A Question For Our Senators

Have you ever heard of the term "conflict of interest"?

I ask this because I have not heard of anyone bringing this up publicly, in light of what is about to transpire on November 7: alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Napoles is set to appear before the Senate to answer your questions, and the unsaid objective is that you will be able to get to the bottom of this elaborate scheme after subjecting her to your collective scrutiny.

(Courtesy of whattalking.com)

No one is mentioning a glaring fact: aren't the legislators supposedly involved in this scam the ones who are truly on trial?

The Commission on Audit report already makes mention of at least three senators and other representatives from the Lower House who have unsettled, questionable or dubious ways of managing their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), lovingly called pork barrel by everyone in the country.

Using that frame of reference, we can liken the legislators as the accused in any court case. So I harken back to my first question, in a more detailed manner:

Isn't there a clear conflict of interest, in the matter of senators questioning Napoles?

Would our justice system allow the accused in any other criminal case do the cross examination of a vital witness? In what universe - or at least the universe of democracies with a corresponding justice system - does the one charged with an offense or a crime be the one to test that an eyewitness account can be considered valid/reliable?

When the whistleblowers first appeared in the Senate, and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada made a calculated gesture of appearing as well but announcing at the start of the session that he was inhibiting himself, and excusing himself while all cameras were focused there, the only question I had racing in my mind was, shouldn't ALL legislators be inhibiting themselves, given that THEY are the ones we want to be held accountable?

Our money was entrusted to these legislators, and the best responses they can give us are:

- my signature was forged!
- it's not my job to check where I allocate my funds!
- I only allocated so-and-so, why are you all raising hell?

The distrust and anger we collectively feel is heightened by the fact that it is OUR REPRESENTATIVES - supposedly the ones we elected for our interests - involved in this maze of anomalous transactions.

Which part of "it's not your money, it's ours!" is particularly difficult to understand? Is that the reason why these legislators have such a cavalier attitude towards how money that was placed at their disposal be spent?

And when we find senators whose net worth have increased dramatically over the same period, can you stop us from having the gravest of doubts of how that could have occurred?

As a public official once put it (and I'm paraphrasing), no one gets rich by entering public service, and if you do amass wealth while serving, you are doing something wrong.

We haven't even begun the question of impartiality: how can the senators be neutral when they - some of them, anyway - are already crying foul at how the COA report has already painted them as far as public perception goes, even going so far as shedding copious tears on TV? (I guess it's hard to take the acting hat off for some.)

So the question really needs to be asked of our senators:

Why are you - the ones we citizens are demanding an accounting of public funds we entrusted to you - also the ones about to "grill" alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Napoles come November 7?

Wouldn't this be another monumental waste of time, money and effort, in a clear case of conflict of interest?

Or is this just a showcase for some of you with 2016 ambitions?

Ready For Retirement?

Say the word "retirement" and what comes to mind?

A person in their 60's - at least - who's had enough wisdom to "save up" for what is also another term associated with the R word, the Golden Years. It connotes an end of a journey, a time when one can be relaxed, and possibly having enough time now to visit other countries.

So it pains me when I see taxi drivers who are in this age range, who can barely hear you and are constantly nodding off, still plying their taxi routes. It has only served to highlight what I have seen over and over again, when I see clients.

Retirement has less to do with chronological age, as it relates more to affordability. More specifically, the question that we all need to answer is, can I afford to retire?

(Courtesy of themoneyupdate.com)

This may be a good time to confront the notion that we should have children so that "aalagaan tayo pag tumanda na" (we will be taken care of in our old age), which strikes me as a tad selfish. While it is the parent's duty to provide for a child's needs, it cannot be seen as "automatic" in reverse.

The reason is that the child will grow up to be an adult, and will go on to (hopefully) be a productive citizen, and will maybe find a partner in life and have children, a pressure that is especially marked in this country. How many times have we heard of the wail "kailan mo ba ako bibigyan ng apo?" (When are my grandchildren arriving?)

I've read articles of how unhappy the "sandwich generation" is - the ones who are expected to raise kids and are also pressed to support their parents. Who wouldn't be - between the two sets of mouths to feed (among other needs), when are you supposed to have me-time?

It's time we changed our mindset about this: we should plan for our own retirement. It's good if our kids want to take care of us then/want to do it, but we've all heard the saying "if you want something done, you have to do it yourself." Besides, with our large family size, the more common scene is how siblings pass you around, treating you as a burden that they are obligated to carry.

Wouldn't that be the most painful thing? We all strove to break free from our parents when we considered ourselves "adults" - we craved independence then. It was all about standing on your own feet with the sweat of your own brow - hitting your 60's shouldn't change that, in fact, you're supposed to be "made".

Do you see yourself that way, 40, 30, 20...10 years down the line?

Are you, truthfully, ready for retirement?

The Funny Thing About Acceptance

Dyosa. Ganda. Galing ng transpormasyon. (Goddess. Beautiful. An astonishing transformation.)

Kiray as Goddess.

(Styled by Fanny Serrano

Photographed by MJ Suayan

Taken from Serrano's Facebook page)

These, and much more, were heaped upon the actress known as Kiray, after a styling done by famous make up artist Fanny Serrano and photographed by MJ Suayan was publicized. Photos that captured the transformation were posted on Serrano's Facebook page, and roundly applauded as masterful. Many people were actually left wondering who the model was initially, proof that this was, indeed, a complete 180 turn.

Serrano himself has said that he initiated the contact with Kiray, presenting himself as a form of fairy godparent because he couldn't stand the negative feedback Kiray was getting as one of the supposedly 'worst-dressed' people at a recent social function. Some of the barbs, he observed, were downright personal and he wanted to do something about it.

It certainly showcased Serrano's mastery of the make up brush. It also highlighted how good camera angles, neck stretching and other tricks that professional models do can make a 'superior' picture. The shot of self esteem this must give Kiray - who is usually made fun for her physical appearance - is incalculable.

If this is all the photoshoot conveys, I am more than happy that Kiray must be basking in the afterglow of being called a goddess, or that Serrano has reminded people of his talent, or that MJ Suayan's studio will now be booked solid.

Finally, Kiray can count herself as one of the 'pretty girls' of local showbiz, with the photographs to prove it.

Something left me unsettled, though.

It was what the meta-message said, a term I learned from reading one of Dr. Margarita Holmes' many articles: it simply means the message behind the message. Which I certainly do not think was the intention behind the generosity shown by Serrano and Suayan to Kiray, an attempt to stave off further negative, painful name-calling.

In order to be accepted, you have to look a certain way. In order to win positive feedback, you have to deny parts of yourself. In order to be desirable, you must be someone else.

I admit I may be reading too much into it. After all, no opinion is to be treated as writ in stone. But I can't help but feel that the beauty industry - worldwide, one that is valued in the billions - must be having a satisfactory smile at the reception this has been getting.

An industry that likes to think of itself as "enhancing" a person, but is making a simple statement, no matter how it's packaged: you're just not good enough. But you could be, if you buy our magic potion.

Dark skin? Filipinas must strive to have alabaster layers like Snow White.

Still not promoted? You must not have the latest designer dress or shoes.

Dateless? Not if you schedule visits to a celebrity doctor's clinic for the latest noninvasive procedure.

If this makes me a Scrooge to the happy bubble Kiray must be in right now, then so be it. I'm seriously happy for her if this makes her feel good.

I just wished we lived in a world that saw past the physical and the outer form. It's not realistic, I may be a dreamer, call me insane, but I wish people were valued because of their talents, skills, and that je ne sais quoi that each of us has, instead of the ability to approximate some perceived ideal, and in the process, remove all traces of what made us us in the first place.

Crazy, huh?

"Yan Lang Bibilhin Nyo?"

It's been quite awhile since I've written, owing to my new work. But when something of note takes place, there's nothing left to do but to immortalize it through the written word.

(Courtesy of food spotting.com)

After concluding my business at one of our offices located near Mall of Asia, I discovered I had to take a scenic (read: long, winding, unnecessary) route to get back to Makati. It was the first time I came across the place called Aseana City, and what stood out (for me, anyway) was the giant warehouse/shopping center SNR.

I then remembered that we had not done our weekly grocery shopping so I decided to drop by the store to purchase a couple of roast chickens for a couple of meals. It was mid-afternoon so I was dismayed to find a huge amount of people, practically blocking all passageways with their huge carts and lazy, I'm-leisurely-strolling vibe.

Mentally "sucking it up" (I detest crowds, big whoop), I made my way to the roasting area. With my premature senility kicking in, I managed to forget - again - that I had to pay first at the checkout counter before getting my stash. (Quite odd since you can't leave the place if you don't show your receipt.)

As I feared, hordes of carts were lined up in practically every counter. I was resigned to wasting at least an hour when I espied the very last two lanes - just one cart! I rushed over (even bumping into a college classmate) and lined up behind a single female customer, who was next to be served.

She turned to me and said, "would you like to go first? I don't have my card and it turns out I'm only allowed to go to the food service area and not the shopping area. Anyway, I'm just buying these two conditioners so go ahead."

So we switched places, and I told the checkout counter employee that I was ordering two roast chickens.

Apparently, she wasn't well-versed as to what code or button to use and started calling the next counter person, who was busy ringing up her customers' purchases. She then turned to me and asked, nasaan ang mga manok? (Where are the chickens?)

I informed her of their own store's policy of paying first before getting the chickens. And then she responded in a completely surprising way.

"Yan lang bibilhin nyo?" (That's all you're buying?)

In a split second, I decided to not make a big deal out of it. A smile crept up uncontrollably and I said "yes. That's all I'm ordering."

She then raised both her eyebrows, as if to say "wow, you've got a lot of nerve shopping here when others have carts and spend tens of thousands." As luck would have it, the woman who gave me way turned out to be my mouthpiece.

"Eh, ano bang paki mo kung yan lang bibilhin niya? (What do you care if that's all he purchases?) I'm just buying these two conditioners...ano, pagsasabihan mo rin ako na eto lang bibilhin ko?" (What, are you also going to berate me for my purchases?)

My work here is done, it seems.

Making It Work At Work

There is no doubt that physical activity is one of the keys to maintaining and improving one’s health. From the days when Jane Fonda was sometimes ridiculed for her work in promoting aerobics, to our present time, when we have an obesity epidemic brought about by unhealthy food choices, subliminal and outright advertising of “supposed” health products that do more harm than good, stress levels at home and at work, and lack of actual physical movement due to improvements in automation in every facet of our lives, it has become a problem for exercise professionals to get people to actually move.

When I say move, I mean anything that raises your heart rate and taxes your body’s muscular endurance or strength, aerobic capacity and flexibility: that could mean something as “simple” as walking, to events like all-out triathlons that have been increasing in visibility as of late. Despite what we see in media, the data does not lie: our country has one of the highest rates of obesity in Southeast Asia, and you only need to see what our kids choose to eat to know that there is a problem as far as health is concerned.

Should this be a burden for business owners and managers? Absolutely!  Any business worth their weight in (insert business product or service here) knows that their company cannot possibly survive, much less thrive, unless they have a fully functioning, competent workforce present, and one of the imminent dangers this workforce faces is having a poor state of health, which leads to substandard levels of personal productivity, feelings of depression, lethargy, absenteeism – all of which can affect a business and its’ bottom line.

What can businesses do to shore up the health of their human resources? Should businesses do something about it, at all? To answer these, I will share ideas from “Workplace Health Promotion” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Council on Exercise, and my own personal experience as a fitness professional.

Mixing business with fitness.

(Courtesy of wellness.nifs.org)

 It Makes Good Business Sense

Businesses spend money when they hire, train, compensate and give other by benefits to an employee they hire. Multiply that by how many employees you have and you can see that this is not an amount to be trifled with: you do this because you are in expectation that what they deliver will help the business become profitable.

Think of their physical well-being as an insurance that what you have materially invested so far in their development will not be wasted due to sick days or lacklustre performances. It is vital for business owners and managers to realize that the state of their employees’ health has a direct impact on how productive they are, and the healthier they are, the less stress on other expenses that can be controlled. (Think of the medical claims your employees use annually under your company health packages, and how much smaller your premiums would be if there are less claims made because majority of them are reporting less illnesses.)

It Has To Come From The Top

Like many ideas that need traction, prioritizing your employees’ health will be boosted immensely if this was mandated and supported by the company’s top brass. To quote the American Council on Exercise (ACE) article “Fostering a Workplace Culture of Physical Activity,” they note that “when leaders regularly communicate the importance of employee health and well-being – and walk the talk – it becomes part of the corporate identity.”

You can do this by not only stating in an official capacity that physical activity is encouraged, but by actually providing opportunities to do so with your existing facilities. You can encourage stair walking and make stairwells “more appealing with paint, artwork and motivational signage.” You can designate your company canteen to make a “healthy choice” option  and challenge them to make it appealing so that even those who think healthy food is blah would have their interest piqued. You can relegate the smoking area to the lengthiest route and dingiest area to discourage the habit.

All you need are a determination to make this policy work and creative thinking.

Make Room For Physical Activity

In the old days, the only company perk that has “physical benefit” written all over it was the company’s basketball court, which, because of basketball rules and company politics, could only be taken advantage of by a select population of work: usually middle to upper management, men and only a handful out of the entire workforce population.

I’m glad to say that times have changed, and more and more companies are devoting physical spaces to exercise equipment and possibilities. I have taught exercise classes in company gyms, meeting rooms and even a chapel (which was used sparingly), and advised management teams on what and how they can utilize their space to accommodate more employees to exercise and move their bodies. Gyms should remember to provide for equipment for (1) muscular endurance (2) muscular strength (3) aerobic endurance and (4) flexibility. Consult a fitness professional so that you can properly take steps to making your workplace a healthier, stress controlled environment.

It Makes It Harder To Say No

A common “excuse” people use is the time/distance factor: they usually whine that they have “no time” to exercise, or that gyms, parks and other facilities are just so out of the way and inconvenient. Having exercise equipment and spaces right where they work eliminates the distance factor altogether, and as for the time element? Did you know that the American College of Sports Medicine has revised its’ recommendation for physical activity? You can do 15 minutes of exercise in the morning, and another 15 in the afternoon or after work, to complete their recommended time of 30 minutes of daily exercise. Surely, everyone can spare 15 minutes to move instead of taking a cigarette break or catching up on celebrity gossip, and it would clearly be time well spent.

On the other end are the gym “fanatics” who are so obsessed with exercise that they have started cutting their office hours just to catch a class or get in a few more reps (repetitions) on their chest exercises. I was once conducting a mind body class when this client (a doctor) got a phone call (which she answered while class was in progress, a big no-no) and was telling her secretary to tell her patients she would be late and that she was stuck in traffic, but in truth, she just wanted to finish the class. Having a facility on-site makes it unnecessary to resort to fibs just to have more exercise time.

It Shows Concern and Improves Company Loyalty

Employees will know that the company wants to take care of them and makes the effort to prove it by “walking the talk”. It is a win-win situation that boosts morale, reduces workplace sickness, improves employee confidence and well-being, and has a positive effect on the company earnings.

Like that popular sorts company ad says, Just Do It. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did.

---------------

*This post first appeared in the fitness section of Asian Dragon magazine, July-August 2013 issue.

Are We Racists?

Last night certainly made a compelling case for it.

I'm talking about the aftermath of our loss to Iran in the FIBA games. It was hard not to be "caught up" as far as game updates were concerned, even for someone who cannot be considered a basketball aficionado by any stretch. All night long, my News Feed was filled with blow-by-blow accounts of the scores, who shot what, how many people were attending, how thrilling it was to be in the arena.

It was unavoidable because that's all anyone was talking about on my Facebook Wall (and their respective pages).

Not being as interested, I was at home watching movies and chanced upon the Iran-Philippines game during a commercial break. It was half-time, and they were displaying the game statistics. As a dispassionate observer, I could tell that we were outclassed, in both offense (two point shots showed Iran scoring more than twice our %) and defense (number of blocks). Coupled with what I have been reading (how this was a David-Goliath matchup, how Iran is seen as the team to beat, how uphill of a battle it was for the Philippines) it didn't take a second for me to see the writing on the wall.

So, when the final scores came in, I wasn't shocked at all. I'm sure our team didn't let this go without a fight, given the expectations after a still talked about game against Korea where we emerged victorious. But numbers don't lie, and I can be pragmatic to a fault.

Then the online onslaught began. I suddenly saw posts crying foul.

One by one, I saw status updates that focused on how the Iran basketball team "smelled": that we would have won had our players worn gas masks. There were memes posted about how it was a battle of Puso (heart) vs. Putok (body odor), and how it was natural for the latter to win.

Another faction complained about the height of the Iranian players, and how "unfair" this was for our boys.

The worst of the lot was when people started singling out individual players, calling them "yucky looking" and at least three people mentioning a particular player, saying that "you look like a pedophile!"

Pride or racism?

(Courtesy of facebook.com)

This might be a good time to talk about Pinoy Pride.

It's a nebulous concept at best, because I subscribe to the late George Carlin's philosophy: why be proud for something you were born into? Just as you happened to be a certain height, you also happened to be born in the Philippines. It is not an "achievement" to be paraded around.

When people win in, say, international singing contests, I attribute it to that person's personal singing talent and the hard work s/he put into it. I never understood the idea that it's because "galing yan sa Pinas kasi!" - we barely have enough facilities for basic education, much less support for something viewed as "extras" like the arts. It has always felt like nakikisakay tayo, us piggybacking on the coattails of someone's personal achievement.

And when things don't go our way, we are quick to view it as luto, we were singled out because of our color/nationality, and how discriminated we are on the world stage. I know this makes many people uncomfortable, but harping about achievements being dependent on one's nationality lends itself to racism quite seamlessly. It can't be helped: if we think that our pride is based on nationality, then any "infraction" is seen as an insult and an attack on this form of pride.

Which then lends itself also to direct this "infraction" as a racist attack towards others who are seen as the "perpetrators" - and in last night's case, to insult and disparage the Iranian basketball team that has somehow "wounded" our national pride.

We feel justified in calling them foul-smelling, and that we should wear protective gear should we come into physical proximity with them.

We think we raise ourselves up by putting down others for the supposed "characteristics" of another country, as in "everyone knows they all smell bad!"

We think nothing of calling someone as resembling a pedophile, as if it was a function of nationality, disregarding the fact that every country has its own share of offenders, sexual or otherwise.

We disrespect the hard work that others have put into their profession - and they just happened to be Iranian, or Chinese, or some other nationality - and instead, label their victories as "cheating" because of their height, or some other physical characteristic that everyone knows would be a boon before stepping into the game.

We disrespect ourselves, when we imply - actually, we went past implying and stated it outright - that our team didn't win because of a lack of gas masks, negating and belittling how hard they have worked to get to where they are.

We feel entitled because of where we were born, and not because of determination, hard work and perseverance.

Until we celebrate achievement for being the product of hard work, I fear this country will remain stunted, substituting racism for pride.

Obsessing Over The Superficial, Yet Again

The last few days saw an outpour of online support for the new Pope and his statement as far as gay people are concerned: his "Who am I to judge them?" has certainly made the rounds across social boards, and was largely seen as a (welcome) departure from his predecessor's feelings about the subject matter.

Now comes archbishop Oscar Cruz, who has taken it upon himself to "refine" - so to speak - on what the head of the world's Catholics had to say concerning gay people. In a recent Huffington Post article, Cruz agrees that gay people should not be disrespected, but only if they wouldn't "dress up as females, wear high heels, and other such acts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-littauer/philippines-archbishop-ba_b_3687005.html

It certainly highlights what I wrote for Rappler earlier this year: a predilection for this country to focus on what's outside, not the inside, in "determining" if someone is (supposedly) gay.

http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/23821-homosexuality-effeminacy

There are three things I find problematic with how Cruz sees gay people.

(Courtesy of cbcpforlife.com)

(1) The first - and rather obvious - landmine is that how one chooses to comport oneself is never reliable as an indication of one's sexual orientation.

I would have thought that in 2013, we are all astute enough to know that just because a guy doesn't play basketball does it make him gay, so should we have known that not all gay men like dressing up in women's clothes. If I may make an unscientific observation, given this country's purported (Catholic) religiosity and supposed moral uprightness, the pressure to act according to socially accepted norms is that much greater, and I theorize that there are more gay men who wear what Cruz would call "appropriate" clothing than what is commonly described as "parlorista" wear.

Cruz, however, cannot be faulted for what seems to be the general, prevalent notion: if you're gay, you must be a beauty pageant aficionado, wear makeup/are extremely knowledgeable about the subject, and want nothing more than a sex change to be a "real" woman. I can counter all these misconceptions in one fell swoop, using myself: I loathe beauty contests and see them as hideously disrespectful of women, I know absolutely zilch about beauty products, and I have never entertained the thought of going through any sex reassignment surgery.

See, at the heart of it all is that anyone who identifies as a gay man does so because he is attracted - romantically, sexually - to men. Period. That is the only thing that needs to be defined. What he wears, how he dresses, what bags he uses, which restaurants he goes to are not dictated by some "gay manual". If people see "more" gay people in industries like entertainment and fashion, it's because gay people are more readily accepted - some say essential, wink, wink - in certain fields, and let's face it: the thought of working in an environment where you could be beaten up for being honest about who you are is not exactly an appealing concept.

But it doesn't mean that someone like me, who has no idea about fashion design, will aspire to be an Oscar de la Renta just because "it's what gays (are supposed to) do" - in fact, I pity the straight guy who may be interested in dancing but doesn't learn it for fear of cultural reprisal: they work on the same assumption of compartment, that only straight guys do this, and only gay guys do that.

I've read an observation that somehow, the rules go up earlier for men, or rather boys: no crying, strength measures your manhood, emotions are for sissies. But that deserves another post.

(2) It sounds no different from a rapist telling a judge that he wouldn't have violated the victim if she wasn't wearing such a short skirt.

It's called blaming the victim. Simple. In other words, not being held accountable for our actions. In my line of thinking, even if a woman was to go streaking across EDSA, that still doesn't give you the right to forcibly have sex with her. I dare you to tell me otherwise, and come up with a plausible reason why I shouldn't persist in it.

Similarly, when you laugh/make homophobic remarks, hold yourself responsible for your words and actions. Don't pass it off by saying something lame like "eh, kasi, kalalaking tao, ganyan manamit!" Unless your name is Joan Rivers, and you work on the show called Fashion Police, everyone would best be reminded that freedom of expression also includes the right to wear, pierce, string, etc. anything on one's hair, face and body. In our secular democracy, there is no law that prevents men from wearing skirts or women from wearing pants, which I understand certain religions expressly forbid.

By all means, no one's stopping you from making fun of others. But have the balls to say it's because you're a homophobe, you revel in hatred, and won't apologize for it.

Besides, if you want to talk about gender-conforming clothing, Mr. Cruz may want to consider that his fellow priests certainly do not fall into that category themselves as far as their work clothes are concerned.

(3) What you laugh at/find worthy of ridicule is a reflection of you, and not the object of laughter.

I prefer to think of it as a Rorschach inkblot: that famous psychological tool using a series of images to determine your state of mind. We may be looking at the same thing, but we will all perceive it differently.

Likewise, when you go out of your way to denigrate someone who doesn't "measure up" to your standard of clothing, action or morality, it reveals who you are: a judgmental individual who cannot accept any other view but your own, and is hellbent with subverting any idea that contradicts yours, free choice and decision making be damned.

As a non Catholic, I appreciated what Pope Francis tried to do: extend an open palm to the LGBT community, however trite it may have seemed to some quarters. I have also read several commentaries that the core position of the Catholic Church has not changed; in fact, other priests have come out saying gays are still going to hell.

I am not looking to change anyone's religion or how they treat the LGBT community. I have long maintained that it is religion, not sexual orientation, that is a matter of choice. But the new Pope has given me a sense of his humility that I do not see quite often in religious leaders (ironically).

And as I've indicated to some friends, I prefer the Dalai Lama's formula, who said that his philosophy is kindness, and that his temple is the heart. That really is what all anyone can ask for: that we treat each other with kindness and compassion, regardless of how we identify ourselves.

That can only happen when you take your eyes off the exterior, and focus on the inside.