I believe former Ilocos Sur (corrected) governor Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson as he dares his ally, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to fire him as deputy national security adviser.
Yes, Mr. Singson, the onus is on the Chief Executive to assert her authority to fire you rather than “request you,” her subordinate in the Office of the President, to remove you and give you the chance to focus fully on your marital problems.
Yes, Mr. former governor, Mrs. Arroyo can fire you as the President is clothed with full authority to undertake even a continuing reorganization of the Executive Department when she deems it necessary ‘in the exigency of the service.
In fact as holder of a presidential appointment, you like other members of her official family, albeit holding the rank of undersecretary, do serve at the pleasure of the President on the premise that she retains her full faith and confidence in you.
Indeed, no one can even suggest that the President a lame duck as her term of office runs through to 12 noon of January 30, 2010.
Yes ‘Chavit’ Sir, even s you are described in press reports as “one of the most influential politician” President Arroyo outranks you as she does everyone else in the government of the day.
Both the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces salute her as their Commander-n-Chief.
Yes, you are correct Mr deputy national security adviser.
The President should fire you if she wants.
Your decision, Mrs. President.
Popularity: 1% [?]
DG, I would like to re-post my comment from the other discussion to this post. thank you.
“Security” is sometimes not thought of as a democratic value in the same way as more obvious things like “justice” or “freedom.” But creating a safe and secure society, and protecting people against major threats to their welfare is an important function of democratic governments. This was clear even to the creators of the Constitution, who listed “insure domestic Tranquility,” and “provide for the common defense” as central reasons for establishing our democratic government. They understood that an ordered, peaceful, and secure society is not possible without the constant action of government.
From the beginning, our democratic government was primarily concerned with our physical security – ensuring that the country was immune from terrorists attacks, that citizens were safe from criminals, and that they were protected from threats like fire. But as our society has evolved, new threats to the welfare of ourselves and our families have emerged, and people have been able to use democratic government to help deal with these risks and create a more secure society. Citizens have (freely) organized themselves into lobbies and political movements or even groups joined in congress that have demanded that the government lessen the serious risks associated with such things as economic depressions, excessive inflation, loss of a job, dangerous workplaces, environmental pollution, lack of health insurance, retirement insecurity, dangerous products, serious illnesses or disability, terrorism, bank failures, investment and election fraud, earthquakes, typhoons and other natural disasters, and so on.
All of these things are worth worrying about because they can inflict major harm to our families and us – some can even ruin our lives. But hearing a kind of statements from a high caliber and powerful National Security Deputy Adviser, and I doubting more that the present Government can minimize these kinds of serious risks to our well-being. Of course, we can do some things individually to try to minimize some of our risks. We can drive carefully; we can avoid smoking, we can eat more healthily; we can try to save more money, and so on. But for many of these risks, there is little we can do alone to effectively avoid or manage them. Such things as job loss, cancer, environmental pollution, terrorism, crime, industrial obsolescence, and economic downturns are basically out of our control as individuals. So we must act collectively to try to manage these risks – and that is where government comes in. In many cases, government programs are the only way to make our lives more secure. And the benefits of these programs go beyond merely minimizing these risks, they also allow us to be free of the constant anxiety and fear that would plague us if these risks were not managed effectively.
Government efforts to manage risks and increase our societal security basically take two forms: policies that share and reallocate risks, and policies that lessen risk. Risk-sharing policies usually take the form of social insurance programs that spread the risk around to a large number of people. Most of what we think of as social welfare programs – Social Security, Medicare, and so on – are in fact social insurance programs design to redistribute risks. But these programs are not designed to make our lives with the knowledge that the government is there to catch us if we fall. So we (working class) all contribute to the Philhealth program, and when we get old and sick, that program is there to take care of us – even if we don’t have the money to pay for that care ourselves. Social Security is not only there to give us some retirement security, but it also helps those who become disabled and unable to work. Even programs like food stamps and welfare, which may seem like redistributive programs aimed exclusive at the poor, do in fact have a broad social insurance dimension to them. Many Filipinos are only a job loss, displaced, or a serious illness away from poverty.
The Government were not trying to actually reduce risk (hearing that many Govt institutions have debts to Philhealth) rather they just spread it around. Even before the Global crisis, it has become clear that Filipinos are now living in a time on increased economic risks. People’s incomes have become less secure as wages stagnate, part-time jobs proliferate, and income inequality increases. Globalization has made many more jobs less secure and put more companies themselves at risk of going under. There are lot of things that the present administration to prove that they have done good things for 9 years in the service for the Filipino people, but they are all busy in their own personal lives…acquiring mansions, or even battering their partners…what can we expect from them…is it less or more?
He was a Governor of Ilocos Sur, not Ilocos Norte. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. was the former Governor of Ilocos
Norte.
Singson personal life is now an issue. The guy simply cannot keep
his common law wife, and his mouth shut. He lacks maturity in thinking. Needed to grow up. Power and position can really stunt
your way of thinking. Grow up, Mr. Singson !
Sorry for that slip Hyden. Yes, it was Ilocos Sur.
Have corrected the entry.
R
e your observation on Singson’s maturity.
Me knows there is more to his pigheadedness.
He is a keeper of damning secrets.
Ding,
The considerate way forward, lacking any reason for government to get involved in a domestic dispute, is for Ms. Arroyo to impose upon Mr. Singson to take responsibility for the unseemly publicity blow-up and unhitch him from the Palace. If he is so arrogant as to refuse to do so, I think Ms. Arroyo has no choice but to fire him. Otherwise he will be a months-long stain on the ending of her reign, and she really does not need that. Most appointed politicians in the US, when asked to resign, do so without delay, as to refuse is like throwing sand in the face of the boss (I cleaned that up a bit). Asking for a resignation is actually a diplomatic act of great consideration; to refuse is the very opposite.
Of course, in the US, the request for resignation is usually not conveyed to the press. It is asked for, received, and then conveyed to the press.
Never a dull moment here, eh?
Joe
Yup.
Why wait for him to be fired? He should voluntarily resign from his job for the embarrassment he created to himself.
That is what delicadeza is for.