1. During the 14th Congress, I was the only House Member who voted ‘No’ to the Anti-Cybercrime bill. I argued that the definition of cybercrime in the bill is “vague and its scope overly-broad that it may criminalize ordinary electronic activities of internet users.”

I warned that it may violate the people’s right to privacy since Section 9 of the bill empowers the government to access the private accounts and monitor activities of persons suspected of committing cybercrimes.

I pointed out that the anti-cyber sex provision (Section 4) of the bill prohibiting the recording, distribution and exhibition of recorded private acts and ‘other obscene and indecent acts’ might be used to stifle freedom of expression, speech and the press. If cybersex is the target, then why include non-sexual private acts? Besides, who will decide if a behavior is indecent or obscene?

The sponsor assured me that my concerns have been addressed already during the committee deliberations. He added that the bill is not a Filipino version of the controversial SOPA and PIPA bills in the United States because it’s not about protecting intellectual property.

There are 10 anti-cybercrime bills filed in the 15th Congress and the version submitted by Rep. Owen Singson was used as the working draft. The consolidated bill is listed as a priority measure of Malacanang.

2. I recognize some of the amendments made by the Technical Working Group. The new provision on cybersex now states:

“…includes any form of interactive prostitution and other forms of obscenity through the cyberspace as the primary channel with the use of webcams, by inviting people either here or in other countries to watch men, women and children perform sexual acts.”

Perhaps to highlight the intent of targeting cybersex, the bill made reference to several related laws such as RA 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, and RA 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.

I also acknowledged that the proposed amendments of Rep.Tinio were incorporated in Sections 10 and 12 of the consolidated bill.

Section 10. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. – Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record computer data by technical or electronic means.

Section 12. Disclosure of Computer Data.– Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information

The sponsor confirmed that in the new version of the bill, a court order will be required before authorities can collect and disclose computer data.

The sponsor informed the body that the Senate has adopted the amendments discussed in the TWG. The Senate has in fact already approved the cybercrime bill on third reading a few months ago.

3. There are three cybercrime general offenses identified in the bill: a) Offenses against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems; b) Computer-related offenses; and c) Content-related offenses.

I asked about the extent of cybercrimes in the Philippines. What is the impact in terms of economic losses? How can cybercrimes undermine national security? Why should ordinary internet users worry about them? What will be the consequences if we fail to pass an anti-cybercrime law? Will it hinder internet development in the country?

The sponsor mentioned a figure of $114 billion but according to him it’s a conservative estimate and it’s not limited to the Philippines. Instead of estimates, I think the committee in consultation with other government agencies should come up with a more detailed report on the cost of cybercrimes to the local economy.

The sponsor identified computer-related offense, which includes credit card fraud and identity theft among others, as the principal cybercrime threat in the country. But how can the cybercrime law resolve these threats?

4. It’s not accurate to describe the proposed cybercrime law as the first attempt to regulate online criminal behavior. The landmark E-Commerce Law of 2000 actually penalizes hacking or cracking.

Section 33, subsection a. Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic document shall be punished

The sponsor discussed the limitations of the law and the necessity of providing authorities with better and broader legal tool to run after cybercriminals. Because the law can’t be used against the new variants of cybercrimes, the sponsor reiterated the need for a comprehensive anti-cybercrime legislation. He rejected my proposal to simply amend the E-Commerce Law.

In some countries, human rights groups are opposed to cybercrime legislation because it’s being used by repressive regimes to clamp down on legitimate dissent. By expanding the E-Commerce Law, we will send a message that we are more interested in preventing cybercrimes that harm businesses and everyday transactions rather than giving broad powers to the state which can be used by abusive authorities against innocent civilians, critics, and imagined cybercriminals.

5. I opposed the inclusion of cyberthreats and cyberdefamation in the consolidated bill. They are not part of the original measure. We will legislate online libel which is a step backward in our long-term aim of decriminalizing libel.

Cyberthreats. – Threatening the life, security or property of another person, whether natural or juridical, or otherwise committing threats and coercions as defined in the Revised Penal Code and other laws, with the aid of or through the use of a computer system, whether using one’s real name or an assumed name; and

Cyberdefamation. – The maligning or besmirching the name or reputation, or intriguing against the honor of another person whether natural or juridical, or otherwise committing libel or slander as defined under the Revised Penal Code and other laws with the aid of or through the use of a computer system, whether using one’s real name or an assumed name.

Were the cyberthreat is coupled with a cyberdefamation as defined in Sections 4(C)(3) and 4(C)(4), the penalty to be imposed on the guilty person shall be prision mayor or a fine of at least Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) but not exceeding One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) or both.

How big and extensive is the crime of cyberdefamation in the Philippines to warrant its inclusion in the bill?

One of the benefits of the internet is that it provides anonymity to individuals, whistleblowers, truth crusaders, democracy activists, and human rights workers who wish to protect their identities. But the Philippine anti-cybercrime law will empower authorities to compel webmasters and web companies to reveal the names of their anonymous users accused of cyberthreat and cyberdefamation. A court order needs to be presented first, according to the sponsor, but it’s not clearly stated in the bill.

The anti-cybercrime law is supposed to be the legal instrument of the NBI, DOJ, and other agencies in running after hackers, malicious spam and virus senders, cybersex operators, and hi-tech gangs that engage in phishing, credit card fraud, among others. But the inclusion of cyberthreat and cyberdefamation in the list of dangerous cybercrimes would fundamentally affect and alter the implementation of the law. Woe to the NBI agent and DOJ prosecutor who will be swamped with cybercrime cases filed by showbiz actors, politicians, business tycoons, and other untouchables who want to punish their online critics. Instead of dealing with cyberwarfare, our agents will be investigating online libel.

This will restrict freedom of speech in the country. The bill if passed into law can be used to suppress truth. A politician can easily file charges against ‘hostile and combative’ critics and witnesses by claiming that virtual protesters have threatened his life and property. Censorship will lead to repression once an activist or reform advocate has been labeled a cybercriminal.

I acknowledge that hate speeches proliferate in the web. There are irresponsible internet users. But the solution is not to lump them with notorious cybercriminals. We should focus instead on giving social media education and aggressive promotion of responsible and lawful online behavior. We should target the young.

The sponsor surprisingly described the bill as a watered-down version; a compromise bill that balances privacy protection, human rights, rule of law, and the right of the state to perform its duty of protecting the citizens.

6. On realtime collection of data. I asked about privacy protection. Despite the court order requirement, I still fear that the privacy of individuals will be violated. Will authorities specify the particular file folder to be collected or will they simply download all computer data? I discussed some of the safety measures adopted in other countries. For example, a search warrant issued by the courts should be limited to only one user. The suspect must be informed what data have been collected by authorities so he can appropriately respond about the case. He must have the right to demand the permanent deletion of data collected by authorities if the case is dismissed. In short, data storage should not be permanent and the user must have awareness and control of the data gathered by private and state agencies.

7. Other offenses. Section 5 Aiding or abetting, or attempting to commit cybercrime.

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets,aids or financially benefits in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable; or

(b) Attempt to Commit Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

Again, this is too general. Any person surfing the web, innocently sharing some virus-infected files, can be accused of aiding or attempting to commit cybercrime. This should be reformulated.

8. There are non-negotiables in drafting internet policies. Legislation should maintain the openness or the free, public character of the internet. There must be transparency and law enforcers must be accountable for their actions. National regulation is futile since cybercrimes operate globally and virtually. The main concern should be the protection of internet users. Discussion of cybercrimes must also include the draconian measures usually adopted by the state in the name of protecting public interest like the use of filtering technology, surveillance technology, illegal collection of data, and internet shutdown. These are cybercrimes. These must be declared as anathema in a democracy. Cybercrimes, whether committed by state or non-state actors, are threats that need to be seriously addressed.

What amendments would you suggest to the committee?

Governance requires the use of sweet-sounding words to deceive the public. The chosen vocabulary is usually related to the popular struggles of the voting citizens. A politician must profess to be a champion of the poor, labor, women, children, and indigenous peoples. He must promise to advance education, health, peace, environment, and of course democracy. Meanwhile, a reformist openly advocates women and gender rights. But the latest addition to the propaganda arsenal of politicians is the enthusiastic promotion of the information and transparency craze.

The administration of Noynoy Aquino seems to be battle-ready in the ‘information warfare’. It has three communication experts and several underlings whose daily mission is to bombard the public with bits and bytes of trivial and even contradictory information. The president’s official speeches, statements, and directives are instantly uploaded in the web. Budget materials are posted online. Every government agency claims to have a social media campaign. What we have is a reverse Wikileaks; it’s the state which leaks official documents to the public. Convinced that it adheres to the minimum principles of transparency, the Aquino government has willingly aligned itself with the US-backed Open Government Partnership.

But the Aquino government is neither open nor transparent. It couldn’t even fully support the Freedom of Information bill. For several months, its decepticon spokespersons were pushing for freedom of information with responsibility. Its FOI version which was finally presented to Congress last week is loaded with provisions that would prevent the people from accessing vital government documents. For example, the records of minutes during policy formulation or decision making by the president can’t be disclosed. Furthermore, the president can easily classify all his meetings as executive sessions to hide the illegal and immoral transactions in the Palace.

It seems we have the right to demand the release or publication of ALL government documents as long as the record keepers allow it. We have the privilege to review, analyze, and scrutinize online state documents but we must be content if the declassified materials will turn out to be nothing more but voluminous files of dull statistics, staffing summary reports, scanned news clippings, and archaic laws. We can inquire about safe numbers like cash transfer disbursements, crop losses, and Corona’s bank accounts but the extent of the Cojuangco family’s business transactions in the Noynoying era is a well-guarded state secret. The public can go gaga over agency budget reports which are now conveniently downloadable in the internet but it is forbidden to touch anything that politicians are keeping in their office and home vaults. The skeletons in the closet must remain hidden.

That we have a secretive state is a given fact even if the current supremo is a self-proclaimed proponent of open governance. But what makes the Aquino administration more sinister than its predecessor is its false, shameful, but believable assertion that it hides nothing from the public because all government activities are instantly reported in the websites and social networks.

What’s the modus operandi? The tactic was perfected by the previous government and it has been readily adopted by the Yellow Mafia. Here’s how it works: Summoned by the UN a few years ago to give a briefing on the human rights situation in the Philippines, former Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita submitted large stacks of documentary evidence during the assembly as proof of the government’s compliance with international human rights agreements. We learned later that the files were merely copies of the 1987 Constitution and several laws on human rights protection.

In short, distract the interested parties by drowning them with too much information of little value. Translated into governance, it involves the sophisticated use of new communication tools to overwhelm and confuse the public with superfluous information. Data production, processing, and distribution are hailed as indicators of change and good governance. Worse, as Susan Sontag warned earlier, “the freedom to consume a plurality of images and goods is equated with freedom itself.”

The innovation of the Aquino regime is its wise appropriation of the language of feel-good reformism in the age of new technologies. A president answering facebook comments. A government most willing and ready to engage citizens in twitter conversations. Online ranting and debate as unmistakable components of democratic governance.

But what’s wrong with information overload and communication fanatics?

Paul Virilio reminded us that when there is over-communication, the value of the word is lost. He added that “the truth of the facts is censured by over-information.” We become ‘fascinated victims’ of disinformation.

Jean Baudrillard pointed out that “there is something obscene about the instant replication of an event, act or speech…for some degree of delay, pause or suspense is essential to thought and speech.” He noted that “we are no longer fighting the spectre of alienation, but that of ultra reality.” We are no longer seeing or discovering the truth; we are merely visually absorbing the scenes in front of our computer screens.

The grand deception is to equate conversation, especially online conversations, with political participation and empowerment. We are hypnotized by realtime exchanges which prevent us from immediately recognizing that conversations must end at one point so that we can pursue our original task of struggling for a new political order.

To prioritize conversation/communication over political action is to fall into the trap of modern dictators who want to redirect the energies of netizens into virtual engagements. As politicians lure us into their inner circle of social networks, their other aim is to weaken our political capabilities in the offline world. (“The system expelling us, even as it integrates us”). They interact with us so that we may forget the essential issues and reduce politics into 140 characters.

Beware of politicians who blindly worship the power of new media. Beware of overnight IT experts who equate transparency with the online posting of government documents.

Transparency is too precious to be left in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. It’s a powerful weapon of the people which needs to be rescued from the distorted usage of conservative and reactionary ideologues.

Related articles:

Truth and seeing
Postblogism
Pnoy’s commie group
Politics of Pnoy propagandists

It’s fair to assume that we are fascinated with numbers, except of course during our student days when we cursed calculus, algebra, and our math wizard classmates. But as a general rule, it seems we often equate truth with numbers. A thing, an event, a place, a person, an issue becomes more real if they are linked to statistics. And so we use numbers and impressive statistics in our presentations, lectures, conversations, and essays to increase our credibility. We bombard our audience and readers with numbers to convince and even intimidate them into believing to what we are saying or writing. The statement ‘The Philippines is a poor nation’ becomes more believable if we turn it into this statement: ‘The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands inhabited by 94 million people but one-fifth of the population is surviving on less than two dollars everyday.’ It seems easier to count the hungry stomachs than explain this tragedy.

Let’s admit that we prefer to cite statistics than to be part of them. We like to highlight the depressing numbers which are not directly linked to our lives. Chances are that a person who writes about poverty statistics, number of road accidents, and school drop-out rates is not part of that unfortunate segment of the population. We are unconsciously writing about the miseries suffered by other people.

This brings me to the popular usage of hashtags today. I think hashtags do not merely reflect our desire to ‘trend’ globally. We use hashtags to spread an idea, create a message and promote conversations around it. If carefully chosen, hashtags can dominate the cyberspace and influence the political landscape. The use of hashtags is our attempt to shape the interpretation of an event. But it can also lead to the emergence of something new, something unexpected in the social and political realms. Hashtags represent our active engagement in the world – they are statistics-in-the-making. When we propose a hashtag, we are actually seeking collaboration. We are continually in search of virtual collectives who will support our initiatives.

In the past, poverty discussions were dominated by depressing statistics. Well, poverty discussions today are still about depressing statistics but by using the #poverty hashtag, we are able to expand the conversations as we enjoin others to share their views and thoughts. We seek to provoke their passions and persuade them to do something about the existence of poverty in a land of plenty. And through the #change hashtag, we try to challenge other netizens so that the passive cyber exchange of 140 characters will lead to concrete actions in the real world. From tweeting birds, we become angry birds. From decorative plants, we decide to make that great leap and fight the zombies. It’s the power of the networked mob.

But the #change hashtag can’t dominate the trending wars consistently. Most of the time, the #viceganda hashtag tops the trending topics. It’s only during momentous political phases that hashtags like #ArroyoArrest or #itlognitopacio are able to register their strong presence in the twitterspehere. But during ordinary times, it’s hard to beat Vice Ganda, Anne Curtis or Vicky Belo. So should we admonish the showbiz twitterers? Not at all. Well, it won’t hurt to be more critical sometimes. But we must recognize that the political value of our mundane online ranting, and even our silly tweets, becomes visible when despots try to clamp down on the web. We should count the non-political netizens as among those who can be tapped in the resistance every time web access is restricted. Authorities are sometimes afraid to antagonize this constituency.

When Cambodian authorities banned Blogspot early this year, and Blogspot’s only fault was that it’s the preferred web portal of the political opposition, Cambodian netizens quickly reacted and demanded the restoration of Blogspot access. It’s when netizens are prevented from exercising their right to post their favorite photos, the right to share, like and comment on the most ordinary and non-political issues that often trigger widespread collaboration in the cyberspace.

So yes, the campaign to protect and strengthen our internet freedoms is also a defense of the right of ordinary internet users to use the web for whatever purpose. Our task today as committed bloggers, while we are enjoying almost unhampered web access, is to prepare everybody on how to respond collectively and even militantly when the political situation becomes difficult for web users. Please don’t forget that the state still has the regulatory power to shut down the internet. Even the US and UK, the two self-declared most democratic societies in the world, had no qualms when they proposed to filter or censor twitter when riots and mass actions threatened the stabilities of their cities.

Our social media campaigns should be appreciated as part of the learning phase – it’s the time when we are experimenting with the various social uses and applications of the web with the hope that one day, and I hope that day will never come, the skills we acquired and our accumulated positive practices will be our weapons in defending our web freedoms against various tyrannies.

We already know that social media is a powerful information and communication tool. It has wonderful uses: Monitor, share, and create news; build networks, enhance communications; reach a broader audience while at the same time engage public authorities. From being an innovative aspect of our work, it’s now an essential component in achieving our goals. It’s already part of an organizer’s daily tasks. Why? Because it’s effective as a platform to promote good governance, transparency, and human rights.

A government which has many things to hide is afraid of social media. It limits web access, censors web content, and even punishes cyber dissidents. But since the social applications of social media are increasing, a repressive government is sometimes forced to relax web restrictions in order not to antagonize its non-politicized constituents.

It’s suspicious when the government becomes the cheerleader and unlikely protector of web freedoms. This happens when the government guarantees the ‘freedoms’ of internet users: freedom to criticize another country, freedom to look and act like fools in the web, freedom to worship entertainment stars, freedom to praise the royal family, and freedom to cheer and heckle during sports events.

Suspicious because it’s during these ‘normal’ times when governments build consensus on questionable and controversial issues. Yes the internet promotes democracy but it can also spread hate, racism, and xenophobia. Furthermore, it’s a very reliable surveillance weapon. Beware of Big Brother and the ‘thousands of little brothers’ who are monitoring our online activities. Despite its usefulness, unfortunately, the internet can also harm the security and privacy of individuals and most especially activists.

We are told that the internet gives us a broader perspective of the world. This is partially correct. On my way here to Los Angeles last night, I saw a glimpse of the whole city. I realized that the satellite view of LA in the evening makes it almost indistinguishable from other cities of the world. From that vantage point, it’s difficult to judge whether a city is rich or poor, well-planned or disorganized. We don’t know if the bright street lights serve a rich neighborhood or an urban poor village. We don’t know if the houses are foreclosed or not. We don’t know if the congregation in the park is a religious event, musical festival or political rally.

To acquire more accurate information, we need to be on the ground; we need to integrate in the community. It’s through our conversations in the social media that we learn the nitty gritty details of our world.

But the internet is flooded with so many irrelevant details. We are constantly bombarded with tons of spam and trashy information. We can google a person, place, event, and we get instant results. We can fact-check everything, even the spelling and grammar. But it doesn’t always improve our understanding of the world. Often, the results we get fail to provide context of the situation.

Who will give the necessary context? Who will identify the stakeholders, the actors, the victims, the aggressors? Human rights activists have a big role to perform in mainstreaming the use of social media for democratic causes. It’s crucial that we recognize that the popular social media tools were encoded not to advance human rights but to generate profit. Therefore, we must persevere as we promote the human rights agenda in the public debates.

Let me cite a few creative and inspiring examples of how activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens in our region have tapped the potential of the internet to campaign for human rights and democracy.

When Myanmar democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was released from prison last year, the government banned the news journals from reporting about it. Since sports news are often uncensored there, a news journal carried these seemingly harmless headlines: “Sunderland Freeze Chelsea,” “United Stunned by Villa” & “Arsenal Advance to Grab Their Hope.” But they were intercepted as a code since the paper used light-color letters in the headlines to highlight this message: “Su Free. Unite & Advance to Grab The Hope.”

The Bersih democracy movement in Malaysia. is another outstanding example of netizen activism or citizen media participation in the political sphere. The event which was initially organized to ask for electoral reforms became a pro-democracy political action in the end because of the massive participation of the civilian population in the streets on one hand, and the exaggerated and violent reaction of the state on the other. Bersih is now the revolution’s name in Malaysia. And social media was maximized to broaden Bersih’s appeal among the apolitical segments of the local internet community. More importantly, it gave Malaysians the opportunity to imagine the formation of a united and patriotic community of individuals committed to the defense of democracy. Social media’s prominent role in Bersih proved that it’s more than a useful tool in elections exploited by politicians and professional political groups. It taught us that the intelligent use of social media can help us win more freedoms in the cyberspace and in the real world.

Facebook profile pictures ‘disappeared’ in the Philippines when activists asked their friends to remove their pictures during the International Day of the Disappeared in remembrance of the disappeared in the Philippines and around the world. When a lawmaker proposed a ban on planking protests, it provoked students to post more planking photos. Suddenly, planking has become a legitimate form of protest.

A curry solidarity action was organized in Singapore after it was reported that a couple were told by authorities not to cook curry when their complaining neighbors are at home. #hiogat became a popular hashtag in Thailand during the elections after a woman raised a placard while the Prime Minister was delivering a speech. #hiogat means He Is Only Good at Talking. A mapping project in Cambodia revealed the poor state of prison facilities in the country. In Indonesia, netizens launched a successful fund drive to support a housewife who was sued by a hospital for sending an email complaint to a friend.

What are some lessons we can highlight? Weak IT infrastructure in many countries of the region didn’t prevent the spread of internet use. And despite restrictions, activists were able to maximize the political value of the internet. However, we must stress that the campaign for human rights should also include the demand to improve internet access since the government’s initial attempt to ‘tame’ the internet is to make it expensive for ordinary citizens.

This is already obvious but I must still emphasize the reminder that grassroots organizing is superior over our internet activities. Campaign strategies are more effective if online activities are linked to offline solidarity actions. On the other hand, cyber activism becomes a potent force only if it is fused with grassroots activism. Online activism minus the essential offline component is impressive and creative but politically impotent. It gives a false impression that change is possible by being aggressive and passionate only in the virtual world. It prevents the educated segment of the population from developing a genuine link with the working masses. Last month, Occupy Singapore was announced on Facebook and it generated a lot of media interest. But it seems Singaporeans were preoccupied with something else since nobody showed up in the protest. Lesson: Before and after we ‘occupy’, we must organize.

Next reminder: We shouldn’t underestimate the sophistication of government censorship which filters alleged ‘immoral’ web content. Governments justify the imposition of draconian measures by invoking the name of innocent subjects like the children who need to be protected from dangerous influence in the cyberspace. The top prohibited contents are subversive political ideas and pornography. For example, Thailand has blocked more than 400,000 ‘harmful’ webpages. It hired cyber cops who report websites that ‘insult’ the King. Meanwhile, regulators in Cambodia appealed to ISPs last January to censor anti-Khmer websites which unfortunately included the popular blog platform Blogspot. Blogspot’s only fault was that it seemed to be the preferred online portal of various opposition groups and critical media networks in Cambodia.

The media is often fascinated with trending topics, hashtags that drive internet traffic, viral videos, and popular memes. Our task should be to create new hashtags; and to highlight the topics that didn’t trend, webpages that didn’t generate many hits, and issues that were underreported by the mainstream media.

The internet is able to document our protest activities in realtime but not all human rights defenders can afford to reveal their identities. We must protect the safety of activists, including those who rely on the internet for their political activities.

Language is also an important issue. Translation of statements, petitions and speeches written or delivered in other languages; documentation of protests by migrants, refugees, and people who live outside the internet zone. Our activists must reach these places.

Activism in the 21st century features new action words like texting, retweeting, clicking, chatting and social networking. But 20th century action words are still more persuasive and powerful – like talking, organizing, marching, pushing and rallying. Everyday, we should combine words like virtual and real, Facebook like and picket chant, hashtag and occupy.

I’ve been reading Southeast Asian blogs since 2008. My other sources of alternative information include twitter, facebook, and other social media sites. They provide not only interesting news stories but also incisive commentaries on various topics, especially politics.

Because of the internet, I came to know the complete name of Bangkok (which happens to be the second longest place name in the world). Online conversations have also deepened my awareness of other societies. I realized that virtual networks enhance not only our political capabilities but also our other daily endeavors like business, health, and leisure.

It allows us to access and share useful information, develop relationships with intelligent individuals and advocacy groups, and transform our communities through the networks we are building. Internet freedom, therefore, is essential in affirming our humanity. And it shouldn’t be a demand which is necessarily exclusive to the political domain.

So what did I learn about the state of internet freedom in Southeast Asia after three years of being a Southeast Asian blogger? I propose the following: First, there are many web freedoms that Southeast Asians are enjoying but the imposition of ‘unfreedoms’ negates the internet’s democratic potential. Second, cyber criminals are not those who are struggling for more web freedoms but those who are implementing and spreading web unfreedoms. Third, digital communities become powerful if their virtual actions are complemented by real-life interventions.

Web freedoms? Yes, even in societies ruled by masters and experts of cyber censorship. Internet users in the region are actually free to criticize another country. They are also free to look and act like fools in the web, free to worship entertainment stars, free to praise the royal family, free to cheer and heckle during sports events, and free to promote charity causes.

Facebook can be easily unblocked if there is a proliferation of hate pages that target an enemy country. Entertainment blogging is encouraged to distract the attention of the young. Political statements are published if they favor the government’s position. Online ranting is allowed as long as they are directed against sports teams. Political activities are not banned if the organizers would only ask the people to donate their coins.

Internet unfreedoms are enforced when authorities try to regulate ‘immoral’ web content. They justify these draconian measures by invoking the name of innocent subjects like the children who need to be protected from dangerous influence in the cyberspace. The top prohibited contents are subversive political ideas and pornography.

For example, Thailand has blocked more than 400,000 ‘harmful’ webpages. It continues to jail foreigners and webmasters who ‘insult’ the King. Meanwhile, regulators in Cambodia appealed to ISPs last January to censor anti-Khmer websites which unfortunately included the popular blog platform Blogspot. Blogspot’s only fault was that it seemed to be the preferred online portal of various opposition groups and critical media networks in Cambodia. Elsewhere in the region, bloggers were arrested in (surprise, surprise) Myanmar and Vietnam for their critical reporting of government programs.

Sex is also a taboo subject. An Indonesian Minister has threatened to block Blackberry for its alleged lack of porn filter. Furthermore, police are sometimes inspecting the phones of students in schools for porn content. The Philippines has passed a law that empowers telcos to monitor child pornography content in their networks.

Laws are being revised to arrest the perceived political and sexual perverts. Cybercriminals are the new terrorists. Internet regulation is intensely being proposed to correct the ‘irresponsible’ use of the internet. But the laws are sometimes unjustly being used against the innocent. Case in point is Prita, a young housewife from Indonesia who was charged with defamation after she sent an email complaining against a lousy service in a private hospital.

There are other obstacles in attaining internet freedom and they require immediate government attention and action. The basic issues are weak internet connectivity especially in remote areas, high cost because of dominance of profit oriented private players in the IT industry, and heavy state regulation. Recently, Myanmar banned VoIP services in internet cafés.

But the unfreedoms mentioned above can be effectively challenged through creative circumvention of restrictive laws and regulations. Strong social media campaigns have also helped in undermining the leadership of repressive regimes.

The most recent outstanding example of netizen activism or citizen media participation in the political sphere is the Bersih democracy movement in Malaysia. The event which was initially organized to ask for electoral reforms became a pro-democracy political action in the end because of the massive participation of the civilian population in the streets on one hand, and the exaggerated and violent reaction of the state on the other. Bersih is now the revolution’s name in Malaysia.

And social media was maximized to broaden Bersih’s appeal among the apolitical segments of the local internet community. More importantly, it gave Malaysians the opportunity to imagine the formation of a united and patriotic community of individuals committed to the defense of democracy.

Social media’s prominent role in Bersih proved that it’s more than a useful tool in elections exploited by politicians and professional political groups. It taught us that the intelligent use of social media can help us win more freedoms in the cyberspace and in the real world. To strengthen and spread internet freedoms, we need more Bersih-like movements.

When Rep. Edcel Lagman confessed in a televised plenary debate that he isn’t a Catholic Congressman but merely a Congressman who happens to be a Catholic, it got me into thinking about my other less known profession which is blogging. Am I a blogger-congressman or merely a congressman who happens to be a blogger?

I’m the only House member who listed blogging as a profession and unlike some colleagues who equate microblogging and facebooking with blogging, I have been a regular traditional blogger (which means I use more than 140 characters when expressing my thoughts) since 2004.

Politician-bloggers are a dying breed because today they prefer to tweet or update their FB statuses and notes. Not that it’s wrong or unusual since a growing number of netizens and even former blog stalwarts have switched to tweeting and facebooking. But isn’t it better to read the political and philosophical musings of politicians rather than their bland everyday tweets? Isn’t it more fascinating and entertaining to read how politicians organize their thoughts through the essays they write than suffer the torture of monitoring their meaningless soundbytes and self-absorbed tweet reflections?

Of course there are politicians who hire professionals to handle their online accounts while others bombard the public with spam messages and boring youtube videos. This makes us wonder whether a politician’s blog posting is actually his own since it could be written by a PR practitioner. Maybe I’m a purist. But luckily there are public personalities, including politician bloggers, who have successfully demonstrated that they are capable of writing interesting stories.

Politician-bloggers like me face certain dilemmas. Should I livetweet during committee and plenary deliberations? But my priority should be my participation in the sessions. Should I blog the happenings and discussions in all-member caucuses? Is it appropriate to surf the web in the plenary gallery when a colleague is delivering a privilege speech? Can I post pictures of House members and visitors inside the South Wing lounge? Which is more important: Respecting the privacy of individuals or promoting transparency in governance? If I blog too much, I could be accused of being a non-performer in the legislature; but I could be reproached by fellow bloggers if I reduced my blogging activities.

There are some politicians who don’t read newspapers or listen to news reports because they are sensitive to criticism. But as a blogger, I read everything in the web. I confess to the crime of ego surfing but it’s mostly to monitor how my statements and actions are echoed in the cyberspace. It’s delightful to read the kind words of grateful constituents; it’s humbling to be reminded of my mistakes and weak arguments by wise readers; but it hurts to know that there are souls in this world who really hate me.

I’m not annoyed by childish and antagonistic remarks against my person; I can disregard the arrogant and malicious commenters; I can even understand the sentiments of individuals who reject my politics. But I’m quite affected by uninformed attacks and accusations. Maybe I’m a masochist. I still follow some nasty forum threads that discuss my work inside and outside congress.

Maybe some people arrive at wrong conclusions because they fail to recognize the dynamics of my work. Some prefer to highlight my activist identity while the lazy ones conveniently lump me with other traditional politicians. They try to boost their argument by reminding the readers that I’m a mere politician while ignoring the essential fact that I’m also a natdem activist. Meanwhile, others expect me to speak only about activist causes and our critical views against the government.

I’m often described as an activist or a young politician but I prefer to be called an activist legislator. An activist legislator who blogs. An activist legislator blogger.

But the grim and determined haters, especially the proud anti-leftists, continue to hang out as internet trolls hoping to provoke some little online wars. There are people who are ready to twist your words, distort your true intentions, and spread disinformation. Fortunately, I have learned to cultivate the right attitude in confronting these challenges thanks in no small part to my activist background and blogging experience. And writer Alain de Botton provided some additional reassuring words: “We are accused of stupidity when we are being cautious. Our shyness is taken for arrogance and our desire to please for sycophancy. We struggle to clear up a misunderstanding but our throat goes dry and the words found are not the ones met.”

Politician bloggers need the wanted and unwanted reactions of other people to gauge the effectivity of their work. But sometimes they should be the first to assess and question their performance. Bloggers often loathe politicians and those who wield power in society. They often rant against the inefficiencies in government and the wicked decisions of policymakers. But do they still despise politicians and do they still rant against authorities when they become politicians? How do politician bloggers use their influence to promote reforms within the bureaucracy?

Maybe there are bloggers who joined mainstream politics because they recognized the limitations of virtual outbursts. They are similar to journalists and TV news readers who entered politics because they got disappointed with how politicians are running the country. But blogger-politicians must learn from the experience of famous journalist-politicians who quickly discarded their idealism and passion to fight for truth after they got seduced by the dark and sinister side of the force.

This is the reason why bloggers must continue to blog even after getting elected to public office. It helps them not to forget some of the noble reasons why they decided to become active in politics and it allows them to keep in touch with netizens who are always ready to share their thoughts on various political and social issues. Blog not for blog’s sake but as a tool for political empowerment. Blog to promote transparency. Blog to reach out to the broader online community.

If Vicky Belo can successfully tap the internet to gather suggestions for the name of her new vagina tightening machine, I see no reason why politicians, especially politician bloggers, should not maximize the potential of the cyberspace to mobilize citizens and netizens in the search and struggle for new political truths. I refuse to believe that only the eternally young celebrities and hot topics like vagina tightening can spark the interest of the digital natives.

Related articles:

Blog habits
Neophyte Reflections

Sec. Ramon Carandang is the head of the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning while Sec. Herminio Coloma leads the Presidential Communications Operations. They both belong to President Noynoy Aquino’s communications team: Carandang is in charge of ‘messaging’ while Coloma’s focus is ‘dissemination’. Carandang’s group drafts the daily statements/speeches of PNoy while Coloma delivers these messages to the public through government-owned media outlets and the private mass media.

According to a Malacanang briefing paper presented to members of Congress, the main function of Carandang’s team is to “coordinate the crafting, formulation, development and enhancement of the messaging system under the Office of the President of the Philippines.” Meanwhile, Coloma’s team is in charge of “developing and implementing necessary guidelines and mechanisms pertaining to the delivery and dissemination of information relating to the policies, programs, official activities and achievements of the President and the Executive Branch.”

Carandang and Coloma represent the warring factions (Balay vs Samar) inside the PNoy administration but they both claimed that they have been working as a team. However, assuming that their functional relationship is for real, critics still accused them of performing similar tasks. This observation is not without basis.

One of Carandang’s duties is to “assist in the formulation and implementation of New Media strategies for the Office of the President of the Philippines. But Coloma’s job description is also to “manage and administer the OP Website and Web Development Office.” The result is somewhat hilarious: the president has two official websites. Asked during the budget deliberations, Coloma confirmed that they are administering PNoy’s Facebook page. Facebook is a new media platform which is supposed to be Carandang’s turf.

Another official function of Carandang is to “devise the communications strategy to promote the President’s agenda throughout all media and among the many publics with which the administration interacts.” The keywords here are ‘promote’, ‘all media’, and ‘public’. Carandang then would be duplicating the principal mission of Coloma which is to promote and deliver the PNoy’s message to the public through all media platforms.

It is also difficult for Carandang and Coloma to synergize their twin operations since they have separate budget items. Carandang’s funding comes directly from the Office of the President-Executive Secretary while Coloma’s funding source is listed under a different agency.

But Carandang’s team continued to insist that they are not wasting taxpayers’ money despite the existence of two teams which are apparently fulfilling the same functions. They reminded the public that at one point, the unloved former President Gloria Arroyo had four press secretaries. It seems PNoy is merely continuing the legacy of Arroyo, while adopting some fancy modifications like employing the lingo of the new media and establishing sub-agencies with complicated acronyms. Eto na ba ang pagbabago?

Perhaps PNoy’s subordinates can be forgiven for devising a problematic communications network. They seemed to be really obsessed with the idea of maximizing modern communications to advance the agenda of PNoy. How to reform the presidential communications work? Again, based from the briefing paper mentioned earlier:

“…a significant reform of official channels of the government means they must be employed not just to talk to the media but to the public in general in order to convey and properly explain the government’s agenda, as well as to engage both media and the public in a conversation on the reforms and policies of the administration.”

The inspiration of the Communications group is the White House model which also has teams in charge of messaging and dissemination. But recalibrating the official propaganda machine of the state is not a recent innovation and definitely not a White House invention. Perhaps PNoy’s Communications team learned a lot from the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos who recognized the political value of enhancing the communications network of the government.

Marcos wrote: “As President, I have a personal and official stake in the quality of our public forums. There are certain policies which, because they are innovative, must necessarily encounter popular resistance. They must be explained, for they have to be carried out. The government must avail itself of every means of communication, including its own publications….A government that fails to inform its citizens of its programs and decisions yields the ground to the enemy’s propagandists and subverters.”*

The popular tactic of Marcos was to dismiss his critics as purveyors of poisonous propaganda; and in order to weaken the opposition’s ability to influence public opinion, he aggressively reorganized and empowered the state’s communications arm. Fast forward to 2010, PNoy’s Communications group is worried that “innuendo and rumor have proven the weapons of choice of the many anti-reform forces arrayed against the reforms constituency led by the President.” Believing that he is really leading a reform crusade, PNoy does not hesitate to adopt some tricks from Marcos’ political playbook in order to reinforce his leadership. How unoriginal!

Carandang/Coloma and their underlings were former media superstars and freedom-of-information zealots but today they must be judged as enemies of truth. Their concern is no longer the articulation of truth that truly empowers the people but the peddling of market researched truth and opinion-polled truth. It is now in their interest to defend (and defend at all cost) the supreme leader of the bureaucratic state machine.

It is revealing that Carandang’s team identified “continuing conversation” as the “hallmark of the New Media era.” This explains the sudden rise of twittering and facebooking bureaucrats; and the overhauling of government websites which are now happily described by overnight internet experts as user-friendly and interactive. In short, politics today is merely about conversation, debate, and the monitoring of netizens’ rants in the cyberspace. Transparency is reduced to posting of boring statements and statistical figures in websites. Accountability is realized if politicians post a reply in their social media accounts.

Who benefits from “continuing conversation”? Definitely the politician who does not want the tranquil political situation disturbed. What happens when conversation becomes the preferred political sequence? Nothing. Conversation and the sharing of tiny bits and bytes of information are essentially futile political activities. Conversation becomes a potent weapon only if it leads to a decision to act. Debate is enlightening if it generates a concrete political action.

The task of Carandang/Coloma, which is essentially the task of all previous propagandists of Malacanang, is to discourage the people to disrupt the so-called natural state of things. They want to preserve the eternal present. Carandang/Coloma are sophisticated propagandists because they exploit the hypnotizing effect of modern communications and the mantra of ‘continuing conversations’ to make people think and feel that democracy is really working.

The goal of politics is always the invention of new possibilities, new truths, new events. What Carandang/Coloma wants to introduce is a brand of politics that reduces us into passive citizens who are supposed to be satisfied with the political truths dispensed by the government. Of course we should join the conversation. But at one point, we must have the courage to resist the seductive appeal of ‘continuing conversations’. We should resume our original task and that is the thinking and the formulation, and more importantly, the unrelenting struggle for a new political order.

* quoted from an article published by the Philippine Free Press. September 25, 2010.

Related article: seeing and politics

I’m surprised that nobody complained when Malacanang announced that Department of Education Secretary Armin Luistro and other Cabinet heads will undergo a ‘media handling’ seminar. Is media relations a delicate matter that needs to be ‘handled’? Truth articulation is an issue of ‘media handling’? Is this transparency?

*******************************

What is wrong with the word propagandist? Marcelo H. Del Pilar and company and the 1896 revolutionaries called themselves propagandista. Senator Claro M. Recto launched the second propaganda movement in the 1950s. Activists have no problem with the propagandist branding since they willingly recognize that their political work involves the advocacy of a specific ideology. It is the liberaloids and reactionaries who refuse to be called propagandists because of their naïve but dangerous belief that they are not espousing any ideology.

PNoy’s Communications Group is a smart repackaging of an old function of the state. It targets the networked citizens who are always eager to communicate with public servants even if the conversation is virtual. The danger is to confuse delivery of information with competent public service. The greater danger is to equate political opinion with decisive political action. Beware, PNoy’s commies are sophisticated obscurantists who want to turn politics into “a mere passive commentary on current affairs, a kind of collective extension of reading newspapers.” (Alain Badiou).

*******************************

The transformation of journalists-who-advocate-objectivity into PNoy commies is proof of the undeclared partisanship of media personalities. Behind every truth-seeking media reporter is a political animal raring to come out of the closet. A journalist needs to take political sides in order to convert truth into a powerful weapon of the public. Opinion pales in comparison with political action. A TV reporter or newspaper columnist who proposes a tax boycott but is not backed by a political group is only guilty of advocating an interesting but futile rant. The words of a journalist acquire materiality only if they are fused with political practice.

But do not assume that the only career option of journalists who finally want to effect change in society is to seek a post in the Palace or in one of its satellites. The other option is to follow a better just path: serve the people. This is what Satur Ocampo and Tony Zumel did in the 1970s: prominent media personalities who joined the underground revolution. Instead of defending discredited politicians or clinging to the bureaucratic state machine, journalists can choose to become the spokespersons and leaders of the people’s movement.

Pierre Bourdieu was right when he said that “there are people who exchange ideological services for positions of power” but there are also truth messengers who prefer to lend their skills in the service of the powerless.

Journalists (especially those working in the provinces) often speak to truth and many times they lose their lives fulfilling this sacred duty. But they cease to carry the seal of freedom of thought the moment they unabashedly join the party in power. Their claim to independent thinking is finally exposed as a sham. Worse, they relinquished their dignified position as public intellectuals to become defenders of the putrid status quo. When they articulate the imperative for pagbabago, they no longer mean it.

It is useful to borrow the words of Antonio Gramsci when he distinguished a diplomat from an active politician. Gramsci wrote that the diplomat “inevitably will move only within the bounds of effective reality, since his specific activity is not the creation of some new equilibrium, but the maintenance of an existing equilibrium within a certain juridical framework” while an active politician is someone “who wishes to create a new balance of forces.”

PNoy’s commies are the glorified ‘diplomats’ of the modern era who are “full of idle speculation, trivial detail, and elegant conjectures.” Meanwhile, Ocampo and Zumel are good examples of journalists who became ‘active politicians’ – “men of powerful passions, partisans, creators, initiators.”

************************************

Before the hostage blunder, the tact of the PNoy commies was to package the new president as an everyday man. Make him complain against tax deductions (even though his net pay is P63,000. Compare it to the financial assistance received by farmers from Hacienda Luisita). Make him follow traffic rules. Make him lose his wangwang privileges. Allow an MMDA cop to issue a traffic ticket to PNoy’s sister Kris. Remove his face in government billboards (but continue posting yellow ribbon tarpaulins and pagbabago streamers).

The spin to make the hasyendero son a champion of the ordinary masa is suffocating. Please make him more human but not through token, insincere gestures. Bumenta na yan sa Hollywood.

But after the hostage tragedy, I’m sure PNoy’s handlers will change their strategy. To address the lingering doubt on his competence as a leader, they are expected to present PNoy as a new leader with political will. Good luck with that. Just a minor appeal: stop the unfunny acting.

*Of course they are not communists. Magpapacheeseburger ako nang major major kung komunista ang mga yan. Anyway, I subscribe to Sartre’s opinion of anti-communists.

Part 1: Noynoy and ‘impossible reformism’
Part 2: Noynoy and the ‘boss’

To see is no longer to believe.

There was a time when people had to look up into the sky to search for answers about the mysteries of life. We raise our eyes to the heavens looking for clues about our existence. Astronomers and astrologers gaze at the stars and planets to discover their meaning in relation to our own planetary system.

We are curious creatures. We are explorers of the world. We are adventurers.

To understand the realities of the globe, we only had to open our eyes. We use our eyes to probe the riddles of humanity. Often, after seeing something interesting or extraordinary, we are pushed into action. We are motivated to deepen our knowledge about this enigmatic thing. In short, the first step towards the affirmation of truth and the need for change is to see.

Hindi lang buksan ang iyong mata. Idilat ang iyong mata.

The problem today is that we no longer gaze at the stars. We no longer want to touch the fleshy, spongy, rough surface of the planet. We have lost the patience to look for answers by peering into the distance. We are refusing to open our eyes to the ugly realities of our society.

Yes, we are still using our eyes to see the world but we no longer go out to experience reality. We are satisfied “to see” in the comfort of our homes. It seems our eyes couldn’t resist the glare of our TV sets, computer screens, cell phones, ipods and other gaming devices. Truth is validated if it appears in front of our computer windows. Emile Zola once wrote that “you cannot claim to have really seen something until you have photographed it.” Using Zola’s words, we can say today that you cannot claim to have really seen something until you have seen it in the internet.

What is worse than refusing to see? Paul Virilio warned that “our contemporaries no longer want to see, they want to be seen by all.” The best example is our facebooking activities. We want to be seen by everybody on Facebook. We are exhibitionists. We upload our photos and videos on Facebook. We have redefined the meaning of privacy. Suddenly, the lives of everybody are now an open (face)book. Susan Sontag’s term of self-surveillance is appropriate in describing our internet habits.

So we have two issues: 1) we refuse to see; 2) we only want to be seen.

What is the problem of refusing to see? We can’t solve the problems of man if we do not open our eyes. Or worse, if we only use our eyes to observe others or if we continually compare ourselves with others. Or if we end up as cyber voyeurs. Virilio wrote that the information revolution is really a revolution of generalized snooping. Think of webcams and camera phones.

What is the problem of only wanting to be seen? We can’t be good neighbors if we are satisfied with looking in the mirror everyday. How can we feel the pain of others if we are obsessed with our Facebook profile? The world does not evolve around us. The center of the earth is not us. There are more important things on this planet other than our puny concern about an unflattering picture on Facebook which was tagged by one of our friends.

It is wrong to think and assert that providing instant and realtime information to everybody will inspire people into action. The reverse might happen. Over-communication might actually prevent people from doing something. And it is already happening.

For example, pictures of poverty are retweeted on Twitter, shared on FB walls, liked by FB friends, reposted in blogs to the point that they were seen by everybody in our online network many times over. This is the “obscenity of ubiquity.” And there is no guarantee that viral blasting the images would provoke people to do something concrete about what they have just seen. Why? Sontag reminds us that “pseudo familiarity with the horrible reinforces alienation, making one less able to react in real life.” She adds that the “feeling of being exempt from calamity stimulates interest in looking at painful pictures, and looking at them suggests and strengthens the feeling that one is exempt.”

But it is not just overexposure to the real that discourages people to act. The “art of seeing” itself is gone. Moholy-Nagy mentioned eight distinct varieties of seeing – abstract, exact, rapid, slow, intensified, penetrative, simultaneous, and distorted. Meanwhile, Alvin Langdon Coburn wrote that the camera is an instrument of ‘fast seeing’. Sontag wrote about us having a photographing eye used for photographic seeing. Today, we have internet eyes which are used not to see but to consume vast amounts of information in realtime. We don’t even blink anymore. We are too overwhelmed with the power of the cyberspace that we refuse to reduce our intake of data believing that doing so would deprive us of the chance to access the great truths of our time.

Surfing the web is not a sightseeing activity where we can experience and witness the marvels of the world. Most of the time, it is only a glorified and eye-stress inducing celebration of the trivial, inconsequential and boring information tidbits about ourselves and our neighbors. But because we believe that internet data is the truth and web surfing is the modern and safe way of seeing, we proudly share our new knowledge with the less informed others. Sharing of internet-sourced knowledge becomes the preferred mode of political action of the 21st century man.

The challenge then is to restore the radical power of seeing. The truth is not located in our RSS and twitter feeds. It is out there.

Reference:

- Susan Sontag, (1977) “On Photography”, Penguin, London
- Paul Virilio, (2007) Art as Far as the Eye can See (Translated from the French by Julie Rose)
Berg Press

Out of 324 National Government Agencies, 294 have web presence. About 95 have interactive websites and only 15 have transactional websites. Based on President Gloria Arroyo’s 2009 State of the Nation Address Technical Report, 30 national agencies have no web presence.

Based on the same report, 68 State Universities and Colleges have web presence. Of this number, 29 are interactive websites, 29 are enhanced websites, and 10 schools have emerging web presence. It is quite surprising to learn that 42 state colleges have no web presence. Again, we have 42 public colleges which have no online presence! How do these schools advertise their curricular offerings? How do they disseminate information to students and faculty? How do they update the public about university activities and programs? What is so difficult in creating a simple website that contains basic information about the school?

There are 33 government agencies offering frontline services that have web portals. An example is the e-Serbisyo program for passport processing and PhilHealth membership application. There is also an e-Bayad program which allows citizens to process their payments for public services online. Through the m-Governance program, about 50 agencies have short messaging facility which provides a mechanism for the public to send their feedback to government agencies through text.

What is the status of the e-LGU Development Program? As of January 29, 2009, about 1,688 LGUs, or 99 percent of the total number of LGUs in the country, have web presence. Of this number, 1,120 are Stage 1 websites and only 115 are Stage 3 websites. There are 17 LGUs which have no websites. More than 103 Community e-Centers were established for remote local villages. The Philippine CeC Web Portal for LGUs was designed to promote local products online.

It is positive that most government agencies, whether national or local, have established web presence. But most of these websites are emerging websites. They contain only very basic information about the agency (and they are not regularly updated). There is little or no interactivity with website visitors. It is best if most agencies have transactional websites.

The e-governance report should also include a qualitative assessment of government websites. These web portals should be constantly reviewed by experts and the public to improve online transactions. The security features of public web portals should be strengthened. It was recently reported that the Comelec website was hacked a few days ago. The m-Governance program should be enhanced to serve the needs of 56 million mobile phone users in the country.

Government agencies should strive to offer the best online services to our citizens. Improving the country’s digital infrastructure can generate enthusiasm among investors and the public in general. But these expensive modernization projects should be transparent. Remember the botched NBN-ZTE deal?

Online work

I cannot blog everyday. I cannot tweet and plurk all my activities. I only open my Facebook account twice a month. I open my Friendster once a month. For updates about Kabataan Partylist, please visit our official website. To learn tidbits about our Congress work, follow @kabataancrew on Twitter.

I cannot blog everyday. As much as possible, I post 1-2 blog articles a week. But it is impossible for me to blog everyday. I am still familiarizing myself with Congress work. I have so many documents and government reports to read and criticize everyday. I attend committee hearings (and budget hearings too) which demand my full concentration. Our sessions start at 4pm and usually end around 8pm. If there are no work-related events in the evening, I devote my time and remaining energy to my family. I have two children.

I read blogs and online news articles in the morning. I write my speeches and conduct my online research in the morning too. If there is a committee hearing, I am already in Congress around 10am. I check my email in the session hall.

Before the budget season, Thursdays and Fridays are usually reserved to meet our constituents. I visit schools and communities in Metro Manila. Sometimes I attend meetings in our HQ. I go to the provinces during weekends. I usually tweet while I’m out of town. Thank you gmail for that offline feature of your email service.

I promise to improve the design and lay-out of this blog during our session break next month.

Related articles:

Cybercampaigning
Blog habits