Shadow Minister

S&R roast chicken

Magsasawa ka sa bulalo dito. Lahat ng madaanan kong resto meron nito naka-ad pa sa labas!

Kung gusto nyo ng fast food na sunog, mang inasal kayo.

Thanks for this. This is also what I've been advocating - BRT here in metro manila. This will serve as a very good alternative to MRT which, for most of us, is a very critical public transportation mode dito. Marami nagsa-suggest na magdagdag ng coach, ayusin ang mga tren, which shows marami ang gustong gumamit nito kundi lang palaging sira, because kung wala ito, people will be forced to take the transpo along edsa which are the hellish buses.

 

BRT, because it is a lot simpler than MRT, will be a lot easier to create around MM. Ang kelangan mo lang ay buses, dedicated lanes, kahit makeshift stations for now, and off you go! Di mo kelangan maghukay, maglatag ng riles, maglatag ng katakot-takot na electric lines, pati bulky trains at ang nakakabaliw na maintenance nito. All these logistics will not be needed. Mas marami kang magagawang BRT sa Manila. Sa ngayon iilan lang ang MRT lines natin (3 lang) along major arteries. With BRT we can cover more major arteries dito sa manila, and therefore more network of BRT routes. Mas maikakalat mo ngayon itong mga sumasakay ng MRT among these BRT routes rather than siksikan silang lahat sa MRT lang.

 

Some of you might say, the dedicated lines will be at the expense of private motorist, or public buses, etc. That's the point! You intentionally make it tougher for people to use private vehicles, and easier for them to use public transpo c/o BRT. What do you expect people to do? They will realize that BRT is more beneficial at ito ang kukunin nila! Their behavior has been altered. Kung dati mas gusto nila bili agad kotse, ngayon mas pipiliin nila mag-commute. Yun ang gusto natin, mabawasan ang sasakyan sa kalsada. In the end, para tumakbo ang ekonomiya natin, what we need to move from one place to another are not more cars, but more people. Yun ang principle behind BRT at maging carpooling.

 

But if we want a long-term systemic fix, we must FEDERALIZE the country.

Mass Transpo ang solution. And also ung No Garage, No Car Policy sana maipasa.

kahit anong scheme pa yan, kahit hi hitler pa gawin mong traffic czar, ang nag iisang solusyon lang is decentralization. ikalat ang business district sa baguio, subic/clark, cebu at davao. tanggalin ang provincial wage rate. siksikan na tayo dito, di na kaya ng metro manila. tingnan mo sa vietnam, mamimili ka kung sa taas (hanoi) o sa baba (Ho Chi Minh) ang gusto momg mag trabaho at mag settle.

 

Economic Federalism is the key. kahit di na political, Economic and Business na lang.

 

 

Agree. The more practical solution is to combine these two proposals above. The long-term goal is federalism, decentralization to spread development across the country and not to concentrate it around few cities like MM. This will transfer to the state gov't the responsibility of developing their area. And the state gov't has more incentive and reason to that than the central gov't. However, it will not happen overnight.

 

The mass transpo will help in medium-term to mitigate the traffic here in MM, this will encourage people to lessen use of their cars and rely more on the reformed and more efficient and more effective public transportation. However, if we still don't decentralize and we still keep development here in MM, more and more people will still migrate here, which will eventually overwhelm even the improved public transpo. The two proposals complement each other.

 

Kailangan system solutions. We cannot rely on appealing to individual interests to change their attitudes when it comes to traffic.

The proposals above are still very very valid for solving our traffic woes. System-wide and holistic solutions.

What if China won't comply? What is our leverage?

We can change to form of government to anything we want and as often as we want but if we have the same old same olds running the country then we will also be at square one. I propose a law that limits the number of times an elected official can run for office. ooooops, meron na pala iyan. tsk.

How will you expect the politicians to change for the better then? By themselves? Waiting for the perfect politicians is like waiting for Godot. Godot never arrives, even in thousand years... Very impractical.

The reason that we are pushing for system change is to force and trigger the people in it (politicians) to change, for the better. All people have self-interests and it will be very futile to hope for them to disregard it. System change should create an environment that harnesses and channels those self-interests so politicians do positive results for the benefit of the public.

I can understand the need for term limits in a presidential setup. But in parliamentary? Totally not needed.

"Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, both MIT Political Scientists

I Keep telling you, until you somehow decongest metro manila, all other efforts to ease traffic will be futile.

 

Kaya nga, bobo lang ang maniniwala sa pinagsasabi ni Roxas na progresso daw ibig sabihin paglala ng traffic.

 

Ang ibig sabihin nyan, patuloy lang ang pagdami ng tao sa Metro Manila. Pano? Anong maayos na oportunidad ba meron sa mga probinsya? Ultimo pinakamagagaling na lang na Unibersidad at Ospital laging nasa Manila. Yung business capital nasa Manila. Lampas na sa tinatawag na "carrying capacity" ang kaMaynilaan kaya lumalala na traffic.

 

The move towards Federalism will be a great step towards this. If we can have other major cities in the Philippines where it can also offer not just the best Job opportunities but as well as Education. If only factories and major businesses can have center of operations in other cities, then hindi lagi dadagsa tao sa Maynila.

 

sabi nga 80% ng protein napupunta lang lagi sa Metro Manila

Expanding the roads and decentralizing businesses and offices won't happen in the short run. By the time a major highway has been finished or a new building in the province has been erected, maybe 500,000 new vehicles have already been sold and running. 2016 car sales still up year-on-year and the forecast just keeps on rising. With crude oil price ranging 45-50/barrel(still cheap) we can expect lower price tags on vehicles. If car companies could just add more premium on the prices of vehicles to lessen the demand, but that ain't happening either. The Ayalas(Honda and Isuzu), George Ty of MBT(Toyota) and Gokongweis(Mitsubishi?) don't care about sustainability, all they see is profit, maybe they can claim that their buildings or factories are "green." As long as construction of fixed assets are involved in the solution, do not expect for a quick fix in the near future.

Yes, these two proposals are what I've been advocating ever since. These two complement each other and will cover short-term to long-term time horizons.

Anyway, the only solution left is for the improvement of mass transportation. I hope the additional MRT would service enough passengers, but it's hard to imagine. And consumers, you may want to limit the purchase of vehicles. For a family, 2 cars would suffice, might as well ride a dilapidated bus going to work and just doze off hahaha

Mass transpo must be improved to alleviate traffic in the short-term. But I wouldn't count on MRT/LRT anymore for future public transportation systems. A better proposal is to go for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to cover other major traffic arteries in Metro Manila. Compared to train, this is a lot simpler and cheaper to construct - no digging, no excavating, no rail tracks and electrical wiring to be laid down, no trains to maintain. Just buses on dedicated lanes. Of course, with this, BRT will be easier and less costlier to maintain vs trains. And will be easier to deploy.

Urban planning experts like Jun Palafox have a lot of very good ideas but nothing happened. He also rejected the admin's solution of knee-jerked "more and more roads" as a solution to traffic.

Strongly agree on what you said about federalism and what it can do. It transfers the decision-making and accountability on those issues and policies (state economy, law enforcement, environment, etc.) to the state governments. Thus, they will no longer have excuses to under-perform on their duties. They cannot wait anymore for the central gov't to decide for them and to hand them funds. The national gov't can now concentrate on national and inter-state issues.

On how the authorities will be structured to do that, whether state or national level, dyan papasok ang presidential or parliamentary systems (or even semi-presidential).

Unfortunately, Daang Matuweed is an epic fail at this.

kahit anong scheme pa yan, kahit hi hitler pa gawin mong traffic czar, ang nag iisang solusyon lang is decentralization. ikalat ang business district sa baguio, subic/clark, cebu at davao. tanggalin ang provincial wage rate. siksikan na tayo dito, di na kaya ng metro manila. tingnan mo sa vietnam, mamimili ka kung sa taas (hanoi) o sa baba (Ho Chi Minh) ang gusto momg mag trabaho at mag settle.

 

Economic Federalism is the key. kahit di na political, Economic and Business na lang.

Agree. The more practical solution is to combine these two proposals above. The long-term goal is federalism, decentralization to spread development across the country and not to concentrate it around few cities like MM. This will transfer to the state gov't the responsibility of developing their area. And the state gov't has more incentive and reason to that than the central gov't. However, it will not happen overnight.

The mass transpo will help in medium-term to mitigate the traffic here in MM, this will encourage people to lessen use of their cars and rely more on the reformed and more efficient and more effective public transportation. However, if we still don't decentralize and we still keep development here in MM, more and more people will still migrate here, which will eventually overwhelm even the improved public transpo. The two proposals complement each other.

Kailangan system solutions. We cannot rely on appealing to individual interests to change their attitudes when it comes to traffic.

For me, (just my opinion), in a parliamentary for of government, the PM will just make his partymates happy, either prioritizing them for projects, or giving them what they want, etc., and not the people who voted them to the Parliament. Unlike in the Presidential form, every politician wants to be seen helping the people directly, hugging them and such (of course, not their job). The would-be President must court the whole nation, unlike a would-be PM, he just needs to court his district or province, then win the hearts of his fellow ministers afterwards.

Don't worry, the parliamentary system isn't like that. Regarding the scenario you described (the PM colluding with his partymates and not serving the people), if they try to do that, how can they expect to remain in power and be re-elected if they don't solve the problems of the people in the first place? Plus there is the opposition - the largest party in the parliament not part of the government - led by the leader of the opposition with its own shadow ministers opposing gov't ministers. These people are motivated to find faults in the government and expose its incompetence. Plus there is also the question time, where MPs can question, challenge, and scrutinize the government in its conduct of business. If the government (and the ruling party) will slack and not do its job properly, and the opposition expose that, the ruling party could lose its majority in the parliament in the next election, and if it does, its leader will cease to be prime minister.

Many people think that parliamentary system is prone to abuse just because the PM is not directly elected and therefore only caters to his partymates. However, it has its own mechanisms for checks and balances, which include the shadow cabinet, question times (like the PMQs), and the committees. This is more efficient and more effective than the separation of powers used in presidential system.

The problem with the parliamentary form of government for the PHL are the politicians. Too much politicking. If the PM is powerful enough to control his party (if his party is the majority), he can be in control for a long period of time, even if he does good or bad.

Define "too much politicking." And how does that compare with the politicking in the current presidential system?

3N toasted siopao

Yep, I go to meat buffets once in a while like Brazil Brazil.

BBQ ribs

Mykitchen's flank steak (@Oasis hotel) - napakasarap at tender pa.

Busog ka din sa empanada nila, ang laki pa (yung P90). Gusto ko yung cheese and mushroom flavor.

Gilligan's.

Kung hate naman na sisig, yung mang inasal. langya mas marami pa chicharon kesa sisig.

I prefer jco over kk, esp. its berry more. Ang preference ko naman sa kk, new york cheesecake.

Pass Joint Resolution No. 10, creating a Fedaral form of government partnered with a Presidential form, much like the US, but with revisions. Create 16 states based on the regional division loosely used today.

 

The capital city of each state would be the following:

Phl State No. 1 - Tuguegarao City

Phl State No. 2 - Vigan City

Phl State No. 3 - City of San Fernando (Pamp)

Phl State No. 4 - Calamba City

Phl State No. 5 - Legazpi City

Phl State No. 6 - Cebu City

Phl State No. 7 - Iloilo City

Phl State No. 8 - Tacloban City

Phl State No. 9 - Zamboanga City

Phl State No. 10 - Cagayan de Oro City

Phl State No. 11 - Butuan City

Phl State No. 12 - Davao City

Phl State No. 13 - General Santos City

Phl State No. 14 - Cotabato City

Phl State No. 15 - Baguio City

Phl State No. 16 - Manila

 

All states will have a State Congress, very much like the US. Presidents and VPs still have a 6-year single terms. Senators (National and State) 2 6-year terms, and Representatives, Governors, and Mayors all have 3 3-year terms. Election is still through popular voting, but only a two-party system with allowance of 1 independent candidate.

I agree with this one on Federalism. We really need this para the peripheral regions are empowered to develop themselves. Instead of US model, we can follow the Spanish model on gradual decentralization.

Pero instead of keeping the presidential government, I suggest that we adopt the parliamentary system, for both federal and state levels. Such parliamentary system will encourage the growth of true political parties grounded on political platform and ideas. It will be more efficient dahil less ang gridlock since the executive/government (which exists because it has the majority support) comes from the legislative (in contrast to presidential where the president may be of different party from the majority of senators/reps which can disagree and sabotage one another). It will guarantee na ang prime minister will always be a competent leader, unlike today the head of government is popularly elected and so is prone to popularity and star factor. Much better if we adopt the Westminster system (ganda ng confrontational/adversarial setup nito between the government and the opposition!). There are lots of strengths of parliamentary system vs presidential, however the space here is limited.

Okay yung rice meals nila dito, busog talaga for 1 person. Gusto ko yung chicken parmigiano at hickory BBQ ribs nila.

Bugong

I think there are simply just too many cars in Metro Manila. Government should fix the public transport system. Add, more trains & improve the infastructure of the lrt/mrt. Abolish the current buses & replace them with double decker buses which strictly follow time & loading/unloading areas.

 

A developed country is not where the poor people have cars, it's where the rich people use public transportation. - Mayor of Bogota

Speaking of Bogota, this place is known for TransMillenio, one of BRT pioneers. We can learn from this, a mass transpo using bus instead of subway trains. Much cheaper and simpler to construct and simpler to maintain than LRT/MRT. We should consider BRT.

Not a law, but changes in our basic law (constitution), like shifting to federal system, para mas empowered ang mga regions outside metro manila to develop themselves at para madecongest na din ang NCR. And to shift to parliamentary system to enable a more competitive political environment that will push politicians to deliver.

Vat is different from Annual Income tax, You have no choice for VAT, it is included on all products, while ITR filling is an option. you opt not to pay then you opt not to vote per se.

 

kung marerealize ng lahat ng Pilipino na lahat tayo nag cocontribute by means of ITR (well maybe change it to MANDATORY TAX RETURN since ITR means INCOME TAX RETURN and not all has income) maiisip nila kung san napunta yung Php 365.25 pesos nila.

 

 

VAT (value added tax) is still a tax. A government runs on taxes. Tax can take up different forms - real estate, VAT, corporate, etc. and not just income tax. Therefore, as long as you pay any of these types of taxes, then you are a taxpayer and you contribute to the operations of the government. And gaya ng sinabi mo, only TAXPAYERS should be allowed to vote (not just income tax payers).

Walang bearing kahit merong iba na "volunteer" kuno magbayad ng income tax. Malamang lumulusot lang ang mga yan at di alam ng BIR. Pero kung alam ng BIR ang ginagawa mo at pasok sa taxable items yun, you are obligated to pay taxes. Or else, BIR will sue you for tax evasion. Paying taxes is compulsory. Wala kang lusot dyan. There is no legal option not to pay up. Otherwise if you can volunteer to file and pay income tax, then everybody would not do it as it benefits them (more take home money, especially here in the country where money is very important). Will the gov't want that too? No, because they'll lose revenue.