In anticipation of last-minute registrants, the Commission on Elections will be extending by at least four hours the daily voters' registration being conducted across the country until the end of the month.
"We are aware that a lot of Filipinos choose to register at the last minute. So in order to accommodate them and also address the growing crowds at our field offices as we near the registration deadline, the Comelec en banc has ordered the extension of office hours in all registration centers nationwide," said Comelec spokesman James Jimenez.
Jimenez said that starting October 22 until October 30, registration hours in Comelec field offices will be open from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. Registration on October 31, the last day for registration, will be open until 12 midnight.
Jimenez was quick to clarify, however, that they are only extending the registration hours, not the registration days.
Continue Reading, click here!
Source: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/175191/comelec-extends-registration-hours-nationwide
This is a great chance for those not yet registered so, go now to your nearest registration centers.
Custom Search
Applications to Country Programs Against Corruption
A campaign against corruption must go beyond words, indeed beyond new laws. Institutional adjustment is needed to limit the scope of corruption (and more generally, to enhance efficiency).
A rough formula holds: we will tend to have corruption when there is monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. Therefore, by "structural reforms" we mean actions that:
• Limit monopoly: promote competition in the public and private sectors, avoid monopoly-granting regulations when possible (especially exchange controls and quantitative restrictions on imports), open the economy to international competition, and so forth.
• Clarify official discretion: simplify rules and regulations via "bright lines," help citizens learn the way the system is supposed to work (through brochures and manuals, help desks, laws and rules in ordinary language, publicity campaigns, the use of citizen service-providers, etc.), improve oversight of officials' actions, and so forth.
• Enhance accountability and transparency: private-sector involvement in many ways, including citizen oversight boards, hot lines, ombudsmen, inquiry commissions, etc.; the systematic generation and dissemination of information about public service effectiveness; external audits; self-policing by the private sector; clear standards of conduct and rules of the game; greater competition and openness in bidding, grant-giving, and aid projects.
Institutional adjustment builds on the insight that systems are corrupt, not just people. Corruption is a label covering many different phenomena, and within each category of corrupt activities are many questions of degree. The beginning of wisdom in an anti-corruption effort is to disaggregate.
It is impossible to avoid ethical questions when one speaks of corruption. And yet, this is what successful reforms must try to do. They must focus on corruption as a crime of economic calculation. They must analyze systems rather than condemn individuals, understanding the formula corruption = monopoly + discretion - accountability.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Applications-to-Country-Programs-Against-Corruption&id=3013490
A rough formula holds: we will tend to have corruption when there is monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. Therefore, by "structural reforms" we mean actions that:
• Limit monopoly: promote competition in the public and private sectors, avoid monopoly-granting regulations when possible (especially exchange controls and quantitative restrictions on imports), open the economy to international competition, and so forth.
• Clarify official discretion: simplify rules and regulations via "bright lines," help citizens learn the way the system is supposed to work (through brochures and manuals, help desks, laws and rules in ordinary language, publicity campaigns, the use of citizen service-providers, etc.), improve oversight of officials' actions, and so forth.
• Enhance accountability and transparency: private-sector involvement in many ways, including citizen oversight boards, hot lines, ombudsmen, inquiry commissions, etc.; the systematic generation and dissemination of information about public service effectiveness; external audits; self-policing by the private sector; clear standards of conduct and rules of the game; greater competition and openness in bidding, grant-giving, and aid projects.
Institutional adjustment builds on the insight that systems are corrupt, not just people. Corruption is a label covering many different phenomena, and within each category of corrupt activities are many questions of degree. The beginning of wisdom in an anti-corruption effort is to disaggregate.
It is impossible to avoid ethical questions when one speaks of corruption. And yet, this is what successful reforms must try to do. They must focus on corruption as a crime of economic calculation. They must analyze systems rather than condemn individuals, understanding the formula corruption = monopoly + discretion - accountability.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Applications-to-Country-Programs-Against-Corruption&id=3013490
The Politics of Anti-Corruption Endeavors
After the first participatory diagnosis, government might sponsor further workshops at several levels (including government officials, international businesses, local businesses, and aid donors). Studies can also play a catalytic role. Of particular interest are studies of systems of information and evaluation (their extent, quality, how used and misused), analysis of actual and hypothetical incentive systems, and studies that contrast successful and unsuccessful cases within the country in question.
For example, in a given country certain public enterprises may be a significant source of corruption in international business transactions. Yet other public enterprises may be functioning well and relatively cleanly. Why? What lessons can be learned from the successes?
Studying successes has a psychological benefit. Locals see that they are not perceived as inept by over generalizing outsiders. Transparency has a new meaning, that with good information they can learn from each other.
Other studies might attempt to gauge the existence and degree of corruption in public procurement, foreign aid projects, and debt repayment (to name three possible locations for corruption in international business transactions). The studies would examine a particular case of an alleged corrupt transaction, but would simultaneously analyze the general class of cases of which that was an instance. The methodology would involve interviews on a confidential in the public and private sectors. In other words, we are not talking about a dry academic study, but research that evokes from local people their knowledge of how corrupt local systems work and what might be done to make those systems function better.
Such studies would carry an indirect benefit. They would create certain uneasiness among the locals as basic problems are uncovered and documented. They would also build a baseline of data from which future progress can be judged.
It is a curiosity: political scientists who study administrative change often seem to overlook politics. An effective strategy for fighting corruption should not. Part of the "assessment" of the enabling environment should also focus on the political forces that might aid or block various changes.
"Politics" has another dimension: relations in the country leadership. Ideally, local leaders will already be convinced of the need to undertake institutional adjustment. If not, their incentives and constraints must be carefully analyzed. The proposed strategy of administrative adjustment ideally would be transparent. It would be "incentive compatible" even for political leaders with less than ideal motivations.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Politics-of-Anti-Corruption-Endeavors&id=3013644
For example, in a given country certain public enterprises may be a significant source of corruption in international business transactions. Yet other public enterprises may be functioning well and relatively cleanly. Why? What lessons can be learned from the successes?
Studying successes has a psychological benefit. Locals see that they are not perceived as inept by over generalizing outsiders. Transparency has a new meaning, that with good information they can learn from each other.
Other studies might attempt to gauge the existence and degree of corruption in public procurement, foreign aid projects, and debt repayment (to name three possible locations for corruption in international business transactions). The studies would examine a particular case of an alleged corrupt transaction, but would simultaneously analyze the general class of cases of which that was an instance. The methodology would involve interviews on a confidential in the public and private sectors. In other words, we are not talking about a dry academic study, but research that evokes from local people their knowledge of how corrupt local systems work and what might be done to make those systems function better.
Such studies would carry an indirect benefit. They would create certain uneasiness among the locals as basic problems are uncovered and documented. They would also build a baseline of data from which future progress can be judged.
It is a curiosity: political scientists who study administrative change often seem to overlook politics. An effective strategy for fighting corruption should not. Part of the "assessment" of the enabling environment should also focus on the political forces that might aid or block various changes.
"Politics" has another dimension: relations in the country leadership. Ideally, local leaders will already be convinced of the need to undertake institutional adjustment. If not, their incentives and constraints must be carefully analyzed. The proposed strategy of administrative adjustment ideally would be transparent. It would be "incentive compatible" even for political leaders with less than ideal motivations.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Politics-of-Anti-Corruption-Endeavors&id=3013644
We Must Demand Higher Ethics From Our Politicians
If we wish to progress, and strengthen our communities, states, and even our nation as a whole then we are going to need more solid individuals running for office. We need people with higher ethical standards, those who are willing to tell us the truth, and we must listen to that truth without demanding free stuff, or voting in someone is willing to lie to us to appease our every want and desire.
Not long ago, I was having a conversation with an acquaintance and we were talking about how ridiculous it was that a certain city had reelected their mayor, a mayor who had mismanaged the city, taken bribes, and was irresponsible in almost every way imaginable. We got to talking and this is the comment we came up with;
"It's amazing what people can be led to believe sometimes from podium pushing politicians, with packed pocketbooks, and passionate PACs."
Still, one has to ask if the citizens and voters of this great nation will ever wake up. It's almost gotten to the point that we fully expect our politicians to be corrupt, and have low ethical standards. And to this we aspire? We have lowered our own standards so much that we are willing to deal with this, often choosing the lesser of two evils when both candidates have questionable ethics.
Why on earth would we settle for such when we live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and yet, we go on each election cycle and do the same thing over and over again; the definition of insanity in its purest form, but why? Why doesn't anybody ask, why won't we demand higher standards of our politicians and podium pushers question. I hope you will please consider this.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?We-Must-Demand-Higher-Ethics-From-Our-Politicians&id=3024199
This is a great article to really consider especially that Philippine 2010 Election is now approaching.
Not long ago, I was having a conversation with an acquaintance and we were talking about how ridiculous it was that a certain city had reelected their mayor, a mayor who had mismanaged the city, taken bribes, and was irresponsible in almost every way imaginable. We got to talking and this is the comment we came up with;
"It's amazing what people can be led to believe sometimes from podium pushing politicians, with packed pocketbooks, and passionate PACs."
Still, one has to ask if the citizens and voters of this great nation will ever wake up. It's almost gotten to the point that we fully expect our politicians to be corrupt, and have low ethical standards. And to this we aspire? We have lowered our own standards so much that we are willing to deal with this, often choosing the lesser of two evils when both candidates have questionable ethics.
Why on earth would we settle for such when we live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and yet, we go on each election cycle and do the same thing over and over again; the definition of insanity in its purest form, but why? Why doesn't anybody ask, why won't we demand higher standards of our politicians and podium pushers question. I hope you will please consider this.
Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?We-Must-Demand-Higher-Ethics-From-Our-Politicians&id=3024199
This is a great article to really consider especially that Philippine 2010 Election is now approaching.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
