Siyempre wala

photo from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/137508/137508

ANG problemang trapik sa Metro Manila ay problema ng tao, hindi kotse. Mantakin mong napakaraming meyor ang nag-dedecide tungkol sa traffic flow at traffic harbingers sa metropolis na ito at kailangan silang konsultahin lahat ng MMDA at sumang-ayon sa bawat panukala ng nasabing ahensiya.
    Iisa lang ang meyor ng New York City at mas malaki ang land area ng New York City (hindi pa kasama ang water area) kaysa sa total area ng buong Metro Manila! Matrapik din sa New York City, ngunit walang napakaraming meyor na kailangan konsultahin at kumbinsihin.
    May gagawin ba si Presidente Duterte o ang Konggreso sa problemang ito? Siyempre wala! [S / -I]

DYSTOPIAS

ALL these environmentalist posts I made yesterday on Facebook, of the YouTube videos above profiling this year's non-partisan Goldman Environmental Prize awardees, could perhaps together have acted (qua posts/shares) as also my way of explaining to my Facebook friends why I cannot be for the Bongbong Marcoses and the Mar Roxases and the San Miguel Corporation-backed Grace Poes of this world, and why I cannot be a loyalist of any of them, unlike some of these Facebook friends of mine. And I said I'm sorry, even though I can't really be.
    Now, the non-partisan, anti-loyalist rationale behind those Facebook posts or shares is also what's behind my belief that says . . . the Duterte government's support for, on the one hand, environmentalist baby Gina Lopez and, on the other, mining baby Bongbong Marcos, is really nothing more than a fragment of Rodrigo Duterte's Big Tent ploy to get contending forces inside his government to fight it out on policies; he'll just watch who will finally come out the winner. And these contending forces will continue to fight it out from under that Big Tent while he, the President, dangles to all of them bits of promises to keep them all within his side of the fence and still in line, so he can do whatever he wants from that secret of a soul that he has, unimpeded by any real opposition, if ever there is going to be much of an opposition left in this everyone-promised landscape. It is my belief that this Big Tent ploy is certain to unravel in the end, although the pessimist in me senses that that unraveling will not likely be happening soon, despite recent changes in the Cabinet, which were minor. So, the Bongbong Marcoses and Gina Lopezes operating within such Big Tent governments as Duterte's will continue to fight it out from within their shared Big Tent matrix, with the Dutertes of Big Tent governance laughing all the way to the (seas') horizon to meet the oncoming realization of their public and private utopias.
    The current formation of impending utopias will shape the dystopias of our tomorrow. Our dystopias. Mine, and my Facebook friends', whichever side of the various loyalisms they now happily belong to. Our planet’s natural environment has its own big tent, and it is somewhat of a dictator itself: it asks us now whether we’re for it or against it. In the end, it doesn’t really care about us. [S / -I]

A Brief Deconstruction of a Drunken Logic

THE "death penalty" (already an oxymoron nobody cares to deconstruct in our drunken nation) is a direct admission of the Philippine prison system's inability to truly isolate from society perpetrators of heinous crimes. Therefore, it---as a solution to that prison system problem---makes it no different from a man's resorting to drinking wine when he can't anymore drink from his long-broken water faucet. Like Mr. Bean, this man will stupidly applaud his own newfound solution and will avoid arguments against problems that may arise from his habitual wine-drinking. Like this man, the "death penalty", in fits of beating its chest like a man excited with having found a manly solution to his stupid problem, will avoid arguments against historically-proven new problems that could arise from it---such as wrongful executions of persons adjudged as "criminals", or criminal society's countering with its own death-brandishing judgments upon all privileged. Bur even before this, like Mr. Bean, the death penalty (or capital punishment) would avoid the basic introductory question we hinted above, which asks whether death can be considered a form of punishment, or whether a dead man made dead by the "death penalty" can both be considered as one that "has been punished" as well as one now "resting in peace". If it is the death process that is actually being referred to here as the punishment and not death itself, then is it possible to have that sans the death? Thus, torture? Or should we be done with all this stupid nonsense and just call a spade a spade, so to stop all this bullshit about the death penalty being a penalty. Let's all call it what it is, the extermination of what our civilization would judge as our society's "true criminals" (some of whom may actually have logical reasons for considering our neoliberal or "jedem das Seine, mir das Meiste" civilization as criminal by itself). In which case I may be all for it, this extermination after having honestly called itself so, . . . with the hope that I won't end up like Mr. Bean or a knocked-out Manny Pacquiao after a media-publicized wrongful execution happens years from now. [S / -I]

SUSPECT INDEPENDENCES IN THE YEAR OF GEO-REALPOLITIK

photo from http://bmag.com.au/things-to-do-in-brisbane/latest/2015/05/06/experience-the-philippines-at-the-barrio-fiesta/

SHOULD every Filipino behave or think like a neocolonial lumpenbourgeois according to the preaching of his favorite real neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders? Sa ngayon kasi ay hinahati tayo sa dalawa ng lumpenbourgeois factions sa ating pulitika ng ganito:

    Kung mas marami kang pakinabang sa Amerika at galit ka sa Tsina, dapat ay anti-Duterte ka. At kung may galit ka naman sa Amerika, for reasons as small as having been served water instead of a lauriat (lao diat) merienda during a visit to an American office, or having been denied a tourist visa once, ay dapat pro-Duterte at pro-China ka na. Ito ang tanong ko: pag anti-America ka ba, ibig sabihin nationalist ka na? At ganun din pag anti-China ka? Baka kailangan nating lahat bumalik sa kolehiyo para mapag-aralan muli ang buong kahulugan ng mga salita, dahil may mga pangyayari sa mga nakalipas na buwan (kung di man sa nakalipas na mga taon) kung saan tila napakadali lang sa ating mga pulitiko (o aktibista man) ang mag-preach o mag-claim ng posisyon ng nationalism at independence, ipse dixit—ito’y habang may paghinala sa kanila (o sa mga grupo nila) bilang mga resipyente ng pondo galing sa kung anu-anong banyagang bangko, mga kompanya, o mga indibidwal na di-malayong may kani-kanyang interes na maaaring taliwas sa nasyonalismo o independensiya na isinusulong ng mga talumpati ng mga pulitiko o aktibistang ito.
    Here’s my next question: nationalism, according to what concept of nationhood? Or according to whose perspective on the idea of ideal nationhood? Now, I’ll grant that patriotism is what binds us together as citizens of our country, and that—as a friend of mine quipped—this patriotism can derive from different orientations, religious affiliations, political ideologies, ages, economic brackets, and so on. Indeed, we can always choose to focus on the power of the positive fact concerning this common ground’s goal instead of on the doldrums of a non-goal with our often-ready list of differences. For, after all, it's this love of country—albeit a country molded by our conquistadors, the Spaniards—that has retained our wholeness and coagulation as tribes or linguistic groups, and we’ve remained relatively undivided for decades since the fall of the Spaniards and our independence from the Commonwealth. True, also, anyone who has attempted to strike at our motherland in order to subtract from it, e.g. the long Islamist separatist insurrection in Mindanao or the battles in the North before the establishment of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, would always be countered by the center with the ample defense of unity against these many efforts at wedge-building.
    But here’s the problem: we've been ruled by neocolonial lumpenbourgeois interests since the beginning of our republic/s, and these interests have been imposing their neocolonial lumpenbourgeois formulas on the nation for the same length of time, all in the name of patriotism and nationalism! Yes, to the point that the connect between these impositions and the nationalist ideals these lumpenbourgeois factions claimed would be questioned many a time by many a cynic from both the academia and not. In short, it’s not the lack or absence of patriotism and/or nationalism that’s the issue but who the people are who have had a handle on these ideals and used the very same for intents many would regard as other than what nationalist ideals proclaim.

    And as for love, that great intangible almost guaranteeing the ultimate sacrifice for its service, it has been used in the same breath that some leaders of France bandied it for a rationale to side with Hitler. And it is in this sense of a problematic regarding the concept of love that I would here unabashedly assert that perhaps our current President, Rodrigo Duterte, may be allowing an emotional love for Freddie Aguilar’s country music to influence his pragmatic love of country, by which I mean mistaking self-centered love (controlling love from an emotional utopia) for selfless love (love of a democratic nation). The first kind of love (emotional and self-centered) may be sincere and real in a lumpenbourgeois leader, but is it the kind of love the majority really want (or need) or are truly empathetic towards from their democratic voice, post-election?

MY friend the banker and gallerist Boy David says: “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. The challenge is that it is harder to be subtle than strident.”

    And that’s the crux of our problem today as receivers of a media image, isn’t it? Consistency, as a requisite of the art of media image-making servicing the star system-leaning presidential form of politics that we have, would find the need to be subtle about the devil in the details (that would often require analysts to appear on talk shows) waylaid by our political culture as a whole in a manner that would not be done in a parliamentary system’s culture of constant debate. A shallow consistency of and for a media image becomes the science as well as the subject of political scientism, precisely what we see stretched to its utmost level of ludicrousness on Fox News and CNN regarding the US’s own stars in their presidential system. Was his smile the right kind of smile for the right kind of audience? What did his/her offensive statement achieve, poll-wise? Woe to the devil in the details as they continue to dress up as PR and marketing angels upon public ignorance.

    And what details are we talking about? Well, here’s a sample of the sort of Facebook discussion that I would prefer (not that this sample is as “deep” as an esoteric, academic thread, which we do not need to be):

WHILE on the issue of the division in our society/nation, our friend the Perth-based painter A- referred us to a 1970s root division in the study of Philippine history: “Kuyang, nahati sa dalawa ang mga Filipino noon—yung mga nagbasa ng aklat ni Teodoro Agoncillo, at yung mga nagbasa naman ng kay Gregorio Zaide. Tila ang problema ay mas marami ang nakabasa nung kay Zaide. :-p”
    “You zaid it well, kuyang Art. :),” I replied. “Ang problema, ang mga nagbasa kay Agoncillo ay nag-aala-pro-American-Zaide na rin pagdating sa China. Nagiging pro-China Zaides. :v”

    “Lol... :-p,” wrote Kuyang Art.

    “At pa’no naman ang mga nagsunog ng kilay kay Renato Constantino at sa mga namulat at namumulat pa sa patuloy na nagbabagong anyo ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, halimbawa sa pamamagitan ng mga akda o lektura nina Ambeth R. Ocampo, Ka Inggo (Domingo C. de Guzman), Xiao Chua, atbp.?” asked our friend R-. At maganda na nabanggit sila ng ating kaibigan, dahil interesado akong malaman kung ano nga ang masasabi ng mga historyador na ito tungkol sa tunggalian na nangyayari ngayon sa pagitan ng TeamAmerika of anti-‘Dutertards’ at ng all-but-TeamChina apologists ng Duterte-ismo.

    Totoo, marami tayong lalong mauunawaan tungkol sa ugat ng katiwalian dito sa ating bansa kung mababasa natin ang aklat na The Evil That Men Do (a Philippine history book) ni Ka Inggo. At malinaw din sa mga pahayag ni de Guzman na pro-Duterte siya, ayon sa ating kaibigan. Pero pro-Tsina rin nga ba? Marahil kaugnay lang sa tipong pang-malayang patakarang panlabas, sabi ni R-.

    Ngunit, kung usapang geo-realpolitik na, kalayaan how? By joining them when you can't beat them? Hmm. If so, I wonder why those who would be espousing this sort of logic towards China weren’t so enthusiastic in applying the same logic towards the statehood-for-the-Philippines-in-the-US-federal-union movement’s cause? Is it because China is socialist and worth “joining” our islands to, and the US is not?
    If so, for socialism’s sake, it begs the corollary question regarding how socialist China is. Is one-party communist rule, with its own communist party elite of businessmen and new capitalists, socialist? How? How (plutocratically) not? Is the sort of socialism in some parts of the EU despicable or lame to Chinese communist partisan capitalism? Would the sort of socialism espoused by the left of the US Democratic Party be regarded by it as equally lame? What would be their comment on Trotskyist takes against the Communist bureaucracy? Or on anarchist communist takes against this same statist bureaucracy?

    Sana ay kalayaan talaga sa puntong walang pagdidikta o pagdodomina ng mas malakas, was the articulation of our friend R- of an oft-repeated expression of hopefulness among those sympathetic to or hopeful for the President’s veering the Philippines away from the West towards a closer-to-China foreign policy. But ‛sana’ is a too-hopeful prayer-cum-gamble hovering above the current Duterte excitement over a hoped-for Philippine future, wouldn’t you agree? Our friend Wilfredo Gallinero’s comment on another post of mine treats of concrete examples for this very topic, and it doesn’t beat around the bush. He wrote: “why don’t we ask some of the former satellites of Russia why they broke away from the USSR (and then aligned themselves with the rest of Europe away from Russia)? Or why Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Taiwan, do not like mainland China that much. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered around the globe why they ran away from their homeland (and would still be wary of going back)? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to the United States the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China or Russia? Why not ask the Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why not ask the Cubans if they think they deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a vintage Chevy Cadillac?”

    There you go. So, it’s not Duterte, Our Deliverer, then, is it, Mr. Gallinero? Appears more like Duterte, China’s Deliverer. Tama ba ako? And so, who, then, is fit, or should we trust, to deliver for us a truly independent foreign policy, if it is possible?—asked our friend R-. This is definitely a question worth delving into in order to look the devil-in-the-details in the eye. Without beating around the bush, let me go straight to my abstract, which goes thus:

    An independent foreign policy is policy reached by choice of principle, not by the dictate of, say, one's campaign or regime foreign-bank donors, for example. And while the rumor that the AIIB donated a sum to Duterte’s campaign may be a wicked lie, it is also a fact that there was instant communication between the AIIB and the Duterte transition finance team after the President’s win. (Remember: while it was indeed the Aquino government that started mulling the possibility of the Philippines' joining the AIIB, President Aquino himself would later issue a caveat concerning being quick to bite the temptation, even though he would later announce in December 2015 that we shall be joining the Bank).
    We are not saying that Duterte is selling us to the Chinese quick, the way the Makapilis sold some of our grandfathers and grandmothers to the Japs during World War II. But remember that the bulk of the Makapilis, who were promised lands through land reform or peace or good times in Japan, did not become Makapilis by choice of sober principle, but either from duress or from sheer hatred of their neighbors or present landlords. Duterte has been expressing a personal anger towards Americans as a nation of loud people, which could be blamed for the impression that his anti-American friendliness towards China is not entirely derived from a sober principle.

    Pero, whatever sort of principle is behind the Duterte plan, ang problema natin, ultimately, is not whom to trust to deliver us to a zone with an independent foreign policy, but that we have a presidential system where the president is the dictator who decides for the destiny of 100,000,000+ individuals outside of his possibly neo-lumpenbourgeois present luxury. One should wonder why no one is yet calling for a referendum on at least one of Duterte's humongous decisions.

    Ser Boy re-entered this part of the conversation with this: “Right now, China succeeds in peeling the Philippines away from the United States; it is whipping a major win in Beijing’s long-term campaign to weaken U.S. alliances in the region. It will feed fears that the right mix of intimidation and inducements could influence other partners to distance themselves from Washington.”

    “The pre-election rumor that Duterte was a candidate funded by the AIIB turning out to be an earth-shattering reality?” I offered a wicked, gossipy conjecture.

    Here, our friend Don Miguel came in with a re-post of a status post by one named Randy Valiente, who wrote: “Mami-miss ko yung mga sigaw sa kalsada ng 'Tuta ng Kano'. Baka nga mas cute pakinggan yung 'Chihuahua ng China'. Chos. :P”

    Hahaha. :)

YES, our thread ended in laughter. But it was not just that ending that made the thread not the kind of exchange you’d read in comment boxes with Duterte loyalists (on one hand) and opposing politicians’ loyalists (on the other) in them. For, given that some of my friends are sympathetic to certain or all Duterte policies, with others not, I believe that they have all been demonstrating amply well the fact that the brain of each member of this Filipino nation of ours can behave or think beyond being a merely neocolonial lumpenbourgeois echo chamber for the preachings of its favorite neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders. I think an independent foreign policy can begin with each of our nation’s members’ exercise of its independence from the chains of politician- or party-directed blind loyalism. Otherwise one should have no business waving about the word “independence” when he cannot himself be independent enough to be able to examine or question his own idol-politician’s or idol-party’s suspect use of words. [S / -I]

SIX QUESTIONS IN LIEU OF SEX VIDEOS (or, INVESTIGATIONS NA WALANG KADALA-DALA)

photo from http://www.alvintube.xyz/sen-leila-de-lima-nagbabala-kay-pres-duterte&page=CBQQAA.html

1. CAN I PLEAD FOR CLARITY?

Again, let me appropriate the voice and jargon of divination priests as I here present what I already said to some friends about the Rodrigo Duterte government's going after the former Commission on Human Rights chairman, former Justice secretary, and now senator Leila de Lima through a House probe run by its House allies, purportedly in aid of legislation:

    That the repetitive going over some things would not help anything except to create the impression that one is repetitively going over these things. That this kind of persistence within the chamber is going to be unfortunate, for the simple reason that trying too hard to bring hidden manipulations to light will underline nothing else but the fact that one is trying too hard to bring those hidden manipulations to light. And the House allies of the government must imagine what they have to lose by this, not merely in terms of the people's tax money wasted but in terms of the political positioning of their careers henceforward (or are they doing this precisely to help their careers in the present, tomorrow be damned?). Things won't go well with this qua a House probe, I said, as the most that it can do is make a resolution for the filing of charges against de Lima, which was what the government should have done in the first place. And if what it wants is to get all this out into the media, it could actually have done so without a House probe! Well, I can imagine that this is a situation that is unfamiliar to many of these representatives (a historic moment in the history of this House, the committee chairman said), which makes it dangerous for them to handle, as they have perhaps yet to fully get into it and get accustomed to it in the manner of judges and justices accustomed to poring over the arguments of lawyers, which unfortunately they can't go into that way as they pore on the fundaments of the case as the Duterte government’s lawyers themselves! I wonder if some of them are behaving with extreme unease toward their need to also keep in touch with their feelings (of doubt, of suspicion). Or is what they're feeling fear? Would they take action to remove themselves from that last state, if that's the state where some of them are in? That may sound funny, but it is actually the bigger question, considering that the bulk of them have been proven to be political turncoats all their lives, or at least to belong to families who have displayed themselves as such.

    And now this: last week's promise to release clips of an alleged celebrity sex video involving de Lima and her driver, as the latter is purported to be the bagman/collector of drug money from New Bilibid Prison drug lord inmates. It may be that the government is pursuing a worthwhile persona here in de Lima's driver. But, assuming the sex video is real, what's the plan in forming that connection beyond theory? Is a sex partner necessarily a business partner? Shouldn't the House have been probing the driver's connection to the prison-based drug trade first before de Lima's connection to the driver?

    So, where to now with this? Is the investigation moving now into the supposed missing ₱300 million mentioned by one? How did the government come up with that in the first place? Who would corroborate it? Who would belie it? Are the personas who could belie the existence of those missing funds still alive? And if they are, who has a hold on these witnesses? And if the government's "prosecution team" has a hold on these witnesses (in jail guarded by Special Action Force personnel), how can these witnesses be expected to belie anything? And weren't some of these the subjects of a supposed assassination attempt inside the NBP recently (which oppositionists insist was part of a psychological torture if not an outright assassination attempt)? You see, these are the details that would oblige the government to come up with a really good plan to make its story hold, if not in court, at least in the eyes and ears of the majority of the public.

    The ultimate question that the people should be asking is this: what does the government really want? It certainly must not come out that it merely wants to destroy de Lima, out of spite for her investigations into extrajudicial killings by Duterte in the present and in the past, for it is spending much of the people's money in that pursuit. It must make its choice clear now and make sure that what it wants and what it is doing to get to what it wants will satisfy this want. Otherwise it will only get itself into trouble, and we, the taxpayers, will suffer the consequences of that trouble more than the wealthy people in government.

0000

2. IS THE PURPOSE OF A HAMMER THE SAME AS THE PURPOSE OF A CHISEL?

So, again, where to now with this? Is the situation now dissolving for current Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II (who also happens to be the former lawyer of one Davao police officer who owned a piece of land purported to be the burying place of victims of the Davao Death Squad)? Might it be a good idea for him and his president to start with something else, say the filing of a case in court against de Lima, and make good use of what they have now? But what do they have now, actually? Aha! And where merely did they bring these? Aguirre announced that these are all "material witnesses" with "explosive testimonies". But, but, material witnesses with explosive testimonies sent to a congressional committee hearing? For what end? Ano ang magagawa no'n?

    Aguirre says de Lima is coming out guilty. Hmm. So I guess his law experience expects the congressional committee to sentence de Lima to life imprisonment a week from now, huh?

0000

3. WHAT DO YOU THINK DUTERTE’S DUTERTE WOULD HAVE DONE?

If I were Rodrigo Duterte here's what I believe I would say about all this, being Duterte:

    "Ang hindi ko talaga maintindihan dyan sa congressional hearing hearing na yan . . . sus . . . Bilibid? How can you solve the problem in Bilibid with a congressional hearing, aber, can anyone tell me here? Put- . . . Alam niyo, kung ako yan, . . . puntahan ko lahat ng mga drug lords na may ginagawang kalokohan diyan, drug transactions there sa loob, . . . tapos pag nanlaban, well, . . . barilin mo. Yun lang. Barilin mo! What's the problem there? Sus, ginoo, pa-hearing hearing, putang-."

    But I'm not Rodrigo Duterte and, interestingly, he's not being Duterte here. Instead he's allowing this committee of coalition partisans to go on with its pa-hearing hearing because, perhaps, his majority coalition’s primary purpose with this is not to finally "get rid of drugs in Bilibid" but something else, whatever else it is.

    A total waste of the people's money, then!

0000

4. MABUHAY ANG LEHISLATURA?

Pero sa tingin ko di pa dapat tapusin ang congressional committee hearing na ito na nag-iimbestiga sa drug trade at drug supply sa NBP. Sa pananaw ko lang naman, kailangan pa siguro ng mga isang taon pa o at least 100 days pa para marami pa itong mausisa bago makagawa ng kahit na isang legislation man lang. Mga ₱90 milyong pa siguro ang kakailanganin para rito para makabuo tayo ng isang maliit na legislation.

    Ako ay hindi naman kongresista, kaya mababaw lang ang naisip kong legislation sa ngayon, ang baguhin ang pangalan ng Bilibid. Inaasahan ko na may malalim na magagawang batas ang hearing na ito pagkatapos ng isang taon at ilang milyong pisong halaga ng supply ng Absolut distilled drinking water ni Lucio Tan, kape, at turon para rito. Mabuhay kayo!

0000

5. NGUNIT MAY MGA NANINIWALA NA SA MGA TESTIMONYA AT IYON ANG MAHALAGA?

Okey, okey, sige nga. Ako na rin. Naniniwala na rin ako na may sex videos nga si Leila de Lima at ang kanyang dating driver. Naniniwala na ako na tumatanggap ng bilyon-bilyon si Leila de Lima mula sa drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison that would put to shame amounts of money pocketed by people involved in the PDAF scam of 2013, says Aguirre, at ang kolektor niya rito ay ang dating Marine sergeant na naging private security at driver niya na si Ronnie Dayan. Naniniwala na ako sa lahat ng sinasabi ni Vitaliano Aguirre II tungkol kay Leila de Lima. So, ano na ngayon? . . . Well, mabuhay ang congressional hearing! Maaari niyo nang sentensiyahan ng habambuhay na pagkabilanggo yang si Leila de Lima na yan!

    Ha? Ano? Di kayo nagsi-sentensya? E, sino ang magsisentensya? Ha? Ano po yon? A, ganun ba? Ay, sus, ganun pala. Tsk. E, ba't dito niyo dinala?!!!!!!

0000

6. AT NASAAN NA TAYO NGAYON?

photo from http://saltmarshrunning.com/2014/09/10/why-runners-love-bananas/

KUNG ANG LOHIKA NG IMBESTIGASYON NA ITO AY PARANG ISANG PILÍNG NG SAGING NA KAILANGA'Y BUO PARA ITO AY BILHIN NG TAO, GANITO MARAHIL ANG MAGIGING ISTRAKTURA NITO (KUNG HAHAYAAN NIYO AKONG IDROWING ITO SA SALITA):

    SAGING 1 (HYPOTHESIS 1): May drug trade na nangyayari noon sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SAGING 2 (HYPOTHESIS 2): Tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isa sa mga drug lords dito.

    TWIN SAGING 3A & 3B (HYPOTHESES 3A & 3B): Si Ronnie Dayan ay boypren ni Leila de Lima at siyang kolektor nito ng drug money mula sa drug lord sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SO, ANG UNANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 1 AT 2: Kung may mga testimonyang magpapatotoo na may drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison at na totoong tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isang drug lord dito.

    ANG PANGALAWANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 3A: Kung totoo ngang boypren ni Leila de Lima si Ronnie Dayan.

    NGAYON, ANO ANG MISSING LINK SA DAPAT SANA'Y KUMPLETONG PILÍNG NG APAT NA SAGING? Aha! Ito ang matagal nang hinahanap ng mga evolutionists at creationists: ang unggoy na may hawak ng Saging 3B. Ito ang makapagbibigay kasagutan sa tanong kung totoo ngang kolektor ang unggoy na ito ni Leila de Lima sa NBP. Dahil kahit ilang milyong sex video pa man (tunay man o peke) ang ilabas ng mga gorilla ni Rodrigo Duterte na magpapatunay na mag-boypren nga ang dalawa, kung wala rin lang ding testimonyang magsasabi na kolektor nga itong si Dayan (at tandaan nating walang kongresistang nagpakita ng malakas na interes sa tanong at sa unggoy na ito at mas binigyang pansin nang paulit-ulit ang pangalan at imahen ni de Lima bilang babae na nagsubo raw ng saging na saba sa kanyang boypren), putol na ang saging na ito (Saging 3B) sa pilíng ng argumento. Ang matitirang tanong ay . . . sino ang nagnakaw ng isang saging sa kanina'y buo pang pilíng ng apat na saging na basta na lang na binili mo? At nasaan na ito?

    I-SIMPLIFY NATIN SA ATING PARAPHRASE. Ang tanong: e ano ngayon kung mapapatunayang may relasyon si de Lima at si Dayan kung wala namang pagpapatunay na kolektor nga ng drug money itong si Dayan? At yun nga: dahil ito nga ang alegasyon kay Dayan na pinalabas sa media at ikinalat sa mga kongresista, di ba dapat yun muna ang pinatunayan at binigyan halaga ng mga testimonya at ng mga nag-iimbestiga? Bakit inuna ang relasyon nila ni de Lima? And even assuming na mapapatunayan ang relasyon at ang pagiging runner ni Dayan, kailangan pa rin patunayan na alam ni de Lima ang pinaggagagawa ni Dayan, lalo na ang alegasyon na si de Lima mismo ang nag-utos kay Dayan. Ganito kahirap patunayan ang mga paratang sa kasong ito kung sa korte dadalhin. Kaya siguro hindi doon dinala.

    Ito ang sabi ng kaibigan kong si H-: "Maling-mali ang paraan. Pero insider rumours lang, ha. Totoo raw ang DDS, at totoo rin daw na kumita si de Lima sa drugging sa NBP. Mali lang ang mga paraan nila, pero yung tamang paraan ay matagal nang hinde posible sa sistemang inherently bulok (ang ating justice system). . . ."
    Gayunpaman, mahirap nga talaga ang kasong ito, kasi puro testimony ang hawak, at lahat ay galing sa 1) mga preso na hawak na ng bagong gobyerno, at 2) mga taong may axe to grind kay Leila de Lima. Mahirap dumating sa beyond reasonable doubt, kung di ako nagkakamali. Tsk. I think maybe the Digong knew he simply had to do this while also knowing it won't prosper. Then, recently, he might also have been led to think that this might be creating a backlash, the reason perhaps why there were instructions to close it down na. . . .
    On the other side, meanwhile, its people are indeed starting to paint a dreary picture of the Duterte government as a Marcosian sort that would concoct stories and force people to testify (under threat of death or a relative's death) against anyone who ventures to criticize its main current direction. Duterte's reactions to US, EU and UN criticisms of his war on drugs has only bolstered some people's belief in the truthfulness of that picture. In this following, Duterte is already an animal, and so are his people. Recently, also, de Lima spoke at a women's rights conference and made a scathing speech against this President's and this government's misogyny, painting those siding with this president's brand of humor as pigs.
    And so the battle for the public's trust continues.

0000

P.S. Today, Rodrigo Duterte will attend a Banana Congress. Totoo yan. Well, alam na natin kung ano ang magiging laman ng script. At alam na rin natin kung ano ang sasabihin ni Leila de Lima, something, perhaps, that might sound like this: "abangan ang tawanan ng mga unggoy na animal na nandoon na pumapalakpak sa kanyang galit at patawang may mga walang kuwentang pagparatang."

    And the battle for the public's belief continues in this jungle of a banana republic. [S /-I]

WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE SCHEDULED STATE BURIAL (WITH HONORS, AS A MATTER OF COURSE) OF FORMER DICTATOR FERDINAND MARCOS AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI?

cartoon borrowed from paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com

1.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership under various faces, with its filial penchant for forgiving, even if only a bit, and permitting people in exile to return to their regions of wide support in exchange for the surrender of a few centavos of their stolen wealth. Along with this, the dismal performance of the Presidential Commission on Good Government in running after the Marcoses' stolen wealth in offshore accounts, not to mention the reported corruption of some appointed officials of the commission. Along with this, the oligarchies' lack of transparency with regards to the amount and whereabouts of all the recovered ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses' haul.

2.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership (through one of its own or otherwise a puppet), with its treatment of Philippine politics as a game wherein its leaders can nurture an anti-Marcos image, complete with TV documentaries about the Marcos era and annual anniversaries reflecting on the Marcos oppressive years of horrors, while entering into business jointures and secret political alliances with elements of the Marcos family; in the case of Noynoy Aquino, fanning anti-Marcos rhetoric on PTV4 and ABS-CBN care of the Lopezes even as he patches up differences with the Danding Cojuangcos and the Floirendos and other former Marcos allies to build both business and political alliances for his Liberal Party machine, one of which products may have been getting back a larger influence on Hacienda Luisita stocks that would result in Kris Aquino's sitting on the board of the corporation, to mention a few such arrangements beyond our masses' full comprehension.

3.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership and its failure to govern beyond the (legalist) ways and habits of the crony-serving Marcos era, which led to people's disillusionment with these post-Marcos governments that led in turn to a popular belief that perhaps Marcos was just a victim of black propaganda and that maybe what those Marcos-supporting white and grey propaganda releases have been saying were probably more right than not.

4.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership with its secret arrangements that may have given the Marcoses leeway to enter the various propaganda media, which entry would lead the Marcos machine to convince millions of disillusioned Filipinos of old and new generations to consider the possibility that maybe Marcos was not that bad, culminating in an almost-win for the vice-presidential candidacy of Bongbong Marcos.

5.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership, with its failure to strengthen a continuing knowledge of all the recent Philippine history of abuses and inculcating all this into the memories of both old and new students and teachers.

6.) Finally, the irony of a newly-elected President who unabashedly proclaims that he is a socialist (partly true, perhaps, while also partly false) while confessing to a close friendship with the rightist Marcos family, and---after the elections---confessing to having been primarily funded by a Floirendo (a former Marcos ally in Mindanao) during his presidential campaign. (Incidentally, it was purportedly thanks to this Floirendo that a Duterte-Marcos 2016 tandem became the most common tandem on the presidential election posters on the walls and fences of Davao).

7.) And. oh, we almost forgot: the Filipino people being too divided on their impression about the Marcoses, thanks to all of the above, that would now render it impossible for them to launch a revolution against all of Marcos' friends in government (if there is even such an animal as a true enemy of the Marcoses in the highest roster of government since the presidency of Ferdinand's cousin, Fidel Ramos). [S / -I]

REMINDING THE PRESIDENT OF THAT DISTRUST THAT PRODUCED "IN DIGONG WE TRUST"

photo from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Philippine_State_of_the_Nation_Address.jpg

THE President is giving us a dressing-down for flagging his statements that favored a Con Ass over a Con Con for the drafting of a new Constitution. He says that this distrust towards our senators and congressmen in Congress is too much. And he says nobody has a monopoly on good wisdom.
    We understand the President's concern about the huge resources that would be needed for a Con Con. However, the President must indulge us our continuing distrust of these people in Congress along with their wisdom. We might like to note that they mostly derive from the wealthy class of our Republic, as do their wisdom (or wisdom absent from their knowledge).
    As a self-described Socialist, the President might understand where people's distrust is coming from. In fact, he might recall that his campaign leaned on this very distrust towards the wealthy political class. He used this distrust to push for a more trustworthy alternative, and in fact continues to use it as a rationale for many of his freshly-launched new or rehashed policies, the anti-illegal drugs drive being one of them. After all, this is the same wealthy political class that would never give up its access to the pork barrel (of whatever name) and rid us of a pork-barrel-run system of executive-legislative governance. This is the same wealthy political class that would like to continue to use the "epal" tradition of putting their names on every government project or vehicle or structure that they can appropriate as products of their generosity. Therefore, it is this very same wealthy political class that would likely avoid a furtherance of power-sharing areas with the people through stronger direct democracy instruments such as the initiative, the right to call for referenda, the right to recall elections, among others. Thus our fear that this Con Ass could very well decide to get rid of the people's initiative clause in the 1987 Constitution (instead of strengthening it).
    Sure, it's possible that delegates to a Con Con might be just as suspect to our nation's eyes. There would be the gamble. But the President must understand that our fears in relation to most politicians in Congress are not totally without grounds. The President might remember that most, if not all, of his new policies, and the people's support of them, all come from fears. So that if he can trust that our larger fears against the proliferation of illegal drugs in our neighborhoods are what is keeping us from fearing his police state methods against illegal drugs more, then he must trust our expression of fears in other areas.
    Who knows: he who rules by fear just might be able to help this nation further in exploiting and defeating one other fear: the fear of reinvigorated old privileges among wealthy political class elements when they go unchecked by the people who may have just been further excluded from their government via a more fake democracy in a new Constitution. [S / -I]

Digong's Pale Vision of a Revolution

photo from http://www.1meee.com/%E2%80%AArodrigo-duterte%E2%80%AC%E2%80%AC/

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte wants the French model, a semi-presidential system, but with a unicameral legislature. What gives? Well, the basic rationale for the parliamentary system against the presidential system is that it's the parliamentary system that gets rid---more or less---of national big business' hold on presidential candidates (who need big business money to run at all). So what does this say about the Duterte vision of a revolution for the Philippines' future?
    Another basic rationale for the parliamentary system is the fact that, like two-party systems, political parties automatically get serious about their being parties in fighting for majority seats. And even when parties lose seats in a parliamentary system, they get serious about forming a shadow government. In this kind of setup, the need for the pork barrel, which is used in the presidential system for congressmen to veer their voices to a path more in tune with the executive branch, virtually disappears. In turn, in a parliamentary system, there is no more need for party people to change parties everytime a new president from another party enters the picture. Duterte's vision of a revolution, it seems, doesn't want to get rid of the pork barrel and just wants the "unicamerality" of a Parliament.
     So much for revolutions? [S / -I]

Alam Mo Ba Ang Ibig Sabihin ng Quid Pro Quo?

photo from http://thesource.com/2015/12/17/happy-37th-birthday-manny-pacquiao-top-5-humanitarian-movements/

SO, dahil alam mo naman pala, ano kaya, Senador, kung ang binabalak mong gawin sa trabaho mo sa Senado ay gawin din ng mga katulong at hardinero mo sa iyo, magustuhan mo kaya?
     Ano kaya kung ang tao nalang ang maging Senado sa isang direct democracy para makapag-sports nalang ang political elite ng ating plutokrasiya o walang kuwentang representative democracy? [S / -I]

Paano Mamuhay sa Glorious Century ng mga Mesdames, Eraps, at Erams

photo from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/29417-gloria-arroyo-proclaimed-winner-in-pampanga

NAGTATAKA ka pa kung bakit malaya si Imelda na ngayo'y Kongresista pa, si Erap na ngayo'y meyor na uli, at---ilang oras mula ngayon---si Gloria na maaari nang ibalik sa Konggreso, ayon sa kaniyang mga in-appoint na maging mga "hustisya" ng Korte Suprema? Di ka masanay.
     Alam naman nating sa Pilipinas, walang kapamilya ng isa sa mga pamilya sa tuktok ng ating plutokrasiya at oligarkiya ang nakukulong ng matagal, dahil parating ang kanilang pagkakulong ay bahagi lamang ng drama, ng isang serye ng moro-moro plays, sa gitna ng tunggalian ng mga magkakalabang pamilya rito.
     Drama, o moro-moro play, dahil kahit man may tunggaliang pulitikal, tunggalian sa lupa o sa negosyo, o anumang away sa gitna ng mga pamilyang ito, bahagi pa rin ang bawat isa sa kanila ng magkakakabit na relasyon ng kanilang mga angkan na may mga sariling iginuhit na linyang di dapat nilalalagpasan ng anumang aksyon ng isang Bahay. Kumbaga, sa bandang huli, pare-pareho lang naman ang kanilang mga ipinaglalaban---ang kanilang mga sariling yaman.
     Batas? Ang batas sa mga pamilyang ito ay isa lamang laruan, at minsan ay isang punyal na maari lamang ipukol ng tuluyan sa mga di-nila-kauring lapastangan sa kanilang royalidad.

PERO, siyempre, pagkalabas nila sa kanilang drama-entabladong kulungan, iboboto natin sila uli. Dahil alam mo naman, ang star system sa ating representative democracy ay isang sistemang walang pinagkaiba sa noong malayang pinapipili ang tao kung sino ang gusto nilang magdala sa kanila sa kalayaan: si Prinsipe X o si Prinsesa Y. [S / -I]

My amendment proposals to the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735)

DESPITE my being a part of the convenors' team of ePIRMA (the Empowered People's Initiative and Reform Movement Alliance instigated by Manny SD Lopez with my help) that later joined forces with the Cebu Catholic hierarchy-backed Cebu Coalition and the Makabayan Coalition in a largely evolutionary effort to draft the 2014 People's Initiative Against Pork Barrel, it’s true that I had reservations about the viability of the Philippines’ initiative process as avowed by the existing initiative-enabling law (RA 6735). Assuming that my reservations were loudly expressed and not merely kept to myself, you could say now that my hangup was proven correct. In this video clip from a GMA News coverage of an October 2013 forum at Hotel Rembrandt on Tomas Morato Avenue, watch from 1:46:

     I am not, of course, Joey de Veyra (I'm Jojo de Veyra), and I was not trying to "batikos" (criticize) the proposition campaign during the time of this news clip. In fact, despite my being identified as the convenor of a different group (the Facebook group called Forum for Direct Democracy Philippines), I (armed with the FDDP's cause) was among those very individuals trying to convene more people to join in ePIRMA's effort, efforts that culminated in a "people's congress" held at the Asian Institute of Management convention center in December 2013. If you are to get access to a coverage video of my entire speech at that forum---and my answer to a journalist's question on how ePIRMA proposed to do the signature-gathering realistically---you'd see where I stood in that whole affair, despite a supposed ambiguous position I carried according to that very brief portrayal of my voice in that news clip by 24 Oras. But that's immaterial now. The point is that I did, somehow, express reservations about the potential of the effort to succeed, which was a reservation shared by many in the group that also pushed the group to join forces with the Cebu Coalition (which was then loudly doing a parallel campaign in the Visayas) for a more united front.

     In August 2014, the initiative was formally launched in Cebu City. I was there as part of ePIRMA. But as regards to what happened soon after the launch, I'd here confess that the signature gathering was mostly left to certain parishes of the more organized Catholic Church, the primary backing of the Cebu Coalition. Sporadic rallies of support were organized by the Makabayan group and provincial groups. In contrast, other members of ePIRMA were seen to have moved on to various other national concerns. Manny SD Lopez---ePIRMA's leading convenor and most active campaigner on the road---would also busy himself with organizing the Christian Peace Alliance, one of the groups advocating for a drastic review of some provisions of the then-in-its-final-thrust Bangsamoro Basic Law. Lopez would also form the EdlSA 2.22.15 Coalition, a group that called for President Benigno Aquino III's resignation after the Mamasapano mishap. I myself soon became part of an online art magazine. So, I submit that in this latter period I was not privy anymore to how the signature-gathering for the initiative on the pork barrel was progressing. I did hear of some pockets of resistance to the initiative, as well as the Comelec's seeming lack of enthusiasm towards verifying the signatures, but that's about it. . . .

     Then came the various noises leading to the 2016 general election, within which any news concerning the initiative's progress was nowhere to be found on Google. Not anymore.

     Then came the elections. And, guess what: Rody Duterte became our new President, and Leni Robredo our new Vice President. What do these names mean? Or, rather, what---ideally---should these names mean to us?

DUTERTE belongs to the PDP-Laban, a political party that claims to be for popular democracy (populism) and participatory democracy. Robredo, in turn, is the wife of the late Jesse Robredo; Jesse made a name for himself as a stalwart of participatory governance in his capacity as mayor of Naga City before he became the Interior Secretary of Noynoy Aquino. Leni, as Jesse's widow, was soon drafted by the Liberal Party to run for Congress; she won and became a vocal campaigner for participatory democracy and, as a priority, participatory budgeting (you can read my worldview on Leni Robredo's decorative role within the Liberal Party government by clicking here).

     What, to me, the whole situation means to signal is this: that perhaps the time is ripe for a more realistic RA 6735, one that would provide the people a usable initiative instrument in lieu of the existing one that simply provides a semblance of direct democracy that ultimately ends up as short (because near impossible to fulfill the requirements of).

     Thus, for us to truly provide a usable instrument for a participatory government of the people, by the people and for the people (as against the continuance of our present purely-representative democratic governance by the prescriptive representatives of the people, of the prescriptive representatives of the people and ultimately for the interests of these supposed representatives of the people), let me now propose the following amendments to RA 6735 (even before that new federal-parliamentary Constitution being proposed by the Duterte government arrives). My proposed amendments are here below, in red, which a lawyer out there could perhaps to more properly articulate:

Section 5. Requirements. — (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof in the case of Constitutional amendment, and of which every region is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters in the case of national statute initiatives, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the Commission.

(b2) A petition for an initiative on a new national statute, or one on an initiative seeking to amend an existing statute, must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every region must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative seeking to amend an existing national statute may be exercised only after three (3) years from the ratification of the same and only once every three (3) years thereafter.

Section 7. Verification of Signatures. — The Election Registrar is obligated to verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election within twenty (20) days from receipt of the petition.

SECTION 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. — The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum.
     Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the Commission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the same, publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.

     My arguments-cum-reasons for these amendments, should they appear to be not so obvious, I shall provide later in other essays. For now let me say that the signature requirement of 3% of the registered voting population per legislative district is, while required by the Constitution for Constitutional amendments, is just too steep for the creation of new statutes and initiatives seeking to amend existing statutes. Furthermore, with that requirement, it is possible for one legislative district to hostage the national interest, which definitely runs counter to the tenets of democracy and plurality. Furthermore, the period required for the Comelec to do its job in the management of this process must be accompanied with administrative penalties to avoid any inside filibustering of this democratic process. . . . [S / -I]

Some basic advantages of the parliamentary system

1.

National big business campaign support won't have a monopoly on politicians running for national parliamentary posts because politicians will only have to run for a parliamentary seat from within their district. That is, they don't have to campaign nationwide since parliamentary seats are representative seats representing legislative or electoral districts, much like the seats in our present House of Representatives (barring the ludicrous party-list party seats).

     Therefore, anyone with a limited amount of money can aspire for a prime ministership (care of his party's support before or after the election, should his party get the majority of the seats in Parliament). Again, this is because one only needs to run within his district, therefore only needing a campaign budget for within his district, as against our present President and Vice-President and Senators who have to campaign nationwide with billions of pesos in campaign funds. This means, finally, that even a Grace Padaca or a Neri Colmenares, who may run sans national big business support, will have a chance at becoming Prime Minister, for as long as their party would nominate them or favor them to stand as their leader.

2.

Accordingly, parties with little money, for as long as they have members running in many districts, will also have a chance at getting a majority of the seats in Parliament at any given moment in history.

3.

Bills are quick to pass and get implemented in Parliament. Parliament simply allocates a period of time to debate on a bill/law and proceeds to vote on them, as against what we’ve witnessed as the slowness of the passage of bills in the presidential with bicameral legislature system. This latter system’s slowness often results in a failure to pass bills necessary for an administration to succeed, resulting finally in regrets at not having passed this or that at the end of every administration’s term.

     That slowness, after all, derives from nothing less than the pretense of a check and balance system supposedly embedded within the presidential with bicameral legislature design. It is a pretense, actually, that often results in nothing less than lame duck or quasi-lame duck or simply slow administrations. This also overlooks the fact that there is a more real check and balance system, and in a parliamentary system this balance exists between the ruling party's government, the shadow government, and the parliament of the streets. In fact, the supposed check and balance in a presidential with bicameral legislature system subliminally and virtually dismisses the voice of the parliament of the streets, almost discouraging it from being an active participant in the legislative debate.

4.

Real political parties will be established, as against our present political parties' liquid integrity. Our present parties have members who come and go according to where the money (including the executive department-allocated pork barrel) is.
     Granted, however, that (according to a The Journal of Politics article) that  a parliamentary system does not guarantee a country's being rid of partisan pork. But it, at least, is able to limit pork to partisan pork, which---qua pork---can be tackled later. The parliamentary system, at least, at the outset gets rid of that basic, presidential-system-inherent, opening-of-Congress across-the-board-pork-bait that generates the party-hopping of members of losing parties to the party of the winners, consequently denying the country of the benefits of having a genuine opposition or "shadow government".

5.

Since the parliamentary system virtually encourages the voice of the parliament of the streets to participate in the check and balance formula of governance, Prime Minsters’ terms may be shortened by virtue of a clamor for a vote of no-confidence by the people. This virtual inclusiveness is more in tune with the “government by the people, of the people and for the people” motto of democracy than is the fixed legalism of political-elite-run presidential systems with their fixed terms that can actually just ignore public clamor for resignations.

6.

Also, instead of having minority winners, we may be able to produce majority winners (winners with plus 50% of the votes). These majority winners would be established via instant-runoff voting. Instant-runoff voting cannot be done in a presidential with bicameral legislature system because there are already too many candidates on the general election ballot under this system (president, vice-president, senators, representatives, etc.) to render instant runoffs possible.

7.

Finally (for now), while it is true that the recent presidential debates already set a requirement for future presidential candidates, it must be noted that the parliamentary system is already by itself a culture of never-ending debate and of articulation and communication. A ruling party’s governance-with-laws itself has to be run through a parliamentary process of disclosure through articulation and communication as well as openness to arguments for and against. While not itself free from lobbyists, members of parliament are exposed by this culture of debate through what they say on the floor (or what they don’t say); and furthermore through what they say during interviews (or don’t say), since this culture would inevitably extend to the media and the streets, the voters. Through a parliamentary system, therefore, our recurring problem with merely singing and dancing and baby-carrying election candidates would be a thing of the past.
     Even in their choosing their Prime Minister candidates, the ruling party would already be choosing from among those who can best sell the party’s or ruling party factions’ policies. Thus, though a Rody Duterte could still become a Prime Minister, it would be highly unlikely that a ruling party would choose a merely most wealthy or merely most popular MP from among its ranks to be its government’s Prime Minister to face the speakers sitting on the other side of the parliamentary hall.

8.

More later.

-----------------------------

illustration borrowed from http://www.123rf.com/photo_16720316_abstract-word-cloud-for-parliamentary-system-with-related-tags-and-terms.html