TaN: In the issue regarding the National ID to replace all existing government-issued IDs, it is misleading. It should have been phrased that the National ID system will replace all government-issued IDs that are designed for identification purposes only but will not be applicable to instances beyond identification.
It is misleading to claim that the National ID will be able to replace all current government-issued IDs because one clear instance is the driver’s license, where this particular license is or serves as a privilege (to be) earned by a person in order that s/he can drive a car. The way the National ID is being touted as an end-all to all IDs, this would imply that any National ID holder will be entitled to drive a car and that the ID will serve as a driver’s license — all without having to pass a driver’s test. This can only happen — and is happening in the United States of America — when driver’s education is being taught to all citizens in their senior high school curriculum.
Every person must go through the educational system otherwise those living in the remotest regions of the country, though entitled to the National ID, will most probably not have driving skills. Can they use the National ID as a driver’s license?
Moreover, the National ID cannot literally replace all government-issued IDs because there are certain IDs that are exclusive — such as the SSS versus the GSIS.
TaN: In the article in the hardcopy issue of The Philippine STAR titled “Rody: I love Xi Jinping” for April 10 (Wednesday), it only shows and proves or vindicates the saying that “A bully bows to a bigger bully“.
Bullies are really insecure people who have very little or low self-esteem. They fear that others will look down on them and not take them seriously. In this regard, they tend to (over)compensate by preempting other people and acting like a thug or a strongman (in order to project an image of a tough guy and neighborhood ruffian) to hide their insecurities. They “export or imperialize” their insecurity under the guise of being a roughneck to intimidate and convince others of their being someone to be given courtesy. In truth, they mistake avoidance and fear from others as respect.
Bullies are “tough or brave” only when they know they are at a clear advantage and are a sure-win or they can bluff the other party. They talk tough but are really full of hot air. They bully others into submission whenever the opportunity presents itself — like when they are in (a position of) power or know they can get away with it.
They project an image of confidence and authority bordering on arrogance and conceit. However, when caught without their usual “backups” (i.e., henchmen, lackies, stooges, toadies, or mindless simpletons who blindly do the bidding of their master and laugh at their master’s littlest jokes and puns no matter how distasteful or abasive or demeaning to others) or alone with only their wits, they quickly reveal their true cowardly nature — short of pee in their pants.
Only cowards and bullies feel the need to explicitly and expressedly display and flaunt their arrogance and impunity for their “audience” — and feed their ego.
But returning to topic, in the case of Mr Jinping, at least his bullying is all in the name of China. But, in the case of Mr Duterte, he appears to be only after his own interests (while masquerading it all as his nationalism, patriotism, and love of country. Mr Duterte’s excuse for kissing the ass of Mr Jinping is that China is too powerful and it would be insanity and suicide to engage China in an all-out war — so he “turns a blind eye and even serving as lawyer” as China transgresses and trespasses into and seizes what is clearly Philippine territory.
Mr Duterte’s inability and impotency to man up to, face, and challenge Mr Jinping by giving lame excuses. His latest sad excuse is when he told an audience that he can always declare war on China but who will he send in on the suicide mission to go up against China…his soldiers and policemen. This is just his way of expressing his motto: Better a live coward living on bended knees than a dead hero. Oh, how our national heroes are turning in their graves.
TaN: Government services, unless it is tasked or chartered as a revenue generating agency or process (such as that of the Treasury or Finance and agencies such as Customs and Internal Revenue), everything should be freely provided to the public — especially because it is mandated by law or government policy — with minimal or no cost. The government must not earn from these services, such as documentary stamps and clearances and many other things that are attached, after all, whatever fees (such as library or whatever) is covered by their salary and whatever materials (such as documentary stamps) are covered by their budget.
The only time a minimal charge can be imposed is when there are additional materials or services included that are beyond the capability of government, such as laminating services and identification cards like driver’s licenses and postal ids — and even these should only be charged at cost or what it costs the government to outsourced to the private sector (because they are either needed for security or durability purposes). Additional expenses for the public should be justifiable and not just a mere opportunity to milk the already-impoverished public — Note: It must be remembered that a great majority of the population are way below the average middle class (i.e., the lower segment of the middle class). It is an entirely different situation if the a large majority of the population are financially doing okay where the additional financial expenses from transacting with government can comfortably be shouldered.
Moreover, government should not think up of imaginative and creative ways to add to the burden of the public in the name or under the guise of some made-up requirement or policy for public services that directly deals with the people — such as obtaining certifications and clearances and permits.
No wonder there is so much corruption in government. There is so much sources of money to be siphoned off from the hapless population. One of the principal sources of corruption are the charges that government levies on what should be provided to the public for free. Another are the supposed projects that are proposed in the name of public service — mostly infrastructure or village beautification or youth sports or even vital programs with components that are easy targets or wellsprings to overpricing or misdeclare.
Whatever the alleged reason, there is so much money to be “made” from government due to its taxation power and this is where the danger (and temptation) lies — remembering the forewarning in 1 Timothy 6:10, “For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (KJV), [emphasis mine]. It is the LOVE OF MONEY and not MONEY (per se) that is the ROOT OF ALL EVIL
TaN: As I was (re-)viewing some old episodes of NCIS [(Naval Criminal Investigative Service)], I came across one in its fourth season where Chief Medical Examiner Donald “Ducky” Mallard, MD, portrayed by the late David McCallum, was being quizzed in preparation for his upcoming forensic psychology examination regarding the difference between ethics and morals, his (dialogue) response was brilliant (but I paraphrase because I cannot recall the exact lines): An ethical person knows that he should not cheat on his wife; a moral person will not.
Although many find it difficult to differentiate between ethics and morality, it becomes easier to understand when it is put into the context of an analogy or a comparison — as was done in the aforementioned incident dialogue in the long-running television action drama series of NCIS (of the United States of America).
I like that example and I think I will keep it in my repertoire for when I have to explain or illustrate the difference between ethics and morality.
Furthermore, it has been a nagging issue — the double standard between men and women with regard to (in)fidelity — but the solution is quite simple, always remember: “The sauce for the goose is also the sauce for the gander.” In other words, if you (the spouse) can do it, so can I and don’t you go about pontificating it.
In conclusion, it is interesting that, every now and then, I come across lessons and examples which reignite the fading glimmer or spark of hope that the world is sinking ever deeper into.