Political advertisements begin to hit the screen early in the day. Not to be outdone are those of Manny Villar and Mar Roxas – both of whom presumably can burn monies to the billion. So far as the ads go, the investments already poured in generate the rates of return they expected. Survey results by suspiciously push-polling circuits begin to shape positive image and Mar Roxas’ political ad on “padyak padyak” may not be an exemption.
The scene on a 32-second political ad aired on TV or radio is self-explanatory. Mar rode a padyak or sikad where a little girl sits beside him and a thirteen year old drives the un-motorized tricycle. The conversation runs as follows, if we can accurately run then down here:
Mar: Oh, ilang taon ka na?
Boy (for the girl answers): Si Lalin anim, ako po trese.
Mar: Anong pangarap ninyo?
Boy: Seaman sana.
Girl: Ako po artista
Boy: Pero hindi ko na iniisip. Kanya kanyang kayod po dito. Walang mahanap na trabajo. Walang pambili ng gamot.
Mar: Anak itabi mo. Ako na. Sama sama tayo. Hindi ko kayo pababayaan. Lalaban tayo.
Crowd: Padyak na padyak.
Text overimposed reads: Ngayon, bukas, Mar.
One has rightly observed in Tube G.com that when Mar is the one already pedaling the tricycle, only the girl is on the passenger seat sans the boy which leads one mischievous mind to think, is that Mar cannot carry them both.
This so-called pol ad is pregnant with interpretation. Offhand, it seems that child labor is being condoned. To some extent, it appears, that in fact, Mar is promoting this kind of livelihood and so doing, it likewise promotes a crippling sense of backwardness. Mar’s PR handlers failed to put the message in its desired moral, social, and political context all because the pol ad is an end in itself.
In wanting to identify if not associate himself with the marginalized such as the two symbolic victims of child labor or child abuse, as the case maybe, this pol ad was created but miserably failed to calibrate the possible implication of one senator riding a tricycle with a 13-year old doing labor for him in exchange of presumably few coins to eke out a living.
This pol ad betrays the fact that as senator, Mar should be conversant with the issues on child labor, on economic backwardness that if promoted will lead to an even dimmer future. The political ad should have better explored more desirable scenes of human activity and in the contemporary setting of a more forward-looking worldview – certainly, not the kind that would have determined the future for themselves and at their own peril.
One even has to suffer from the curiosity as to whether that 13-year old boy was Mar’s reported biological son, true or not. And what seems even more discomforting is the observation that the 6 or 7 year old girl is actually a super sexy catwalk who goes by the name of Fatima Lapuz (true or not). The point is, it is being taught in advertising that there is so much that is involved in advertising that even the characters involved have to be what they are – marginalized if marginalized.
Perhaps, the only redeeming value of the political ad is its vain attempt to identify with little children as hapless victims of social injustice of sorts. If Mar can pedal in their stead and truly work in their behalf, then it’s good. If Mar can in fact join them in a life of so much unease and away from his comfort zone, then better. If Mar can take care of them, not take them for granted and will in fact fight for them, the best.
It is time to call to mind the same political ads of the defeated senatorial wannabe, Pichay. His ads popularized such lines as “Itanim sa Senado” and “Pro-Pinoy”. What are the famous words Pichay uttered in his political ads? Did he not say – “Pangarap kong tutuparin ang mga pangarap nyo” as well as the other one which goes – “Sama sama nating itanim ang ating tagumpay”.
A host of other possible (mis)interpretations can be attached to Mar’s own political ad. It might mean, at the very least, condoning an underground economy where there are x number of individuals, children even, into an economic activity without having to pay any kind of tax to the government. In the larger argument of a road user’s tax, those pedaling these padyak padyaks must likewise register their vehicles or padyaks so government can derive income from them as they go about a certain kind of business, trade or profession.
Sometimes, a lot of ideas are not taken into account before a particular political ad is being launched. There can be serious doubt if in particular, this ad can gather adherents.
Popularity: 1% [?]
A political ad is out to sell a candidate – that’s the long and short of it.
If you fall for the ad, you are far more gullible than previously thought.
Go behind the ad – learn more about Mar instead of philosophizing about the ad.
What are Mar’s advocacies?
What has he done about these advocacies?
Who are the people Mar associates with?
Is the ad consistent with his record? Or does the ad trumpet a position he did not espouse before, has done nothing about it, and is now using it as bait to solicit voters to vote for him?
Asking those questions will get you farther than philosophizing about what the ad is about.
You buy the Ad – and the product is a bomb – you’ll wind up a sucker.
We have no complains for Politicians pandering for Votes. They can
do “padyak-padyak”. They can roll and howl. They can stand on their
heads. They can show their private parts.
It is up to you, if you are buying what they are selling. Then, become another sucker. We are a nation of suckers…
It is a sad intellectual phenomenon that not few people will editorialize actually problematic situations from the point of view of “we”, “you” rather than of “The Firm”, “The Leaders” – in short, them who govern.
And we conveniently label “ourselves” in this case as the suckers when more correctly, however they refuse to acknowledge, that we are the ones being sucked, we are the ones being fucked, we are the ones being duped.
And like pecking pigeons, we continue to support goverment, we continue to “like” maybe even “love” what it is doing to us. We are suffering from the notion of “The Ideal Society” that BF Skinner invented for humankind.
Wrong bong.
In the case of Mar as in many others, political ads aims to resell the ‘old rotten products’ that when sold in the market did not live up to the level of consumer satisfaction.
It’s no so much as there is a need to philosophize about the ad for in the first place, the artists to this ad must tell us exactly what the philosophy is, if any.
Absent that, this is what happens. It can be criticized to the point it must now be debunked or rethought for its gross misgivings of not being able to detect the historical contexts – the errors even – from which it lays its anchorage.
To my mind, the faults are rather inexcusable. These are serious issues – child abuse, child labor, underground economy, technological backwardness, feudal relations – they come all too clear.
By the way tasio, don’t dismiss people as suckers as they are in fact the ones being sucked and sucked to death.
political ads aims to resell the ‘old rotten products’ that when sold in the market did not live up to the level of consumer satisfaction.
Alam mo na palang rotten e, ina-analyze mo pa yung, ad, given it is rotten. Bibilihin mo pa rin kahit alam mo ng rotten, dahil maganda ang ad?
Ano ka ba men? :D
Bong,
Yun ba ang akala mong gist ng blog? Poor you.
Don’t let your heart take over your mind. Are you suffering from myopia? Kailangan ba dito magyabang katulad ng ginagawa mo?
Find a life? Para ka ng iba dyan, kung nasaan ako, nakabuntot ka – panay ang —- ‘wag na lang baka ano pa masabi ko.
Bonjour el hombre!
All am saying is, if I know the product is rotten, why give an ad (of a rotten product) attention at all?
Why not look for a better product?
Maybe,others (not us) would want to know what we think of the product sold in the market so they don’t make the mistake of having to buy them.
And they would not know about it until we tell them, modesty aside. Just maybe. Bong, since others here think we seem to have dominated the exchange of views, can we slack a bit in a while?
I know your passion for change but don’t let it burn you.
Primer:
Would you have me believe that if If the ad is good, therefore the product is no longer rotten?
Even the other variations of the padyak pol ad from the point of view of the child as it is from the adult utterly lacks ‘nourishment’ and therefore not very nurturing as originally thought.
One thing makes it look like Manny Villar’s pol ad, a dirtied hand rubbed on the shirt didn’t leave the dirt – editorial exigency maybe to make a senator wear a dirtied shirt.
Again, in the padyak pol ad, the next footage saw only the little girl. Where did the little boy ride – another padyak vehicle?
Besides, encouraging this padkyak mentality is grossly feudalistic. It is like telling us, please remain poor so I can help you.