at least -- died in the Philippines. 

The Online Cybercrime Prevention Act, Republic Act 10175, was signed into law on that day. Now, most provisions in this law I agree with. We do need to ban child pornography, among others, and stiff penalties must be given to those who patronize such things. 

However, a late insertion to this bill made online speech LIBEL. What happened to freedom of expression? It is currently being stifled by the people themselves who do not wish to go to jail. 

You say that it makes sense? It is not logical at all to impose harsh penalties on those who express themselves on social networking sites -- the same penalties meted out to professional journalists. Surely a rant cannot be called a crime, now can it? Well, apparently, now it can. 

Unless the Supreme Court steps up and declares this provision UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

Here's Article III, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution: 

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

How then can people say that the law in its entirety is constitutional? It isn't. When you threaten the masses with jail time if they say that a certain person has a certain negative quality or has the appearance of wrongdoing (even if it may be true), you are stifling freedom of expression. 

We are being told to trust the government to do its job and to protect civil liberties. REALLY. Do you really expect us to trust the government? With everything happening in the government, it simply isn't realistic. 

Without online freedom, we cannot share many articles we find online. We cannot comment on those articles without the risk of landing in jail. We cannot expose those who try to get away with a lot of wrongdoing -- simply because we citizens who want our country to be better than it is do not want to go to jail or pay stiff penalties. Our country is important, but we love our families too much to go to jail. 

If someone incited rebellion online, then that may be completely different. That's subversion. That's one step below direct armed rebellion, and in fact might lead to that. Now people who say THAT should be put in jail. 

Aside from this, though, people should not be prevented from expressing their disgust for different public officials and powerful rich people. People should be allowed to praise the positive and despise the negative. This is how change happens. 

Without freedom of speech, we are just like repressive regimes in China, Iran, and North Korea. We would be reviving something that existed when we were under martial law, when those who spoke out mysteriously disappeared, never to be seen again. 

Do we really want that distinction for our country? 

The RH Bill is Not a Cure-All

The RH bill debate has been raging for years now, but only in the last couple of years has it gained traction in Congress. It is THE single most explosive issue in the country today, inviting unbridled emotions from advocates on both sides of the debate. 

I've seen and heard a lot of arguments from those sides. It's impossible to avoid those arguments on Facebook and Twitter. I firmly believe that the RH bill should be approved as soon as possible for the benefit of the poorest families in the Philippines. 

An oft-repeated argument is that this bill will lead to more promiscuous behavior. Now, as a Christian, I do not condone promiscuity. People should not go around sleeping with anyone they find desirable. My belief is that sexual behavior should be solely within the confines of marriage. 

However, it is a sad fact that promiscuous behavior DOES happen. Women get pregnant, and many times either the man who got them pregnant isn't man enough to provide for the child or there simply isn't enough money to take care of that child. In that case, it's the child who suffers the most from the wrong choices of his parents. 'Wag na nating idamay ang bata.

Should that child be made to suffer the brunt of those wrong choices? I don't think so. That child doesn't even have a fighting chance of getting all his needs met. Many times, this happens in the poorest communities. 

Another line of reasoning I've heard is that the more people there are, the bigger the chances of jobs, as companies will be lining up to hire Filipinos. I've even heard it said that poor families need more children because THOSE children can help feed the family. PLEASE. 

I'd like to hear THAT told to the mother who needs to feed 12 children. I'd like to hear THAT told to the millions of people wallowing in poverty. 

I don't pretend to know how much these people earn, but for the sake of argument, let's try some logical conjecture here, shall we? 

The minimum wage for full-time work is about 400 pesos, depending on the industry. That means that the monthly salary for someone who earns that much is roughly 8,000 to 10,000 pesos. 

For those who give birth, the cost of normal delivery hovers around 20,000 to 30,000 pesos. If you are so unfortunate as to need a C-section, the cost shoots up to around 50,000 to 100,000 pesos. 

Then there's the cost of taking care of a baby adequately. The cost of 900 grams of S26 Gold is more than 1,000 pesos (not sure how long that will feed a baby). Of course, breastfeeding is best, but a woman can only breastfeed for so long. 

Then there are the other costs of raising a child -- education and health being most important. There are no free lunches, and at some point everyone pays for these things, even though the government provides for lower costs at government hospitals and public schools. 

The victims here aren't the parents who have children. They're adults who make a choice. If they are married, they are well within their rights to have sexual relations. 

The victims here are the children who have to live with subpar parenting and inadequate provisions because the parents aren't prepared for parenthood. 

The RH bill is not a panacea, but it's certainly one of the ways to avoid this situation. The medicines are legally available ANYWAY. What the bill does is make the same medicines available to people with means available to those who need these medicines the most. 

Is the Linux Desktop Dead?

Last week, one of the founders of GNOME, formerly one of the most popular Linux desktop environments, came out and pronounced the Linux desktop dead. Such a bold pronouncement indeed, and one bound to guarantee a lot of enemies. Linus Torvalds rejected this notion outright. 

I have to agree with Linus here. The continued development of Linux on the desktop is certainly cause for optimism. I don't think that it will ever be as big as Microsoft or Apple, but Linux desktops have been at the forefront of innovation for personal computers in the past decade. 

The Linux desktop is thriving.
(image courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu)

Consider, for instance, Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. It's vastly different from Windows or OS X, but nonetheless it is of high quality. I mean, it has to be if Google uses it, right? I've been using it for a year and a half now, and I have to say that it gets better with each release. Because 12.04 is a long-term support release (hence the abbreviation "LTS"), I don't have to reinstall a new version for the next five years, as opposed to the 18-month shelf life of a regular release. 

Perhaps the reason many people say the Linux desktop is dead is because those people are focusing only on Europe and the US. Indeed, the desktop may be dying in those places because of the popularity of mobile devices and the cloud. I get that. 

In Asia, though, desktop computers are more affordable than laptop computers. It's possible to buy a desktop for as low as $500. Laptops, on the other hand, may cost you $900 or more. 

Add to that the free nature of many Linux distributions, and you can see that desktop Linux in Asia (and probably in other parts of the world) is far from dead. In fact, I think it offers us a quality alternative to Windows software, which is quite expensive for many people here. Most people, of course, would not spend a single dime on software if they knew they could get an alternative one for free. 

Hopefully, development on the Linux desktop continues. It truly offers people a chance to use quality software. Like I said, I've been using it for quite some time, and I only use Windows at work because I don't have a choice. Linux doesn't have to compete with Windows. It only needs to be a great alternative OS -- which it already is. 

The Apple-Samsung Debacle

With the weekend came the news that Apple had won its case against Samsung. An American jury found that the South Korean company had violated several of its patents. As a Samsung Galaxy user, I find that ruling extremely distasteful. 

Only a fool would mistake the Samsung Galaxy for an iPhone. While there are some similarities, I would say that some of Apple's arguments are pretty dumb. I mean, suing over the shape of the phone is really pushing the envelope here. 

This ruling limits consumer choices. Although it really doesn't affect what's happening here in Asia, it may in the future, seeing how some courts copy rulings in the United States. Apple is dictatorial in the sense that it is trying to ram their iPhone down our collective throat. If they wanted to sell more of their products, they ought to do it by lowering their prices, NOT by limiting consumers. 

The real loser here is the consumer, the person who wants a smartphone but cannot pay the PhP 38,000 a new iPhone costs. The real loser is the person who simply does not want to idolize Apple products, but doesn't want Windows Phones or Blackberry handsets either. 

I will never purchase an Apple product, even if I end up having enough money to do so.  

Salamat san sa gabos, Secretary Robredo

I first heard of Secretary Jesse Robredo in college. He was one of the people our orientors said was a Lasallian we could be proud of. I never really was aware of his achievements, though, until they came to light this week. 

courtesy of TheLaSallian (www.facebook.com/thelasallian)

It's funny how people whom you never met can have an impact on your life, and Mr. Robredo certainly had that positive impact on me after I heard his story. A devoted family man, he went straight from an official function to be with his daughter, who had just won a swimming competition. To the very end, he showed his love for his family. Admirable. 

It's a moment of infinite loss. I will always remember where I was when I first heard that his plane crashed: at my girlfriend's house, about to eat out. It was a breaking news flash on ABS-CBN. I thought to myself, "It's going to be alright. It will work out just fine." I was wrong. 

For three days, the nation was focused on the search for Robredo, in the vain hope that he was still alive. After all, stranger things had happened. Maybe the secretary had by some miracle escaped and was in fact on an isolated island. Maybe he was floating on the sea, barely clinging to life. 

All those hopes were dashed with the discovery of his body. And I felt a moment of loss. How could someone so good at what he does be taken away? How could the positive future of this country's politics have died? Questions, questions, questions. With no answers.

The truth is, I can think of hundreds of politicians who should have been on that plane instead of Robredo. It seemed like he was one of those people who was not corrupted by power and money, who still led a simple life with his family and friends. His final act says a lot about that. 

If there's anything to be learned here, I daresay that Mr. Robredo's dedication allows us to hope that there's a better future for Philippine politics. It opened up the fact that not all politicians are dirty crooks. Some of them are just like the rest of us, trying to get by, loving our families, dreaming of a bright future, working as hard as humanly possible. 

Some of them are just like Jesse Robredo. 

Ubuntu, Linux, and Free Software

After months of trying out Linux Mint (and after more than a year of using Ubuntu), I buckled and reinstalled Ubuntu on my PC again yesterday. I'm no techie, of course, so don't go judging me here. I simply went by my consumerist instincts and went for what I felt was the best product. 

Linux Mint is a great OS. It provides out-of-the-box functionality for most everything you need to do. You get Flash and different audio and video codecs. I get that. However, as I evaluated it for a few months, I decided that Ubuntu has the best support system.

First of all, Ubuntu is backed by Canonical, which also offers the OS plus support-for-a-fee to companies worldwide. The OS on its own, however, is free, as are most Linux-based operating systems. That's great for me because I don't want to spend a dime on Microsoft software. And THAT really is expensive. 

Both Linux Mint and Ubuntu are great. They provide non-techie users like myself a way to get work done quickly and to browse the web safely. I ultimately chose Ubuntu, though, because of the possibility of more software and greater support. It is, after all, the most popular Linux distribution. 

That's what's so great about free software. You get to choose the OS you want. It's "free" in the sense that you don't have to pay anything for most distros, and in fact you can create multiple copies of these distros to share with friends. You really can't do that with other operating systems, now, can you? 

However, in the free software community, "free" also refers to freedom from restrictive software licenses. That means people who want to modify free software can do so without fear of litigation. 

The possibility of openly modifying software benefits all of us, I believe. It leads to more innovation and more possibilities. For us end users, it gives us more choices in software. That way, we are not chained to Microsoft or Apple, which really don't give us much of a choice. 

This is why I would encourage everyone to use Linux software and operating systems. Frankly, I don't care whether you use Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, or Linux Mint (or a host of others). If you are not dependent on Microsoft or if you want to move away from it, I suggest you use Linux. There's a slight learning curve, of course, but generally these distributions work quite well.