Category: Youth and Education

Taking stock, getting stuck

mcmangahas Leave a comment

By Ariel Hans S.C. Sebellino*

THAT SOCIAL MEDIA in the Philippines is shamelessly (or shamefully, too) immature and fledgling — is a debatable proposition. It is also a matter of perception.

By all indications, media has a long way to go, according to some participants at a PCIJ forum a fortnight ago on the impact of social media, free expression, and the recent midterm elections. Was the last polling the first litmus test of how critical and crucial social media is to the national discourse? Quite frankly, I am not sure what people mean when they say social media should have a critical role.

If social media had such an impact at all, it seems to have come from its inherent characteristic –imminent noise created by the minority or the “marginalized”. This was how one panelist described the skewed population of SM users in the country. “Let us understand the nature of the beast,” said Julius Mariveles, a top blogger from Bacolod. “It cannot be otherwise,” Pierre Tito Galla, aka the Jester-in-Exile.

I am sure these social media activists understand this beast in the wilderness full well. See?! At least, some have upped the ante from mindless use of social media to one of activism. For all they care, they surely want to elevate the status of social media from one that is complex to one that is relevant and vested with mass appeal. Or whatever it is that will make it profound and useful. (Remember that from the very beginning, some have said that social media was born bereft of noble intentions?) Never mind if SM is not yet ubiquitous. “Tayo tayo lang naman nagkakaintindihan sa online. Konti pa tayo,” said a forum participant. [We understand one another online. We are just a minority.]

But what I cannot accept is the tendency of some quarters to minimize the supposed “cacophony” of social media to one of supposed insignificance. And that is simply because social media did not, or had not yet, triggered remarkable change in the voting behavior of the electorate, a majority of whom is forgivably so busy with day-to-day economic survival. It’s either they do not have any SM account at all, or the luxury of time to flex their fingers on the keys. Whichever way, the lack of access to SM of great numbers of Filipinos seems largely a matter of economics. Meaning: No infrastructure for Internet connection, still expensive to avail themselves of wi-fi service, would rather spend on food, do not know how to do it, or simply have no time for what they deem to be the non-sensical virtual business.

To be sure, some candidates won, and others lost, sans social media. If, for example, the noise-making was designed only to topple or discredit a candidate who was seen unfit for the elective post, then one might say social media did not take off as yet as a vehicle for educating the voters. The rushed judgment is that SM merely engaged in bashing or bullying candidates.

But between now and the next presidential elections in 2016, I am not hopeful we will see any significant uptick in the number of Filipinos embracing and using social media. I am afraid the noise-making could even reach an annoying level.

Still and all, who cares? What I care about is how we could elect the most deserving candidates. I may not be able to do my bit of educating online, which many groups are into already, yet still I want to do my part offline.
“Check your spheres of influence offline. Know that you can influence family members, neighbors, common folk who do not belong to your online community.” Gang Badoy of RockEd said something of this sort.

That is, only if after taking stock of our options, we do not get stuck online.

* Ariel Hans S. C. Sebellino is the executive director of the Philippine Press Institute. He attended the PCIJ Forum, “Taking Stock, Taking Control: Elections and Expression Online” that was held on May 28, 2013, with support from the United States Embassy’s Public Affairs office.

Reality bites: The Comelec in NCR

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IT’S THE HOMESTRETCH to the May 13, 2013 midterm elections, and the field personnel of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) are now feeling the pressure of the last of its pre-election preparations.

These include the final testing and sealing (FTS) of the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines, and coordinating and training the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) who will mainly administer matters on election day.

These tasks go alongside their continuing responsibility to instruct voters on what should be done before, during, and after the elections; monitor campaign activities; and enforce campaigning and campaign finance rules.

Recently, a team of PCIJ fellows did a series that revealed how, in 39 Comelec field offices in Luzon and the Visayas, Comelec field personnel suffer from poor working conditions and a shortage in basic resources — personnel, funds, office space, supplies and equipment — that prevent them from fully performing their duties in an effective and efficient manner.

Intending to do a follow-up to that report, six PCIJ interns from April 22 to 29 visited 17 Comelec district offices in five cities in the National Capital Region or NCR: Manila (six district offices), Quezon City (six district offices), Pasay City (two district offices), Makati City (two district offices), and Marikina City (one office covering the city’s two districts).

They found that unlike their counterparts in the regions, the Comelec field offices in the NCR do not seem to suffer from a shortage of manpower.

This report was supervised by PCIJ Training Director Che de los Reyes as part of the internship program that PCIJ offers to senior students of journalism and communication schools.

This summer, the PCIJ staff is pleased to assist our interns from Silliman University in Dumaguete City; the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Los Banos in Laguna, and Miag-ao in Iloilo; and St. Paul University-Quezon City.

Read the PCIJ interns’ reports here:

* MANILA: Not enough staff, too many voters
By KEZIA GRACE JUNGCO and GABRIELLE NICOLE ILYCH MANA-AY

* QUEZON CITY: Local government as source of succor
By LAVILYN HYSTHEA MALTE

* MAKATI: ‘Conjugal toilet’ for ‘fire station’ crew
By MA. JOSEBELLE S. BAGULAYA

* MARIKINA: Public market tenant, halo-halo work
By MAYA ANGELIQUE B. JAJALLA

* PASAY CITY: Pressure mounts as poll day nears
By CRISTINA CELINE AQUINO

UNDP: PH still behind in human development

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

UNDP

THE PHILIPPINES still has a long way to go while some of our neighbors in Asia have zoomed their way towards becoming the fast-rising new powers in the global stage.

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2013 Human Development Report, “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World,” there has been a “profound shift in global dynamics by the fast-rising new powers of the developing world and its long-term implications for human development.”

In its 22nd edition, the UNDP report noted that there have been 40 developing countries which earned significant strides in human development and are expected to continue to grow. The report further said that by 2030, the southern countries will be hosts of at least 80 percent of the world’s middle class.

Here in the Asia Pacific region, the report noted the strides in improvement of the Human Development Indices of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. Although having significantly lower incomes than the middle class of the northern countries, the UNDP report expects the Asia Pacific region will have “billions of people becoming increasingly educated, socially engaged and internationally connected.”

“By 2020, the combined economic output of three leading developing countries alone—Brazil, China and India—will surpass the aggregate production of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Much of the expansion is driven by new trade and technology partnerships within the South itself,” United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) administrator Helen Clark writes in the report’s foreword. The UNDP report covered a total of 186 countries.

“China has already overtaken Japan as the worlds second biggest economy while lifting hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty. India is reshaping its future with new entrepreneurial creativity and social policy innovation. Brazil is lifting its living standards through expanding international relationships and antipoverty programs that are emulated worldwide,” the UNDP report reads.

However, in the same UNDP report, Philippines lagged behind some of its Southeast Asian neighbors at 114th for the fifth consecutive year with a Human Development Index (HDI) score of 0.654. The report further noted that this improvement is “still slightly below the East Asia and the Pacific regional average of 0.683.”

Here are the other findings of the UNDP for the Philippines:

  • Life expectancy in the country is at 69 years old.
  • The country ranked 77th in the Gender Inequality Index. This ranking is the third lowest rank when compared to other neighbors in Southeast Asia.
  • At least 18.4 percent of the country’s population earned below US$1.25 from 2011 to 2012.
  • Subsequently, around 9.1 percent of the total population is vulnerable to poverty while 5.7 percent are living in severe poverty
  • The country’s Gross National Income per capita level is US$3,752.
  • Debt servicing was the highest priority in terms of public spending which accounts for 6.5 percent of the Gross National Product in 2009,while its education spending is inversely proportional averaging 2.5 percent of the GDP from 2005 to 2010.

In its latest report, UNDP also predicted there would at least 126.3 million Filipinos by the year 2030.

Along with five Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines has been ranked as a medium human development country. Thailand, with an HDI score of 0.690, has been ranked at 103, while Indonesia—tied with Kiribati and South Africa—is ranked 121 with an HDI score of 0.629. Not far behind is Vietnam ranked at 127 with an HDI score of 0.617 and Cambodia, which is ranked 138 with an HDI score of 0.543, is tied with India.

Only Malaysia—ranked 64th with an HDI score of 0.769 and tied with Libya and Serbia—was ranked as a high development country.

Read the full UNDP report here.