FreeThinkers Forum: "Akala mo"

"Akala mo" - critique

Posted by Primer C. Pagunuran on 8/2/2009, 12:45 pm
210.213.219.74

As a perfunctory point, this is a review from a layman’s perspective of the latest political jingle of a leading presidential aspirant with the end of analyzing his vision and platform of government, if any, based primarily on the text. Hence, as expressed in the jingle, let us start off by quoting it in full, to wit:

Akala mo petiks, yun pala mali
Akala mo conyo, yun pala laking tondo
Akala mo trapo yun pala katropa mo
Akala mo walang matatakbuhan pag
Ikaw ay nahirapan
Ngunit mali nanaman kasi marami
nang natulungan kailangan lang subukan
Sa sipag at tiyaba
Lahat ay madali
Magtitiwala pag nakilala kita

Offhand, younger people not yet in their voting age can commit every line of the jingle to memory than adults can even transcribe it correctly after a couple of times listening to it. In other words, it can in fact connect more with the youth than with adults maybe because any song at all can be easily remembered. So the jingle apparently lifted from Parokya ni Edgar’s ‘Akala’ can really capture a significant segment of the viewing public that we ordinarily know as the – youth vote – that takes a higher percentage of the voting population. It can be said that the PR man who created this jingle knows his Public Information 101.

The jingle, aptly enumerates the misconceptions of people about the man as captured in the first three lines of the jingle – petiks, conyo, trapo – meaning to say, that he is not any or all of these traits. Thus, as captured in the fourth line, if people as much as think he is not someone they can run to for help when in dire need, they must be wrong precisely because the man has already helped not a few – if and only if – they subscribe to the whole notion of ‘industry’ and ‘hardwork’ (sipag at tiyaga) that shows the road to a good life. In other words, the jingle solicits that people can trust the man if they get to know him as to who he really is – not a petiks, not a conyo, not a trapo.

To some degree, a jingle that actually aims to correct such misconceptions finds the man, subject of mistakenly perceived traits, as on the defensive. It means that the man simply becomes a denial king – he belies all seemingly wrong perceptions people have of him. Trained bureaucrats are ordinarily expected to reflect this kind of behavioral characteristics. But on the other side of the river, the viewing public would have a way of knowing whether the man only wants to find quick relief if he goes the denial mode.

It is entirely misleading if the man is there to help even if rather ambiguously, it has been said that he has already helped an x number of people, presumably those in need. Except that the statement is rather wisely crafted as to set that single pre-condition of “sipag at tiyaga” that will prompt the man to probably provide help. In other words, if the man helps at all, it is not on the basis of dole outs. Those in need would have to work for it through sipag at tiyaga, which means quite simply, that people are left on their own. Put simply, the man is not playing Santa Claus but just a conduit.

Normally, there are many programs in the executive department of government which make accessible to poor beneficiaries the delivery of goods and services since the poor do have the right to partake of these “social dividends” or so-called “safety nets”. Thus, in disasters, they are given food ration in small baskets; in malnutrition, their kids are given noodles; in health, they do get healthcare cards; in unemployment, they are given cash dole outs, and so on. The point we are trying to drive at is the suspicion that perhaps, legislators do hardly touch their congressional allocation to address the needs of the poor since they will just tap the executive department for this purpose. For instance, legislators request from their executive counterparts to provide this or that for his constituents.

There is a unifying thread in all the jingles already created for this leading presidential aspirant and this is the conscious effort to project his association with the poor. Note that in one earlier jingle, he is saying that his mother is a vendor (nagtitinda sa Divisoria) and in a much earlier jingle, in fact, sort of admit that his grandmother used to work as housemaid (katulong). The same story line is conveniently dramatized with the one-on-one interview of a TV host with him which makes for an entirely interesting autobiographical presentation of the man’s personal and social background. People might really have to conclude as to say onto themselves – “he (the man) is one of us”.

In this particular jingle, people can view from the background a simple enumeration of the kinds of people the man has already helped in the field of business – “natulungan sa negosyo: mahihirap, OFWs, kababaihan, kabataan”. If indeed one has significantly helped these sectors mentioned, what obstacle remains, if any, for him to succeed in his presidential bid? Altruistically, however, one advertises too hard for a bad product, but does so easily for a good one. Or, ‘nothing is what it seems’.

With millions upon millions of pesos presumably already spent in all the ads across the tri-media environment, a sad fate reminiscent of a rabid senatorial candidate in the past elections maybe rearing its ugly head. In other words, changing voters’ attitudes may no longer be what they used to be. Thus as the whole orgy of political advertising shifts to high gear, the aspirant may end up with an empty bag in what is tantamount to be – a revenge of the poor in the Great Cultural Divide.