I live only a few hours drive from the world renowned island paradise but I didn’t have a chance to visit until last March when my wife and I have a break (our wedding anniversary). I have heard awesome stories about the place and even when I travel either domestic or international people would ask me if I’ve been to Boracay. I always reply I didn’t have a chance and they would say “you live near the place; you must go and see it.” What a reputation. Well, that was before. Now it still has a good reputation and still popular to local and foreign tourists but has some negative feedback especially for people who have been there before.
With my sister and cousins who have been there many times since the 80’s, we set for a day trip to the island. We reached Catiklan around 10 o’clock and went to the terminal to secure a boat ticket. I wondered when I saw a sign about environmental tax to non-local residence which means if you are not a local resident you are required to pay a tax which would cover for the environmental damage you caused to the island while you are having your holiday or stay there.
Where else on earth can you see that? For as far as I know in the tourism, revenues are brought in the money holiday makers spend on hotels, food and drinks and other services. My cousin told me to see for myself the application of the environmental tax when we get to the island.
When we reached the so called island paradise I was expecting the boat would land near the resorts as most island resorts are expected to be but I was so disappointed when the boat landed in the boat terminal and the resorts are nowhere to be seen. Instead I saw a developing suburban community with more local people than the tourist. I learned later that the reason why boats are not landing in the resort area is that tourist complained that people from the passing boat are spying on them while they are on the beach maybe half naked. Who cares, are they not meant to be when on the beach? As a matter of fact it’s a public place and people in the appropriate place have no right to demand privacy. I would not deal too much about such stuff since it is insignificant. As I see it, it is just a revenue generating aspect that leads to the establishment of the port there in the island.
We hired a vehicle to go about the island and there was more awful experience and sights to see. First the pollution caused by so many unregulated diesel powered vehicles then the dust from so many constructions and sight of a developing slum-like area with so many people. NOT THE KIND OF IMAGE you see in the TV.
HEY, THEY ARE BUILDING A CITY!!!! But it seems like there is no urban planning of any sort. Streets are so narrow and drainage system I think not designed for the expected urban development. The health facility is not upgraded, no building standards especially for the houses and commercial establishments. Such a place when it represents the tourism image of the country, the business sector and government has a very big stake on it. As for the image of the island is concerned, there should be a BUILDING STANDARD unique to the internationally renowned resort which will regulate the kind of buildings that could be built, not just allow anyone to build a nipa hut here and a do-it-yourself house there. The presence of the “squatter area” I think is not isolated.
The worst thing I could say is that the local authority has allowed almost anyone to migrate to the island. Of course people are searching for a better livelihood but it is not the way forward. The balance is tipping towards the destruction of local ecology which has great impact on the environment; local and global. Besides, the greater the population the more complicated it is to manage and that includes health and crime.
How about the tax? Should the local resident be responsible for environmental levy instead of the holiday makers? I understand the economics of the situation when encouragement of local business means some tax exemptions but this is a different scenario. Business would always be there because of the tourism reputation and encouragement in the form of tax exemptions is not necessary. Yes, they should be charged with environmental tax appropriately since they are the ones who exploit the environment not the holiday makers who only stay there for few days.
I still think it is not a brilliant idea to let the locals get away with the responsibility compensating what they have done to the environment.
Saturday 19 May 2007
Sunday 6 May 2007
Party List is Redundant
What's al the fuss about party list? I consider the post redundant and a total waste of space and resources. In the first place the scope responsibility covered by the individual representatives. As you see the country is devided into congressional districts and the local congressional representative has the responsibility to represent his/her constituents in all the matters that concerns them. May it be about housing, education, health, women's welfare labor, etc. The representative has the duty to see to it that the population being represented is taken care of. That is aside from the responsibility as a law maker or perhaphs building sheds, basketball courts and such petty projects etc.
People might say I am too idealistic but if anyone reflects on this they will understand. It's basic. The post of a congressional representative was created for this purpose and this alone. That is why I am questioning why do we have to waste our resources on this redundant posts. Even in the senate these areas are being advocated.
In my opinion REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941 is not well thought of properly. Although it is somehow patterned to from the countries in Europe, most of its provisions has loopholes and endless oppotunity for abuse. Section 5 is one example. That is why so many party list have registered and most of them are redundantly nuissance and a front for personal interests of few people and does not reflect representation of the marginalized "massa".
I am not a person who has an inclination to law and politics but this annoying issue forced me to read sources in order to uunderstand the basics of these all.
A good example of the working politics is the system in the United Kingsom.(I am not endorsing the system being parliamentary) They just finished the midterm elections. The pattern of representation is like what we have. They have the members of the parliament which are elected by constituency and they have local councillors. Mayors work with councillors to filter issues and deal with it while bigger issues are elevated to county or to national level. They don't need to beg from national MP to create a shed or path walk or basketball court. It is all covered by the local council which is the town and barangay in our case. MP represents their concerns to the national government.
You may say the economic state is different. Well it is different indeed but proportionately the same as our state here. We don't have winter to deal with by the way. One classic example is the issue of heating during winter in the homes of the elderly (majority lives alone as it is the social structure). This problem is national in scope but they are dealt with by respetive councils. Legislations are made to support local council to deal with it locally.
What I'm trying to point out is, that issues that are in the scope of the district representative should be dealt with and the creation of another position to deal with it is REDUNDANT and therefore a waste of space in the congress and of national esources.
We the citizens are being deceived by the so called sectoral representation. Whether it be for the propagation of progressive groups or enhancement of financial gain or just merely for support of the person or group in power, it still doesn't justify the seat they occupy in the congress.
People might say I am too idealistic but if anyone reflects on this they will understand. It's basic. The post of a congressional representative was created for this purpose and this alone. That is why I am questioning why do we have to waste our resources on this redundant posts. Even in the senate these areas are being advocated.
In my opinion REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941 is not well thought of properly. Although it is somehow patterned to from the countries in Europe, most of its provisions has loopholes and endless oppotunity for abuse. Section 5 is one example. That is why so many party list have registered and most of them are redundantly nuissance and a front for personal interests of few people and does not reflect representation of the marginalized "massa".
I am not a person who has an inclination to law and politics but this annoying issue forced me to read sources in order to uunderstand the basics of these all.
A good example of the working politics is the system in the United Kingsom.(I am not endorsing the system being parliamentary) They just finished the midterm elections. The pattern of representation is like what we have. They have the members of the parliament which are elected by constituency and they have local councillors. Mayors work with councillors to filter issues and deal with it while bigger issues are elevated to county or to national level. They don't need to beg from national MP to create a shed or path walk or basketball court. It is all covered by the local council which is the town and barangay in our case. MP represents their concerns to the national government.
You may say the economic state is different. Well it is different indeed but proportionately the same as our state here. We don't have winter to deal with by the way. One classic example is the issue of heating during winter in the homes of the elderly (majority lives alone as it is the social structure). This problem is national in scope but they are dealt with by respetive councils. Legislations are made to support local council to deal with it locally.
What I'm trying to point out is, that issues that are in the scope of the district representative should be dealt with and the creation of another position to deal with it is REDUNDANT and therefore a waste of space in the congress and of national esources.
We the citizens are being deceived by the so called sectoral representation. Whether it be for the propagation of progressive groups or enhancement of financial gain or just merely for support of the person or group in power, it still doesn't justify the seat they occupy in the congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
