Posts Tagged ‘tito sotto’

pop goes the world: sotto controllo

POP GOES THE WORLD  By Jenny Ortuoste for Manila Standard-Today,  6 September 2012, Thursday

Sotto Controllo

Senator Tito Sotto thought he had everything under control when he gave his turno en contra speeches against the reproductive health bill.

He didn’t reckon on the rest of the populace having a brain and not being afraid to use it. After being called out by professors, writers, and many other people on his plagiarism, falsehood, and a slew of other issues, he ramped up his arrogance quotient instead of admitting his mistakes, among other things claiming that he is being cyberbullied.

I don’t think the senator understands what “cyberbullying” means. It’s the sort of extremely mean behavior that can drive people to suicide, as in the cases of Megan Meier, Tyler Clementi, and Ryan Halligan, just to name a few. It’s a serious form of aggression, and the term should not be misused for its gravity to remain undiminished. Cyberbullying is not what the senator is undergoing, which is merely people pointing out his mistakes online.

“Sotto controllo” is Italian for “under control”. Too bad the senator let this issue get out of hand when an apology would have allowed everyone to move on. Remember when businessman Manny Pangilinan apologized when netizens pointed out lifted paragraphs in a speech he gave? That resulted in everyone moving on; that incident is nearly forgotten, and when recalled, what comes to mind is Pangilinan’s gracious behavior.

But how can you expect Sotto to apologize when in the first place he does not believe he did anything wrong?

As for lawmaker Rufus Rodriguez’s recent tantrum in Congress, he obviously does not have his temper sotto controllo. Ranting before that august body the other day, he raised the issue of “no quorum” claiming only 111 present when the secretariat declared there were 155, rather more than the quorum of 143. 

Rodriguez ranting in the Lower House on September 4. Image from Rappler.com here

The lawmaker raised a ruckus because he thought the RH Bill was on the agenda that day. Being against the RH Bill, his outburst was seen as a delaying tactic. But how transparently obvious and demeaning! Surely a more adroit politician could have come up with a more elegant ploy. Instead, by choosing to use blunt force rather than finesse, he’s shown the world his character.

I saw Congressman Rodriguez in action somewhere in the provinces, and he was also upset then, haranguing someone because he could not get immediate action from them on a certain matter. I was appalled to see someone of his stature behave that way. It was juvenile. Wait, I take that back – it’s an insult to juveniles. My daughters had ceased having tantrums by the time they were three years old.

No one is perfect, and stress and worry can certainly cause anyone to lose their temper. But a frequent and consistent lack of self-control, especially at work, is detrimental above all to the person who can’t keep his or her cool. How can anyone still respect a screamer? Why should their authority be recognized when they can’t even govern themselves?

Neither did broadcaster Korina Sanchez have her snark sotto controllo when on her DZMM radio show she mentioned “maiitim na mga maligno” aiming for the post of Interior Secretary, considered by many as alluding to Vice-President Jejomar Binay.

The Vice-President’s daughter, Nancy Binay, addressed the issue on Twitter thus: “Aminado naman po kami na maliit at maitim ang daddy ko pero hindi naman po ata tama na tawagin ni Korina na maligno siya.” Now that is having the situation under control. That’s class. That’s manners. Unfortunately, both are in short supply nowadays, along with restraint and delicadeza. If only we could order cases – no, container vans – of the stuff.

Korina may have been defending her man [her husband is newly-appointed Interior Secretary Mar Roxas], but does he need defending? From what? All her comment sounded like was unmitigated spite.

Filipino culture frowns upon losing temper. Not only is it considered rude, vulgar, and ill-mannered, it also leads to loss of face as it causes embarrassment to the person on the receiving end of the outburst, who will then tend to refuse to cooperate or do so only with resentment.

Self-control is necessary for anyone to earn others’ respect. True leaders speak softly and mildly, because it is their trustworthiness and ethical rectitude, their gravitas, that will ensure that they will be obeyed.

Those who cannot admit their mistakes, those who yell and fling unwarranted insults, those who cannot rein in their faults, are not true leaders.  They’re certainly not the kind the Philippines needs. ***  

Tito Sotto meme image here. Korina Sanchez and Mar Roxas image here.

taste more:

pop goes the world: freedom of choice

POP GOES THE WORLD  By Jenny Ortuoste for Manila Standard-Today,  16 August 2012, Thursday

Freedom of Choice

My column last week, “Science and superstition”, where I declared my support for the RH Bill, drew over 600 Facebook “Likes”, a rarity.

However, there were a few people who badly misread my article, saying it was an attack on religion and that I was trying to persuade the Philippines to embrace science and turn away from God.

Nowhere in that column did I advocate a repudiation of religion. Freedom of worship is a human right. I have always been on the side of choice, and people should be able to make their own decisions when it comes to what God they obey and what they wish to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

What I said in that column was that superstition and the biases of one religion should not be allowed to influence legislation, because it has an effect on the lives of many people of different faiths and backgrounds. The State’s duty is to care for all its people, not just for one group.

I suppose I was misunderstood because I did not put my point as elegantly as did fellow MST columnist Father Rannie Aquino, who eloquently wrote in his last column, “We have no right to expect the public nor the legislature to accept Catholic premises. We then have no right to expect them to draw the peculiar Catholic conclusions that we draw…we have no right demanding of our legislature that it adopt our religious arguments.”

He also said, “When one insists that things be done as one reads his scripture (be these Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu scriptures), the one is immediately confronted by the fundamental conviction of modernity – that the State should be neutral towards world-views, that all enjoy equal religious freedom, and that science be emancipated from religion.”

Legislators, then, as statesmen, are in an unenviable position. They have to make impartial decisions for the good of everyone, but they are human beings swayed by their mindsets, experiences, and prejudices.

Take Senator Tito Sotto. He used a rare legislative tactic called turno en contro to air his lengthy anti-RH views. Among the reasons he gave in an effort to prove his point was a personal experience related to his baby son’s  death that was blamed on his wife’s contraceptive use.

I understand the senator’s pain. I have also lost loved ones and will never stop grieving for them. He receives our commiseration and sympathy. But the fact is this is just one person’s experience.

In our highly populated society, there are a myriad experiences, both positive and negative. In the same way that we should not allow one group’s biases to influence law, neither should we let one person’s experience be the basis for legislation that will impact the lives of millions of Filipinos for years to come.

If we’re talking about personal experiences, here’s the story of Mina Capote, who worked as my household helper some years back. She has 13 children by two husbands. She only had a third-grade education; neither her husbands finished high school. The first was unemployed. The second was a groom in horseracing.

The eldest daughter, “Fanny”, was, at 10 years old, tasked with caring for her siblings. Being only a child herself, she could not keep an eye on all of them, so “Sam”, eight, lost an eye in an accident, while others suffered various mishaps. They usually went hungry. I sent them extra food and used clothes when I could.

To augment the family income, Fanny worked as a helper when she turned 15. Her employer raped her. Later I heard she found work in a bar.

When I asked Mina once why she does not use contraceptives, she replied, “They say it’s bad for the health.” I asked her who “they” were. She shrugged. “Sabi lang nila.” (They just said.)

It is the height of irresponsibility to bring children into the world that one cannot care for properly, that one cannot adequately feed, shelter, send to school, and keep safe. No one disputes that educated women of means use various family-planning options such as contraceptives, sterilization, natural method, and so on. But these options are not available or even known to women like Mina, whose ignorance constrains them from planning a better life for themselves and their children.

But when knowledge and opportunity are available, women are able to make informed decisions for themselves to plan their family size. In the news recently was a report about how over 4,000 women in Tagum, Davao, have opted for the free tubal ligation offered in that city as part of its own reproductive health program since it was launched in 2006.

Over that same period, only 76 men availed themselves of free vasectomies. This is a clear indicator of social and cultural norms that place the burden of family planning on the woman, rather than on the man.

Kudos to Tagum mayor Rey Uy who has continued the program despite Catholic opposition to it. The program has allowed the city to exclude itself from the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino program (4Ps) cash transfer campaign, because poverty incidence in Tagum has dropped to 15 percent. The national average is 27 percent.

The RH Bill willl inform more Filipinos, especially women, about the planning options that they have. If they decide to have many children, or few, or none at all, that is their choice.

It is illogical, unfair, and selfish to let one person or one group decide for everyone else the choices that they may have. Freedom of choice is a human right; let us ensure that everyone in our society enjoys this freedom.  *** 

taste more: