A History of Lying

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080225-121141/A-history-of-lying

EDITORIAL
Editorial : A history of lying

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted date: February 25, 2008

MANILA, Philippines — “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” This line from Sir Walter Scott’s “Marmion” is uttered by the fictional English Lord Marmion after his deceitful schemes unravel. One reviewer has called Marmion “a thoroughly rotten man: a seducer, forger, liar, greedy for lands and not squeamish about how he acquires them.” (Does this remind you of some of our high government officials?)Marmion seduces Constance de Baverly and keeps her with him disguised as his page until he tires of her for the land-rich Clare de Clare. To break Clare’s engagement to Sir Ralph de Wilton, Marmion has Constance forge documents which convince King Henry VIII that Wilton is a traitor. Wilton flees in ignominy. Clare seeks sanctuary from Marmion’s advances with the abbess at Whitby in England.

Marmion turns Constance over to Benedictines who convict her of certain crimes and wall her up to starve to death. But before her death, she reveals the forgeries and other misdeeds of Marmion. Wilton returns and his and Marmion’s paths cross. But the abbess gives Wilton the exonerating documents and Marmion’s schemes unravel. Later, the Scottish and English forces meet in battle at Flodden Field, and Marmion is slain. The English win and the Scots are annihilated, losing everything but their honor.

The famous line of “Marmion” comes to mind when we recall the deceit, the dishonesty, the lying of high officials of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration just so it can remain in power. Like the English in “Marmion,” they may win the battle for survival, but will they still retain their honor?

President Arroyo promised at the Rizal Day commemoration in 2002 that she would not run in the presidential election of 2004. But she must have planned that early to run in that election. That was her first major lie. Several months later, she declared her candidacy for the presidency.

Ms Arroyo used all means, fair and foul, to win election. The opposition said she used government money, such as the P728-million fertilizer fund, to win votes. She used cards of the government’s Philippine Health Corp. and money of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in a similar manner.

But the most egregious instance of alleged cheating and dishonesty was the “Hello, Garci” incident where she is said to have asked a Commission on Elections official to pad her poll total by about a million votes. Administration spokespersons used all sorts of deception to deflect the charge.

Now here is the explosive ZTE national broadband network (NBN) deal in which a $130-million commission was supposed to go to certain “big people.” The proceedings of the Senate blue ribbon committee in its inquiry into the anomalous deal are a matter of public knowledge. The administration at first tried to keep key officials from testifying. Then it made them give evasive answers and often lie outright.

Just when it seemed that the inquiry had reached a dead end, the kidnapping of Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. took place. Again, key officials of the administration twisted facts and lied and tried to portray that they were protecting a key witness. The spokespersons and officials were soon caught in a web of contradictions.

Now comes President Arroyo saying she immediately cancelled the ZTE-NBN transaction when she learned about alleged irregularities tainting the deal. The fact is that early on, then-secretary of socioeconomic planning Romulo Neri told her about the bribe offer but she told him to refuse the bribe and continue with the deal. Was that the way a President, who is supposed to enforce the laws, should act in the face of an attempted commission of a crime?

The Arroyo administration has had a long history of dishonesty, deceit and lying. Its leaders are caught in a tangled web of deception. They have lost all moral authority to govern the nation.

So what else is new?

 Source: http://www.malaya.com.ph/feb12/edit.htm

So what else is new?


Editorial

So what else is new under a govern-ment run by a criminal gang?

 

 

No credible threat has been established after all this time against the life of ZTE witness Rodolfo Lozada Jr. He said he has been receiving text messages threatening him harm. He has not volunteered his suspicion on where the threats came.

But this much is beyond dispute: On the day he was taken upon arrival from Hong Kong there was a clear threat to his liberty. And that was in the form of an arrest warrant issued by the Senate for his failure to appear before a hearing on the alleged corruption that attended the $329 million national broadband deal.

The conclusion, therefore, is that Lozada was taken into custody no less than by policemen – if we are to believe the testimony of police officials who appeared at yesterday’s hearing – to help him evade the Senate warrant servers waiting for him at the arrival area.

Is this now how agents of persons in authority treat the Senate, one of the two chambers that make up the legislative branch of government? Help a person – if indeed Lozada originally did not want to appear before the Senate – give the slip to the sheriffs?

Senate President Manny Villar was right in saying he resented the implications of what the policemen did to Lozada on those two days he was under their custody. Following the policemen’s logic, they would provide “protection,” zealously at that, to anybody who feels his liberty is threatened by a congressional arrest warrant.

Good that it dawned on Lozada himself that he would be safer in the custody of the Senate than being under the “protection” of armed men he did not know and who were bringing him to some unknown destination.

What if Lozada indeed did not want to appear before the Senate for fear he would be disclosing matters that would embarrass the powers that be, at the very least, or send them to jail, at the worst?

That was meant to be rhetorical question. For we know already know the answer or answers. Let’s name just two of them, namely, Joc Joc Bolante and Virgilio Garcillano.

Senate warrant servers in the case of the former and House servers in the case of the latter failed to take them into custody because of the Executive branch’s active role in hiding them. In the case of Bolante, he wanted to protect the identity of the mastermind in the P720 million fertilizer scam. In the case of Garcillano, he wanted to protect the identity of the woman who had been calling him to ensure her election margin of one million votes.

Now that we are talking about $130 million in kickback demanded by former election chair Benjamin and $70 million demanded by another who the witness could potentially identify, the wonder is Lozada did not end up in an unmarked grave in Laguna or Cavite.

So what else is new under a government run by a criminal gang?

Cost of Corruption

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080212-118232/Cost-of-corruption

Editorial
Cost of corruption

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:43:00 02/12/2008

The failed attempt of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration to prevent Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr., former president of Philippine Forest Corp., from testifying on the $329-million National Broadband Network project has once again focused public attention on the perennial problem of corruption.

Graft and corruption has been a fact of national life since post-Liberation days. Almost every administration has had its big and sensational graft cases. At every presidential election, one major issue that is always raised is graft and corruption. Opposition leaders denounce the graft being committed by the administration, but once they take over the reins of government, they also commit graft. It’s just a case of different sets of people pigging out at the trough that is the national treasury at different times.

Economist Alejandro Lichauco has said the Philippines is perennially in crisis because of “the mortal mix of corruption and poverty and a consequent loss of popular confidence in government and the electoral process as instruments of change.” The fatal mix, he said, is poverty so massive and so intense as to have degenerated into a problem of mass hunger, and corruption that is as massive as the massive poverty. A deadly mix, indeed, that is killing tens of thousands of people.

Starting with the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, the Philippine crisis has been characterized not only by corruption and poverty but also by human rights abuses and a culture of impunity. Bruce Van Voorhis, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, said that these aspects of the life of the nation are linked: “People are poor to a large extent because of widespread corruption; those who wield political power violate people’s rights to attain and maintain that power; a lack of judicial punishment in the courts ensures impunity that permits corruption and human rights violations to continue. The cycle has sadly repeated itself for years.”

Corruption retards economic and social development, lowers the quality of public services and infrastructure and raises the prices of goods and services. In all these aspects, it is the poor who suffer the most because they cannot avail themselves, for instance, of the services of private doctors and hospitals or buy expensive goods. In some cases, corruption literally kills: for instance, a ship sinks and hundreds of people die because a coast guard officer was bribed to allow the overloaded, non-seaworthy vessel to leave port.

In 2000, the World Bank estimated that corruption was costing the Philippine government $47 million (about P1.92 billion) a year or a massive $48 billion (P1.968 trillion) over the 20-year period through to 1997. Think how many kilometers of roads and bridges and how many schoolhouses and hospitals that money could have built. Think of the other public infrastructure and public services that could have been improved with that kind of money. But all that public money went into the private pockets of corrupt, greedy government officials.

Graft and corruption flourishes because of the culture of impunity. Have you heard of any big fish being convicted of corruption and plunder, except deposed president Joseph Estrada? Yes, Estrada was convicted of plunder, but he did not spend even a day in a real prison. Only six weeks after his conviction, he was pardoned by President Arroyo. Was that any way to set an example for the other grafters in government and to would-be grafters and plunderers?

And so the graft and corruption continues. But from time to time a ray of light pierces the darkness and gives the nation hope that we might yet be able to start punishing the grafters. Such a ray was Lozada, whose courageous and forthright testimony at the Senate may yet save the nation from the grip of scandalous, graft-ridden deals.

But whistleblowers like Lozada cannot, just by themselves, ensure a successful campaign against corruption. Graft and corruption has become so ingrained in the national life that it is considered “normal.” Even people like Lozada are ready to consider a 20-percent “commission” on government deals acceptable. But that should not be acceptable. A 20-percent “commission” is an illegal and immoral “tax” on a poor and overburdened people. They have to realize this, watch every government transaction that may be tainted with graft, and denounce officials who are stealing taxpayers’ money — their money.