I would have wanted to move on to other concerns but I cannot help but comment on the latest idiotic idea of “German” Bayani Fernando of the MMDA; now he wants to arm his traffic enforcers with bolos! Has he really sat down to consider the consequences of this proposal? Has he forgotten the dozens of incidents where these very enforcers have been shown (on TV) to have used their authority to intimidate, harass and extort from hapless pedestrians and motorists? Does he care?
Some time ago, I remember, the MMDA tried to arm its personnel. Fortunately, this was widely criticized and was officially abandoned (although you would invariably see MMDA personnel toting firearms in plain view of the public). As then, the agency cited personnel safety as the reason for arming their field operatives. Or is the chairman building his own peasant army?
Arming the traffic enforcers will not improve vehicular flow in the city, it will only add to the tension on the streets which could foreseeably result in higher incidents of road rage. If these enforcers are, indeed, under threat, it is the local police’s job to secure them; that’s why we have the police!
The only rationale I can sense from this idea is to enforce “collection of bribes”. Maybe, what we thought to be petty corruption extends all the way to the top. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it were so.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Smart Ideas? (Part 2)
A friend once told me, “Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom”; conversely, I suppose, stupidity cannot be monopolized.
Last week, another politician/bright boy went on TV announcing his earthshaking legislation which will help the country save on energy bills – ban the production of incandescent bulbs! But wait… his logic: compared to fluorescent lamps, incandescent bulbs consume way more electricity; therefore, they should be banned.
This proposal is so stupid it doesn’t deserve much attention. And the proposer, one-time postmaster, self-proclaimed security expert and perennial political opportunist, shouldn’t be given much heed either!
Has he considered the impact of such legislation on the other applications of incandescent lighting? After all, incandescent technology does not refer merely to your ubiquitous bathroom light bulb. It has applications in home and kitchen appliances, hospital equipment and industrial machines. Did the congressman consider these or was he really just after the media mileage?
If the aim is to discourage people from using the less energy efficient light bulb in favor of the more expensive compact fluorescent lamps, wouldn’t it have made more sense to impose a heavier levy or tax on them? Conversely, lower taxes on the more efficient technology would have the same effect.
In the mid-1970s, during the height of the energy crisis, the purchase (much more the manufacture) of gas guzzling vehicles was not prohibited; rather, a stiff energy surcharge was levied on the importation and sale of the same. This provided the same chilling effect without having to do anything quite as drastic as stopping production.
I hope our leaders would stop grandstanding and actually work on feasible solutions!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)