The Promotion of Carelessness thru Social Networking Sites

Pres.Noynoy Aquino acknowledges the value of social networking sites in promoting a wide scope of interaction between the government and its constituents. The government could easily post recent projects or important undertakings on such sites and all at once, the people can post and tweet their responses, whether they're in favor, totally against, or wanting for amends.

But just recently,the ever-controversial issue portraying the ill effect of  government officials participating in social networking had come to view. Carmen "Mai" Mislang, one of Pnoy's staff on the Philippine delegation headed to Vietnam for an ASEAN Summit reportedly post snide remarks on her Twitter account like how the "wine sucks" in an official function; "no handsome men to be seen anywhere"; and "crossing the speedy motorcycle-laden streets of Hanoi (Vietnam) is one of the easiest way to die."

urban congestion in Vietnam

How gross! An educated person (which is of course she belongs in after all,she's an assistant sec. of the President) should never post comments like that.Just taking into consideration that she's a part of the Philippine delegation would give her the very cue that she carries with her the very image of our country. At the end of it all, what she acted and said would embody our country as a whole.

We humans are given the power of sensibility to weigh things right. Mislang had apologized for her actions and stressed out that there was "no offense meant".Obviously what she said was a toyal camouflage of her carelessness. Consider this: If we Filipinos are given such disrectful remarks,what are we most likely to feel?Well, I can't really tell the extent of our condemnation.

Participating on such sites just harm the image of our country.We are suppose to promote unity and camaraderie with Vietnem, not hatred (again!).

The semi-personal nature of social networking makes it hard for the government to manage, or at least regulate it.On the case of Mislang, she tweets her personal observations only that she'd been careless.Well yeah, it was just an opinion but government officials have the most sensitive case of responsibility to double check the contents of their posts.

Also, letting the government officials participate in social networking affects the personal aspects of their lives.Because of its semi-personal nature, people interfere with the official's personal info and whereabouts.Irrelative comments and inquires pile up because of its wide-scope nature.

Critically and practically speaking,unabated and unregulated use of social sites adversely affects the government official's efficiency and quality of service they provide. Instead of focusing more on their areas of specialization, they habitually tune in to these sites even with unimportant topics just to heighten their department's electricity bill.

Government official's carelessness in posting rude comments reflects the inability of those in charge to properly orient their subordinates.Also Mislang's being still in the position added up to our very conclusion that there had been an inability to distinguish responsible ones from those arrogant,careless ones.

Social sites have proven to be the best place to recruit employees but the very controversial Mislang has proven us that this can also serve the very opposite - can also be the best place to lose your job - along with just a pinch of your carelessness.

Social networking participated by government officials takes on a double-sensitivity nature. You are part of the embodiment of our country's facade.Your posts will reflect the group you are belonging in. If you have nothing good to say better keep your fingers static before the PC keyboard.

"Ang O.A.naman ng Catholic Church."


That's Carlos Celdran commenting about the church's saying that he too,will be ex-communicated from the church. Well, this is all about the ever-controversial Reproductive Health Bill in the country . .


People all over the country will have contradicting opinions with regards to Celdran's statement. Some will be nodding their heads but many others will be crossing their brows. As of me, I'll be neutral. I'll try to explain my side, I should say.


The Reproductive Health Bill proposes the intervention of the government in promoting the use of contraceptives for population control.The Catholic church condemns the Bill stating that this is sinful. It even threatened (daw) PNOY to be ex-communicated from the church if the president will say hello and welcome to the Bill.


This triggers the O.A. attribution of Celdran to the Catholic Church. Well, in some ways the church is.
With regards to over-reacting, which one should have to be.? Does the Philippine government doesn't have the right to overreact amidst it's alarming, ever-increasing population?


Though we understand that the reaction of the church pertains to our Christian belief of preserving life, it should have to look at both sides. We have to be practically-inclined nowadays. Are we not alarmed and troubled with the scenario we constantly see on tv? . .Couples with 13 children or so, both having no permanent occupations, living underside bridges, saying they haven't had any chance of planning how many children they will have because they don't know any method, or that the contraceptives are just too expensive for them.?


All in all, the choice should be left to the couple themselves - to the audience of the Bill.The church nor the state can't govern people's choices, all that they can do is orient them, they can both freely state their stand. Why, they may say yes to either party but can the party keep on looking after them if they are habitually keeping their promise ?


On that O.A. issue, as what I've said, the church at some point, is . Amidst our ever-increasing population, crime rate, unemployment, illiteracy, etc., who actually look after the people? Well, the government is entirely responsible for such societal problems. Their proposing of the Bill is somehow their preventive measure of their anticipated flourishing of these societal problems.


I'm not saying that the church is not being reasonable.(Somehow, I believe that there were just some misunderstanding in here.) I respect Christianity views but the Bill is not about killing fetus whatsoever. I understand that it's all about saying no because your income is saying so even if your sexual urges keeps on pushing you onward.


I'm suggesting practicality, responsible parenthood, sensitivity and cooperation. We are all subject to expressing our views and beliefs.
For couples, please mind how your business is doing, we are a poor country, don't keep on adding up to it. .