Malacanang, says Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., is selling its assets. Dubbed "midnight sale", Pimentel accused the palace of compromising state security and patrimony by trying to sell "national treasures" such as the Fujimi property in Japan and "military camps and reservations" regardless of its strategic value. He adds, and I quote him from an Inquirer report, that government all kinds of assets to "offset its deficiency in tax collections without due regard to the strategic importance of maintaining a stake in these enterprises."
There are talks that the 250 billion pesos to be generated from these sale are election-related. Pimentel says
these are part of the administration's campaign kitty. The palace quickly defended the sale, saying that all these are part of the 2001 commitment of Mrs. Arroyo to privatized non-performing assets. I agree with the palace spokesperson yet it is quite amusing why government chose the Fujimi property for sale when it is a protected national treasure.
True to form, government just converted its SMC stake to preferred, sold its Petron and Meralco stocks and is trying to negotiate a sale of the sprawling National Food Terminal property. There are insinuations that government is also trying to sell the National Mental Hospital and the Home for the Aged. Last year, government sold its assets for 80 billion. Now, it wants to triple its gains by selling even military camps and reservations.
With all these frantic sale, we might just end up being governed by private entreprise. Good. At least we get rid of government.
Showing posts with label aquilino pimentel jr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aquilino pimentel jr. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Ridiculous Right to Reply Bill
My colleagues in the mainstream media have already wrote their pieces against the Right to Reply bill. Doronila described the bill as "offensive to the freedom of the press" and "as pernicious as the muzzling of the press by totalitarian dictatorships." His quips are just some of the hundreds of words used to describe the effects of such a bill would do should it pass executive scrutiny.
The bill's author, Senator Aquilino Pimentel challenges us to make a "reasoned argument" against it. He thinks that it's logical---a news paper hits you, you hit back. Good. But, is this sound reasoning?
Consider this--a newspaper reports a scam based on a final report given by a government agency. The agency condemns a Senator for being part of that scam. Notice that it's a final report, meaning, the agency already made the necessary preliminary investigation, called both parties, the accuser and the accuse to a hearing and already made a conclusion, which now forms a part of the final report.
Now, under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper will then be held liable for a crime should it fails to give the accused the right to reply, for what? To contest the results of that final report? It's final already, is'nt it? Why will the newspaper give the accused the right to reply?
And is'nt it right to say that the accused be made to reply in court or in that government agency, not in the newspaper?
Likewise, a newspaper writes about a Supreme Court ruling. The Highest Tribunal says that the son of a Senator is guilty of rape. Under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper is now obliged to give space to the rapist who will probably contest the ruling of the Highest Tribunal and say his innocence.
There are so many instances that we can cite here that refutes the arguments of Pimentel and his colleagues. What Pimentel is probably referring to here are opinions, not news. He should have qualified the provisions of that bill. But, if he do so, will he not violate press freedom and the right to self-expression clauses enshrined in the Constitution? Yes, he will.
Consider this---an opinion writer, under the Right to Reply bill, will lose his job because the bill will effectively curtail his responsibility of writing a learned column. For example, my friend Jarius Bondoc writes about an anomaly at the DOTC. With a space requiring just 2,000 or 3,000 words, would it be sufficient to write about the side of the DOTC? Probably yes, Bondoc still has some space left. But, it is his discretion to include that reply in his column. NO ONE has the right to tell him otherwise.
Likewise, my friend Neil Cruz of the Inquirer and Julius Fortuna will also lose their shirts because of this bill. Why? Their columns will eat up so much space if we allow millions of Filipinos to exercise their right to reply for or against the things which they wrote in their columns.
So, now, Mr. Pimentel, is this logic for you?
The bill's author, Senator Aquilino Pimentel challenges us to make a "reasoned argument" against it. He thinks that it's logical---a news paper hits you, you hit back. Good. But, is this sound reasoning?
Consider this--a newspaper reports a scam based on a final report given by a government agency. The agency condemns a Senator for being part of that scam. Notice that it's a final report, meaning, the agency already made the necessary preliminary investigation, called both parties, the accuser and the accuse to a hearing and already made a conclusion, which now forms a part of the final report.
Now, under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper will then be held liable for a crime should it fails to give the accused the right to reply, for what? To contest the results of that final report? It's final already, is'nt it? Why will the newspaper give the accused the right to reply?
And is'nt it right to say that the accused be made to reply in court or in that government agency, not in the newspaper?
Likewise, a newspaper writes about a Supreme Court ruling. The Highest Tribunal says that the son of a Senator is guilty of rape. Under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper is now obliged to give space to the rapist who will probably contest the ruling of the Highest Tribunal and say his innocence.
There are so many instances that we can cite here that refutes the arguments of Pimentel and his colleagues. What Pimentel is probably referring to here are opinions, not news. He should have qualified the provisions of that bill. But, if he do so, will he not violate press freedom and the right to self-expression clauses enshrined in the Constitution? Yes, he will.
Consider this---an opinion writer, under the Right to Reply bill, will lose his job because the bill will effectively curtail his responsibility of writing a learned column. For example, my friend Jarius Bondoc writes about an anomaly at the DOTC. With a space requiring just 2,000 or 3,000 words, would it be sufficient to write about the side of the DOTC? Probably yes, Bondoc still has some space left. But, it is his discretion to include that reply in his column. NO ONE has the right to tell him otherwise.
Likewise, my friend Neil Cruz of the Inquirer and Julius Fortuna will also lose their shirts because of this bill. Why? Their columns will eat up so much space if we allow millions of Filipinos to exercise their right to reply for or against the things which they wrote in their columns.
So, now, Mr. Pimentel, is this logic for you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)