Manipulating public opinion

 

 

For the misled and deceived public, including those in supposedly intelligent discussion forums in social media, the word “manipulation” often has pejorative connotations, implying unfair or deceptive strategies. But the Webster Dictionary defines it more broadly as an act of change by artful or unfair means to serve one’s purpose. Manipulation therefore may be either artful or deceptive. If it is artful, people may show admiration; if it is deceptive, the reaction may be outrage.

 

When public opinion is manipulated by agents of the government and its friends in the media to deflect criticism of its policies or performance or for some malicious purpose like demonizing a sitting vice-president who’s seen as an unworthy successor to the incumbent president, the absence of public outrage is very disconcerting. Major newspapers and television networks carry in their daily reportage unfounded allegations of corruption against the vice president. Even the social media like Facebook and Twitter are replete with opinions or messages bordering on libel that assail the integrity of the vice president and his family for unexplained wealth and their political dynasty.

 

The manipulation of public opinion against the vice president is in fact distasteful and not very artful, although it creates the desired result of making him look guilty. It is clearly deceptive because the obvious purpose is to character-assassinate the vice president at this early stage. If successful, the vice president would be seriously handicapped in explaining his side before he even declares his official candidacy for the presidency.

Philippine Vice President Jejomar Binay

But the troublesome question is where the public outrage is. As usual, there is no conviction or finding of culpability, yet the public is being rushed to hang the vice president on the cross.

 

Spearheading the manipulation of public opinion against the vice president are two senators with similar dubious political records, Senators Antonio Trillanes and Alan Cayetano. Trillanes is a former navy officer and perennial coup d’état instigator who served more than seven years in prison for inciting rebellion against a duly elected government. He was elected while in prison and was officially pardoned by the current president so he could serve his term in the Senate.

 

Cayetano is a scion of a prominent political family. His wife is mayor of the city of Taguig and a former congresswoman, his older sister is also an incumbent senator, a younger brother is a congressman, and another brother is a former councillor of Muntinlupa. Allegations of corruption hound Senator Cayetano regarding pork barrel funds he received from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), and his wife, for alleged overpricing in the purchase of multi-cabs for the city of Taguig.

 

This is like mud wrestling. Regardless of who wins, all are covered with muck.

 

Both senators have also made known their intention to run for the office of the President after President Noynoy Aquino steps down in 2016. The curious thing is how the public is being misled to believe that the vice president is a crook and the two senators are not. There are also reports that a powerful bloc supporting Aquino is responsible for the attacks against the vice president so that their own presidential bets will not be hamstrung by Jojo Binay’s presidential ambition.

 

Vice President Jojo Binay is not even the president; yet, he is now at the vortex of a political tsunami. President Aquino must be enjoying the political mudslinging in Congress and the ensuing publicity in newspapers and social media drama because they deflect all criticisms against his failings and shortcomings.

 

For instance, as the country suffers from continuing power outages and snail-paced traffic on busy thoroughfares, all President Aquino could do was to ask for more understanding and patience from all affected businesses and frustrated commuters. Aquino has even blamed (again!) his predecessor, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for the problems concerning the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and the Light Rail Transit (LRT). It’s estimated that the traffic gridlock alone is costing the Philippines close to P2.4 billion a day, which will grow to P6 billion a day in 2030.

 

Meanwhile, President Aquino is reportedly planning to ask Congress to grant him emergency powers to deal with the country’s looming power crisis. Here is one clear example of how the Aquino administration is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the executive’s budgetary and spending powers without congressional authorization by striking down the PDAF and DAP. Malice is evident in President Aquino’s ploy to use emergency powers so he could divert billons from the Malampaya Fund to the Liberal Party 2016 campaign chest. Since the Malampaya funds are disbursed at the sole discretion of the President, anything goes as far as where he or Budget Secretary Florencio Abad wants these funds to go. The Malampaya Fund could be the largest pork barrel at the disposal of the President, and it has not been investigated or audited because the fund is not subject to congressional oversight.

 

The President’s much-ballyhooed Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, a conditional cash transfer program aimed at eradicating extreme poverty in the Philippines by investing in health and education, is now considered by many as a failed social welfare dole-out. Patterned after the success of similar programs in Mexico and Brazil, the Philippine version is turning out more and more poor participants in the program. This prompted one member of Congress to criticize it as an impetus for poverty, instead of a solution.

 

Beyond just being a dole-out which was not the actual aim of the program, the government’s conditional cash transfer program has also become a veritable cash cow for corruption. It was reported that over P5 billion in conditional cash transfer (CCT) funds that were coursed through the Philippine Postal Corp. (Philpost) went missing and never reached the program’s intended beneficiaries. The irony of it all is this government-borrowed money, sanctioned by the International Monetary Fund, has been hijacked by corrupt government officials instead of being spent for the alleviation of poverty.

 

The President’s illegal Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is yet to be fully accounted for. Considered as the President’s pork barrel, the DAP benefited lawmakers who were President Aquino’s party mates in the ruling Liberal Party. Senator Franklin Drilon, the sitting Senate President and a close ally of the President, is reported to have received P1 billion, the biggest allocation out of the total P10.08 billion in DAP.

 

Of the P1 billion DAP, Drilon got P450 million allocation for Jalaur Dam project, P150 million for the Iloilo River Development Program and P100 million for Iloilo Convention Center, all located in Drilon’s home province of Iloilo. Drilon’s unimaginable biggest share of the DAP could be one reason why Budget Secretary Abad is having problems releasing the list of lawmakers who received DAP funding.

 

Now, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago wants the Senate to look into allegations of corruption in the construction of the Iloilo Convention Center reportedly funded through Senator Drilon’s pork barrel funds. Santiago wants Hillmarc’s Construction Corp., the contractor for the construction of the Iloilo Convention Center be investigated. This is the same contractor of the allegedly overpriced Makati City Hall Building 2, which is currently under investigation by the Senate blue ribbon subcommittee.

Artist's perpective of how Iloilo Convention Center would look like when
completed. The structure is a pet project of Senate President Franklin Drilon
and partly funded from DAP funds. Photo courtesy of Iloilo Business Park.

Senator Santiago is said to be interested to know how Hillmarc’s has cornered super-lucrative public works contracts. The 11-storey Makati City office and parking building is the subject of a plunder complaint against Vice President Jejomar Binay, his son Makati Mayor Junjun Binay, and several other Makati government officials. The Iloilo Convention Center, a pet project of Senator Drilon funded partly from his P200-million allocation from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2012 and P100 million from the DAP in 2013, is also said to be overpriced by P531 million.

 

In the past, Hilmarc’s has constructed several other government buildings which include the city halls of Bacolod and Calamba, the House of Representatives Annex Building, the Sandiganbayan Centennial Building, the Quezon City Museum, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas buildings in Naga City and Negros Oriental. The inference here is that the bidding process might have been rigged in favour of Hillmarc’s, yet the government’s role and Senator Drilon’s personal interest and involvement are being downplayed as if the awarding process was corruption-free.

 

If the so-called accomplishments of President Noynoy Aquino are subjected to a rigid litmus test, it would show that he had come up short. But Aquino’s spinmeisters are clever to stay on the message—that their crafted message is the only message the established media must cover. Thus, hardly does this President own up to his accountability and the public remains ever loyal to him.

 

I am not an apologist for Vice President Binay. The only connection we had was the one-time experience of marching together during the anti-Marcos demonstrations in Manila when he was a MABINI lawyer advocating for the civil rights of protesters. I don’t have any grudge against Senator Drilon but I have known him well as a pro-management lawyer in the service of multinational companies during my work in labour relations in the Philippines.

 

In any case, both Binay and Drilon should come up clean. Admittedly, they would not take accountability for their own acts of corruption, if any. Senators Trillanes and Cayetano should also consider ending their charade in Congress, for it makes them look less and less respectable and worthy to even be mentioned as presidential aspirants.

 

Since time is running short, it is about time for President Aquino to face up to the facts of his administration. That there are many shortcomings which he can no longer hide and cover up with presidential crafted talk. That his so-called singular achievement of detaining corrupt government officials still falls short of his promise of “daang matuwid” unless he is able to convict them for corruption and plunder.

 

Left to their own devices, the public will continue to be disinclined of suspicious political rhetoric. To recognize that deceptive and misleading political communication is being used to manipulate public opinion is another thornier issue because even the supposedly intelligent among us have become either a willing herd or pack of innocent voices of the government’s official line.

Manufacturing public opinion

Very often we are asked to have our say on matters of state policy, such as the ongoing consultations with the public by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. All levels of government – federal, provincial and municipal – always stress the importance of feedback to government proposals in changing policies or regulations. Whether useless or effective, duplicitous or sincere, these public consultations create another layer in the decision-making process, in addition to our elected Parliament and local councils, and the army of technocrats in the government bureaucracy.

Canada Immigration, for example, conducts public consultations to “generate greater public understanding of the difficult decisions involved in managing a global immigration system.” According to its recent press release, “There are competing visions and diverging goals for the future of the immigration program, and there are no easy answers. Engaging stakeholders and the broader public is key to CIC’s development of an overall strategy for Canada moving forward.”

According to a press release from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the purpose
of immigration consultations is to "seek feedback on immigration levels, including
the appropriate level of immigration for Canada, and the most suitable mix between
economic, family class and protected persons." Click link to view "Many changes to
immigration under Jason Kenney,"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXER3dLjto

The purpose of Canada Immigration’s ongoing public consultations is to seek feedback on immigration issues, including the appropriate level of immigration for Canada, and the most suitable mix among economic, family, and refugee and humanitarian classes.

Are we really that ignorant to be duped by the current Conservative government that our input matters in policy decision-making?

Early this year, Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney decided to cancel out all immigration applications submitted prior to February 27, 2008. Close to 280,000 applicants are affected by this decision. Minister Kenney rationalized his decision by arguing that the Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) Program is hampering Canada’s ability to respond rapidly to changing labour market needs. Kenney said: “Having to process applications that are as many as eight years out of date reduces our ability to focus on new applicants with skills and talents that our economy needs today.” This was a draconian shift in government policy, yet did Canada Immigration ask for our feedback before they decided to go ahead with their new policy?

Prior to Minister Kenney’s decision to close the door to these early immigration applications under the FSW program, he also imposed a moratorium on the sponsorship of parents and grandparents, thus denying new permanent residents the opportunity to bring their families to Canada. With a stroke of the pen, Kenney is rewriting the objective of family reunification under the existing law and making it even more difficult. Was there a consultation with the public, especially those affected by the change in policy?

Last July, Minister Kenney put a temporary hold on all new applications under the federal skilled worker and investor program until July 0f 2013. Kenney said he needed to “reset the button” in deciding on the moratorium on Canada’s skilled labour program. This decision was necessary, Kenney said, to enable the government to develop an effective backlog elimination strategy. In addition, Minister Kenney also reduced health care benefits – including support, to refugee claimants in Canada. Again, was there public consultation before Kenney made this decision?

Every major policy decision made by Jason Kenney bears the imprint of his impatience to overhaul Canada’s immigration system, which the opposition can only criticize but to no avail. Even these so-called public consultations will amount to nothing but photo ops that the people were consulted and heard before the government decided to change its policies. The obvious truth is: the government has already made up its mind.

The process of public consultations emerges from the basic belief that legitimate governments are those that listen to their citizens. After all, democratic government is tested by the capacity and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate. But how much information is deliberated in public consultations and what influence do these consultations have over the state are questions which may not be answered directly by the outcome of this process.

Access to the public consultation process by the ordinary citizens may have in fact been limited, whether by design, the targeted audience or ulterior motives. For one, these consultations are politically controlled; as such, they are ultimately used as tools by the ruling government for advertising rather than the medium from which the public gets their information on vital political matters.

Take for example the 2012 Immigration Levels Plan (from the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration) that is attached supposedly for discussion during the public consultations. This is Canada Immigration’s blueprint for determining immigration levels and mix, prepared by the department’s bureaucrats. One wonders how much can be expected from the public in terms of revisions or additional issues which Canada Immigration bureaucrats may consider in setting the final immigration levels and mix.

But the most important question to ask is how sincere is this government in canvassing public opinion in its policy decision-making?

All the press releases, all background information attached to the public consultations, and several pronouncements by Minister Kenney and his bureaucrats may in the end all sound like junk mail or a telemarketing call, which the ordinary citizen usually sets aside for good. Not that information is unimportant. Too much information is also not very useful because it simply leads the public consultation to a glitzy show of government statistics, not to a substantive debate on the government’s strategic priorities.

Writing about the lost art of political argument, Christopher Lasch wrote in Harper’s Magazine:

“Let us begin with a simple proposition: What democracy requires is public debate, not information. Of course it needs information too, but the kind of information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular debate. We do not know what we need to know until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy.”

When the process of public consultations becomes an extension of the town meeting, then we can say we truly have created a public forum. Not when the government calls for public consultations to advertise planned policy changes, and not actually to allow the public to debate the substance of the proposed changes. Not when public consultations are held in order to display an appearance of transparency or create the impression that the ruling government also listens.

There seems to be so much preoccupation with publicity nowadays. Publicity in terms of having good public relations or a positive public image. This is the new danger to democracy, less direct but more insidious than that of the tyranny of majority as we have now in Parliament by the ruling Conservative Party. Because it ultimately leads to the decisive influence of certain insistent and powerful minorities – those who are intent in limiting access to the public sphere since this is how they operate and thrive in a competitive political environment.

This public consultation process, the kind embarked by Canada Immigration, may very well be an effort to create public opinion that simulates the existence of a general feeling in favour of a cabinet minister, his policies or his party’s eagerness to disembowel the whole immigration system. It’s clearly ironic that the deference to this kind of manufactured public opinion may be greater than that the ordinary citizens may yield to, one which they believe to be the genuine sentiment of the majority.