UPFRONT: 2012 USC Candidates' Forum

The UP Economics Society, or more commonly known as EcoSoc, organized this year’s UPFRONT: The 2012 USC Candidates’ Forum. This is their 2^nd time to organize this and it has evolved into something all the UP students look forward to because they will be able to ask the candidates questions regarding their goals and plans of action. This event was organized with the goal of “proclaiming your beliefs right here, right now up front”. The event began with the opening remarks, which were given by Jose Maria Varga, the current president of UP EcoSoc. He proudly announced that UP EcoSoc is the first organization to arrange this kind of elections forum. Furthermore, the objective of this forum is to make the voices of the students heard through mobilizing organizations in UP. This also gives the UP students a chance to voice out their testaments to know and to be a part of the UP community.

There are currently 3 parties and one independent candidate. These are Stand UP, KAISA, ALYANSA, and the independent candidate – Martin Loon. First, the Stand UP party’s slogan is “Atin ang Lakas, Atin ang Bukas”. Their party is a student alliance for the democratic rights in UP. Second, the KAISA party’s slogan is “Scholars in Action, Driven by Passion”. Their aim is for the students in UP to come together, magKAISA, para sa pamantasan at sambayanan. Next, the ALYANSA party’s slogan is “Tara, Simulan ang Pagbabago”. They believe that each student should be able to have a voice in the University Student Council (USC). Last but not the least, Martin Loon believes that one does not need a political party to win the elections because as soon as all the results are out and all the University Student Council positions have been filled up, their goal will all be the same – to serve the UP students and help make improvements in our university.

Each party had 3 representatives who were to speak in front of the entire student body. The first set of speakers was the councilors. However, not all councilors from all parties had to give a speech, only one was chosen to represent the rest of the councilors. This seemed odd to me since it would be a little bias towards that specific speaker. Also, wouldn’t that councilor be promoting his self more than he is his fellow councilors? And it would seem like he is more knowledgeable about his position. To continue, the first councilor to speak was from Stand UP. She gave importance to education. Where does the cut from the budget for education go if not to the Iskolars ng Bayan? She said that all of these go to the Public-Private Partnerships and other projects for the benefit of the politicians. Education is the key to nation building and sadly, education is not the priority of the government. The next speaker was from KAISA. He started with the question, why should they run for a position in the University Student Council and not just hold a position in their own organization? The answer was that we needed student representation. The welfare of the students is their goal. “Sixwillfix” is the laban of the USC. (“Sixwillfix” is the term used to promote protest against the budget cuts of education). The third speaker is from ALYANSA. He spoke of the USC as an institution, which can be trusted because it is relevant to the students. USC needs a strong foundation so it should have a strong student council.

The next set of speakers is comprised of those running for the position of USC vice-chairperson. The candidate of Stand UP emphasized the importance of education and that education is a right. Next, the candidate of KAISA said that her previous goal was utilizing the potential of organizations. However, her aim now is to prove that even an ordinary student can achieve greatness, can make a difference, and be influential. She is an advocate of gender rights. But what she truly wants to project is that ordinary students have a voice and seeing students in action because they are driven by passion. The third speaker was from ALYANSA. He wants to inspire students to make a change. Making USC open, transparent and accountable is also his goal. USC will also have 0% tolerance of frat related violence and gender harassment. He wants each and every UP student to accept all cultures present in our university and respect one another.

Finally, the time for the candidates running for USC chairperson to speak has come. This is what everyone has been waiting for since this is one of the most important, if not the most important, of all positions. The chairperson is considered to be like the president of the entire UP student body. Since UP is known to be like another world or another community, the chairperson has a huge responsibility. Also, there are thousand of students in UP so it would be very difficult to make an impact on everybody.

The first speaker was from Stand UP. He believes that nabubuhay ang USC para sa kailangan ng istudyante. He gave more emphasis on the fact that education is a right and we should fight for it. We should go against the budget cuts. He also asked, what is the students’ contribution? Pakikipaglaban at pagkakaisa. Why do we need the USC to be makabayan? It is because we need active participation of council members who will fight for the students and who will not compromise the policies for students. Tayo ang pag-asa. We will be the catalysts for change and this will only be successful if all students are united.

The second speaker was from KAISA. She spoke about the issues that UP students face. She is also affected by issues of the university, such as the neglected facilities, tuition fee increase, and lack of security. We can all step up and be a part of the solution. Only UP students can make a change in the university because we are able to experience first hand these issues. We all have to come together and believe in ourselves. Kailangan natin magKAISA. The candidate’s personal vision is to inspire others. She promises to keep USC transparent and she urges everyone to vote for someone who will not put power before work.

The third speaker was from ALYANSA. We all have differences but we also have similarities, which is that we are all here in UP Diliman. There will always be hope for a change and it will only happen if we believe. Going to UP is the right choice for her because her eyes were opened to reality and it was the first time for her to see understanding, acceptance, and respect of different cultures. All of the candidates are doing their best to please everyone to get more votes; however, the truth is that there is no such thing as one that fits the position perfectly. Everyone has his own flaws. Also, if we have the courage to pursue our dream and if you want to believe in change, then we have to do it together.

Last but not the least, the independent candidate, Martin Loon, is running for USC chairperson. He may seem as an underdog because of his lack of supporters, but if you see his charisma and determination, you would know that this guy has the potential and the heart to serve the university. His main objective is the fight for education. This is the most important and the greatest equalizer. We are all equal in the eyes of education. When we fight for education, there should be no parties. Some politicians even asked him why there are so many parties with so many different proposals. How can we support one single cause if we can’t even support each other here in UP? He wants to help others and ipaglaban ang kailangan ipaglaban. There is value in fighting for the right thing. We should base judgments on what is true and we all should work towards one goal or agenda.

If you read through these candidates’ general plan of action, you will notice that they all have the same goal in mind. So why is it that there are so many different parties? Is it just so they can have more supporters and more people who will campaign with them? Also, it is very obvious that they have such ambitious dreams for our university; however, will they truly be able to achieve those dreams? Because we are no different from those politicians and government officials so I don’t see why they can promise that power will not blur their visions. It is very difficult to choose which candidate to vote for since all of their platforms are the very similar, just phrased in a different manner.  (Word Count: 1474)

The Promise of Tahrir Square

Dr. Mustapha Kamel Al-Sayyid was the guest speaker. He is a professor of Political Science in the American University of Cairo. He came here to discuss the issues affecting Egypt, more specifically to differentiate between the two types of social movements, and the possible outcomes of their clashing ideologies for the future of Egypt. Afterwards, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo Jr., a Professor Emeritus of the University of the Philippines, gave a sort of reaction to the issue at hand.

In the previous year, there was so much chaos in Egypt due to social movements striving for democracy. However, the main conflict was the clash of 2 social movements: the old and new social movements in Egypt. First of all, a social movement is defined by groups of people inspired by ideas guided by one goal and ideal, also called unity. The old social movement was a socialist, Catholic, and civil rights movement. The new social movement, on the other hand, was a human rights, women’s rights, and environment movement which included people of the same class – middle. This also included professors asking for freedom from intervention of government and military forces in the academe since almost 2/3 of the government comprised of old movement people. Furthermore, those who started the revolution were not interested in seizing power but in changing the old ways.

The relationship between the 2 social movements would define the future of Egypt or the revolution. The new social movement or new groups were very active in initiating social movements. However, the old social movement believed that if they were united in their faith in Allah, then they would have all the power. The Salafists is an advocate group of the old social movement who wanted to apply the rules of Shariah on Islam immediately. There was even an incident wherein the Muslim brothers, another old social movement’s group, assassinated the Egyptian prime minister because he was believed to be monopolizing the power. The Muslim brothers were an illegal operation, a banned organization. They tried hiding their headquarters by opening one elsewhere but they were eventually allowed to open one in Cairo last 2011.

Moving on, I would like to elaborate more on the differences between the old and new social movements. The old social movement has been present for almost 8 decades beginning 1928, polyclass in social background, initiated the establishment of and restoration of society guided by Islam, has plenty of resources and sympathizers who support them all the way, has a large membership which makes it better endowed, there is homogeneity, and composed of Muslim brothers and Salafists. On the contrary, the new social movement became active in movements only during the 1980’s, comprised of middle class people and secular (Atheist), wanted a civil state (where religion and politics were separated), proposed to have internet access as a right, strongly believed that they could mobilize the people, and they are composed of the Human Rights Organization, Kefaya, March 9 (comprised of professors who want autonomy), April 6 (where they engage in general strike), Independent Trade Unions (who want freedom of expression), and FaceBook groups (denouncing police brutality and sending through the internet of videos showing proof of abuse).

The internet is truly a wonderful invention. It is a means of connecting people from all over the world without leaving the comforts of your home. The internet was also a very important tool in propagating the cause of the new social movement. They use this as a way of communication without censorship and to disseminate information where they encourage people to join in the revolutions. Since everything being written in the newspaper should be filtered by the government, the truth doesn’t necessarily always come out, so this group turned to the internet where the government has no control over. The slogan of the revolution of the new social movement is “Bread, Liberty, Social Justice” which is their belief in some social democracy or ideals.

These two groups are not totally different in their ambitions. One clear similarity that they share is that they are united in the sense that they are against Mubarak’s regime. However, they are different in all other issues such as the pace of transition to civilian rule. The old social movement wants an immediate transition to civilian rule by amending the constitution and preparing the country for elections. The new social movement though believes that time should pass, let the economy stabilize, then the country can start holding elections. They were also disagreeing in the modalities of transition which is how to go about the transition. The old social movement wanted to amend the constitution immediately, while the new social movement wanted to make a completely new constitution. The new social movement knows that only specific groups will win the election and the changes made will only benefit the group’s members and supporters, not the consensus. Another is the nature of the constitution – whether it will be Islamic (old social movement) or Secular (new social movement). There are also disagreements on position versus the military council, position on the fate of the revolution, and the methods of political action.

Since democracy prevailed, there are some implications seen. One is ideological differences among the political groups. Another is absence of balance among political forces, which tempts majority groups into authoritarian measures. Lastly, there might be political instability. (Word Count: 908)