When I blogged about Mr Buko pie and what his picture is doing in that packaging of a brand of buko pie, what I wanted to be cleared out with is whether what he is doing is legal, if it is not in violation of any existing COMELEC rules or regulation. Unfortunately, when Mr Buko Pie replied, he did not answer my query at one instance. No direct answer from the first sentence he mentioned. He had to circumvent around, mention several things, and still in the end, the question was unsatisfactorily answered. This pissed me off. I thought for a learned man that he is, for a legislator that he was and wants to be, he would be able to answer questions directly and instantly without even sugarcoating what he intends to say and mean.
That pissed me off. Maybe that was a wrong attitude from my end. But for discussions to be proper, I believe that you deserve a good answer if you asks someone, especially when that someone woes your sympathy and vote for his candidacy. Maybe I am quite strict when it comes to asking and answering. Maybe I have an anal personality. Maybe I am used to rational thinking. Maybe I am used to being in the medical field where we often require concise yet comprehensive answers. In medicine where we deal with lives and in emergency situations, direct answers are what we crave for to immediately act on patients in distress. In clinics when we consult patients, definite answers are what we want when we ask how many days is the child coughing. We want to hear 5 days, 7 days, 2 weeks, 1 month and not “matagal na.” Because certainly you will hear a follow up question “gaano katagal yong matagal na.” This help us decide and deduce definitely what is wrong with you.
I know that this is also what you want when you ask a question, no matter which field you are in. In a beauty pageant, a contestant is given 30 seconds to deliver a good and quality answer to a question and this one measure for him/her to be chosen as winner. Why is it that the world felt it was as if the candidate committed a heinous crime when one candidate failed to answer “what law would she write in case she become a lawmaker” and she instead said about her surfing, all laws are already written? If these candidates who aspire for a title, a crown, get ridiculed for not answering their questions right, must our politicians be spared from such as well? Ridiculing of course is not an acceptable behavior but candidates have to be scrutinized if indeed they deserve to win the most coveted title, crown and position. So must our candidates be.
I was asking Mr Buko Pie about his being an anti-epal (as an author of the bill) and his seemingly “epalistic” acts. He insisted that what he did and is doing is not “epal,” according to his own definition of “epal” in a bill that did not pass at the congress. The thing is, his definition is constricted while the public perceives otherwise. As an ordinary citizen, it is my understanding that he cannot insist on what he personally believes is the definition of the term as his bill is NOT YET in effect. It still is the public’s perception that matters and should weigh in for now, it is the public who will determine which acts are epal, it is the public who will vote for their candidates based on the latter’s conduct. We the public will choose based on our perception of what epal means. He alone cannot vote for himself and propel himself to a senate seat. Unless of course his bill has passed and is in effect that yes, he can insist on what his definition of epal is that will justify his current conduct.
Do I even make sense?