apparenty, everyone is into blogging this day.
me and pen have this LJ account. i also have a xanga and blogspot account but i do not use them (stupid banners are all over).
anthony has his huntherx17 at xanga.
glenn also has two: xanga - 1000things and blogspot - strangeplanet
the latest addition is from sherwin. he has one over at xanga - kamotemote.
anthony also introduced us to flooble. nice shoutbox at your blogsites. i dont have mine coz LJ wont permit it. oh well…
*news*
gerald lost his t68i.. i still have to gather details. damn those bad guys!
The movie in Erap’s mind
by Romeo Manlapaz
I am not a political analyst. No, I am not an economist either. Ako po ay isang hamak na comical engineer lamang na hindi man lang nag-practice ng kanyang profession. But I enjoy tinkering with data using a computer. And that is how I got myself into this Juetengate mess.
Let me tell you how it all began.
More than a year and a half ago, bigla na lang sumulpot si Pepe (Felipe Miranda, Pulse Asia) sa bahay at nagsabi: “Jing, I’m forming a survey organization which I’m planning to call ‘Pulse Asia’. Baka naman I can request you to become one of the incorporators/directors?” Sa loob-loob ko noon: Do I really want to get involved in this pa-survey-survey of the political scene? Especially since, with reference to such surveys, a former U.P. President had said: “But they’re so penetrating to the surface of things.”
Since by temperament I am a loner and not a joiner, I tried to scare Pepe off by saying: On five conditions: 1. I get complete access to Pulse Asia data. 2. I don’t have to attend meetings. 3. I work alone. 4. I don’t have to write papers. I write only when I want and on what I want. 5. And if I do write a paper, then I’ll provide Pepe with a copy. But the paper remains mine, and I may give a copy to anyone I please.
Tough conditions, I thought, especially for a survey organization. Ang lekat na Pepe, hindi man lang natakot. Instead, kumagat, at pumayag.
So, since May 1999, when Pulse Asia first came out with a survey: Every quarter without fail, I have given Pepe a paper on ERAP-related survey questions, usually of the time-analysis sort.
As you all very well know, from May to September 1999, ERAP’s performance rating plummeted drastically.
I then wrote a paper entitled “ERAP’s fall from grace with the Filipino people”. For this, I used the data not just for September, but for May and September. I was trying to identify: Sinu-sino ang nagpabagsak kay ERAP? Wala. Hindi ma-identify. If I remember right, among the variables I was using then were Civil Status, with six categories - Married, Widow/Widower, Divorced, Separated, Single, Live-in - and their products with TIME = the survey quarter variable. Eh, lahat ng Civil Status x TIME variables, pumasok sa regression equation, at negative ang coefficients.
Anong ibig sabihin niyan? Lahat ng respondents, whether married or widow/widower or divorced or separated or single or live-in, pinabagsak si ERAP. In short, buong bansa ang nagpabagsak kay ERAP. Just before the December 1999 survey, Pepe asked whether I had any questions for the next survey. I suggested, “Why don’t we ask whether they voted for ERAP in 1998?” Sa loob-loob ko: Kung doon sa mga bumoto kay ERAP, mababa and bumababa ang performance rating ni ERAP, … abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ito namang kaibigan ko, may kalokohan din, dinagdagan pa. Tatlo ang itinanong: Bumoto ka ba? Sino ang ibinoto mo? At …. Iboboto mo pa ba siya?
When I received the data diskette for the December 1999 survey, I was ecstatic. I called Pepe right away: “Jing, that was a stroke of genius! Hindi mo lang itinanong kung ibinoto nila si ERAP; itinanong mo rin kung iboboto pa nila.”
What did the December 1999 survey show? Of the 1200 respondents: 692 or 58% stated that either hindi sila bumoto, or iba ang ibinoto nila, hindi si ERAP; 508 or 42% admitted, ibinoto nila si ERAP. And of the 508 na bumoto kay ERAP: 203 or 40% stated na hindi na nila iboboto si ERAP; 132 or 26% either stated na hindi na lang sila boboto kahit kanino, or ayaw sumagot; 173 or 34% stated na ERAP pa rin, ERAP forever, daw sila.
Note na mas marami pa ang hindi na boboto kaysa boboto pa. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ang sumagi sa isip ko: ‘Yong 132 ERAP voters na either hindi na lang sila boboto, or ayaw sumagot, malamang at the very least ambivalent na ‘yan, nag-aalangan na kay ERAP. On this basis, I tried sub-dividing the respondents into four sub-populations: ERAP:1, ang mga hindi bumoto kay ERAP; 58%. ERAP:2, ang mga hindi
na boboto kay ERAP; 40% of 42% = 17%. ERAP:3, ang mga nag-aalangan na kay ERAP; 26% of 42% = 11%. ERAP:4, ang mga ERAP forever; 34% of 42% = 14%. The ERAP sub-populations in the Pulse Asia survey of December 1999.
Ang hindi ko inaasahan, ang mga ERAP pa rin, ang ERAP forever, 14% lang of all respondents. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
But then, I thought, baka naman mali ang assumption na apat nga ang sub-populations. So, I compared the means of the ERAP-related variables across the four sub-populations. Ang lumabas, mukhang tama naman. For by and large, from ERAP:1 to ERAP:2 to ERAP:3 to ERAP:4, pataas nang pataas ang mga evaluations. Of course, may exceptions, but these exceptions were tolerable within the assumption.
I counterchecked the assumption further - by trying to identify kung sino-sino ang nasa bawa’t sub-population. The identities of the ERAP sub-populations. Ang mga mataas ang pinag-aralan, nasa ERAP:1, hindi bumoto, at wala sa ERAP:4, ERAP forever: Mukhang tama. Ang mga military at police, nasa ERAP:4, ERAP forever: Mukhang tama nga. Ang mga Iglesia ni Kristo, nasa ERAP:3, nag-aalangan: Nakakaduda yata. Ang mga taga-Sultan Kudarat at mga Muslim, nasa ERAP:2, hindi na boboto: Nakakaduda nga.
So, I called Pepe: “Jing, ano ba ito? Lumalabas na ang mga Iglesia ni Kristo, nag-aalangan na kay ERAP. At ang mga Muslim, lalo na sa Sultan Kudarat, hindi lang nag-aalangan, itinakwil na siya.”
And of course, to this comical engineer who never practiced his profession, Pepe explained at great length the political realities underlying the survey data.
Then, I tried to find out, ano ba ang mga concerns nitong apat na sub-populations? Nag-regression analysis with categorical variables. Ang kinalabasan, ‘tong regression equation:
Regression equation: ERAP
RF = 0.140 + [0.274 × ECNR + 0.133 × GRFT + 0.152 × POVR] × ERAP:1 + [0.207 × ECNR + 0.251 × HMNR] × ERAP:2 + [0.550 + 0.384 × TERR] × ERAP:3 + 1.144 × ERAP:4 r2 = 0.263
Sa ERAP:1, ang mahalaga, ECNR = economic recovery, GRFT = graft and corruption, POVR = poverty. Sa ERAP:2, ECNR = economic recovery, HMNR = human rights. Sa ERAP:3, TERR = territorial integrity; ewan ko naman kung bakit. Pero sa ERAP:4, … wala! Para bagang kung tatanungin mo sila, “Bakit ang tataas ng rating niyo kay ERAP,” sasagut sila ng “Basta! ERAP forever.” Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
When I received the data diskette for the Ides of March 2000 survey, tinignan ko agad ang ERAP:1, ERAP:2, ERAP:3 at ERAP:4. Ang resulta, lumala pa. Dumami ang nag-admit na ibinoto nila si ERAP - 42% noon, 47% ngayon. Dumami ang hindi na boboto sa kanya - 40% noon, 42% ngayon. Dumami ang nag-aalangan na sa kanya - 26% noon, 29% ngayon. At umunti ang ERAP forever, ang boboto pa sa kanya - 34% noon, 29% ngayon.
At ang nakapagtataka, mas matindi pang mag-evaluate ang ERAP:2, ang hindi na boboto, kaysa ERAP:1, ang hindi bumoto. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata. A comparison of means of ERAP-related variables: March 2000.
Nang lumabas ang data for the July 2000 survey, nakabawi nang kaunti si ERAP. From May 1999 through September through December to the Ides of March 2000, bumabagsak, pero bumabagal ang pagbagsak. But from March to July 2000, umangat nang kaunti.
Ang sabi ng iba, “rebound” daw ‘yan. Rebound nga ba? Ewan ko. Pero sa akin, ang rebound, ‘yong tatalon ka nang mataas at maaagaw mo ang bola. Eh, dito, nakabig ka lang nang kaunti at napauldot ka. Rebound na ba ‘yan? Ewan. Kaya naman noong Monday November 6th, nang lumabas sa Inquirer ang resulta ng isang October survey, hindi sa Pulse Asia, at 29% lang ang pabor sa resignation ni ERAP, at 44% ang hindi pabor, parang hindi ako makapaniwala.
Ang general context ko noon ay ganito: 58% ang hindi bumoto kay ERAP; 17% ang itinitakwil na siya; 11% ang nag-aalangan; at 14% lang ang ERAP forever. Pagkatapos, 29% lang ang pabor, at 44% ang hindi pabor?
Kung sa bagay, kung talagang 14% ang ERAP forever, 30% na lang ang kailangan para umabot sa 44% ang hindi pabor. At ang 30% na ‘yan, maaaring manggaling sa 58% na hindi bumoto sa kanya, lalo na doo
n sa maaaring takot sa gulo, doon sa ang gusto ay “business as usual”, at doon din sa 11% na nag-aalangan pa lang. Siguro nga, maaaring noong October 28th, the mid-date of this survey na hindi sa Pulse Asia, talagang 29% lang ang pabor at 44% ang hindi pabor.
Pero … naman naman naman…. This Juetengate: We have to understand Juetengate as a process. And a process always devolops over time, usually over a long period of time.
Halimbawa, doon sa America: How long did it take from Watergate to Nixon’s resignation? O kaya’y dito sa Pilipinas: How long did it take from Ninoy’s assassination to Marcos’s expulsion? And Juetengate has just begun. By October 30th, it had not even been a month.
To use an analogy which may prove appropriate to ERAP: As a process, Juetengate is a movie, the movie in ERAP’s mind, and not a photograph or a movie still.
Viewed in this light, it is obvious that the survey, na hindi sa Pulse Asia, presented its results as a photograph, as a movie still, rather than as a snippet of frames from the movie in ERAP’s mind.
As a process, Juetengate is also a journey. And at this early stage of the journey, what is important is not where the people are, but in what direction they are moving. Are they headed towards a change in the presidency, whether by death, by permanent disability, by resignation or by impeachment, all of which, Justice Isagani A. Cruz assures us, are constitutionally valid means of vacating the presidency? Or are they headed towards the prolonged incumbency of an incompetent and, if you believe Singson, graft-and-corruption-ridden lord of all jueteng lords?
In terms of the usual survey variables, over the survey time: Did the people’s approval of ERAP’s performance as President improve, or deteriorate, or remain unchanged? Did the people’s trust or confidence in ERAP rise, or fall, or remain constant? As regards Juetengate itself, are the people getting more and more inclined to believe ERAP rather than Singson, or Singson rather than ERAP?
And the survey, na hindi sa Pulse Asia, presented a movie still of the beginning of a journey, not the journey itself, not a snippet of frames from its movie. Furthermore, this survey, na hindi sa Pulse Asia, was silent on the direction of the journey, silent about whether it is headed towards a change in the presidency, or towards the prolonged incumbency of the lord of all jueteng lords.
Some malevolent spirits can construe this silence as mis-information, and if deliberate, as dis-information. But whether mis-information or dis-information or neither, undeniably, it altered the political climate in the country.
Imagine…. Isang eksena: Now that he has publicly admitted that his lawyer did accept the P200 million, and his lawyer has confirmed this, ERAP’s lawyers are trying to convince him that it will be more prudent to resign rather than risk conviction on the impeachment charges. And in reply, ERAP insists, “Ano bang resign-resign? Nahihibang na ba kayo? Ayan, tignan niyo. Ayon sa survey, 29% lang ang in favor at 44% ang against. Nakakalamang pa ako ng 15%.”
In fairness to this survey, na hindi sa Pulse Asia, I doubt whether they intended either to mis-inform or to dis-inform. I suspect, and this is just my suspicion, it just did not occur to them that their survey data, though limited to a five-day period, could have been subjected to a time-analysis, and therefore the results could have been presented as a snippet of frames from a movie, rather than as a movie still.
At any rate, this direction of where the people are headed is precisely the point at issue in this time-analysis entitled “ERAP in Pulse Asia 2000-10″.
The analysis is simplicity itself: First, get an overview. Over the long period of time from May 1999 to October 2000, how has ERAP’s performance rating been changing?
From May 1999 through September through December to March 2000, bumabagsak, pero bumabagal ang pagbagsak. From March to July 2000, umangat nang kaunti, pero hindi nag-rebound. From July to October 2000, nag-peak, … at bumagsak, … at pabilis n
ang pabilis ang patuloy na pagbagsak. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Having verified na pabagsak nga, what next? “Zoom in” on the brief period of the survey itself, i.e., October 16-20, using DATE = the date of the interview as the independent variable.
1. Identify certain ERAP-related variables: ERAP’s performance rating, on a scale of -2 to +2; ERAP’s trust rating, on a scale of -2 to +2; the people’s belief that the ERAP administration is doing all it can for the country, on a scale of -2 to +2; ERAP’s credibility in Juetengate vis-a-vis Singson, on a scale of -1 to +1; the people’s agreement with the call for a change in the presidency, on a scale of -2 to +2. By the way, one of the things I admire about Pepe’s questionnaire is its refusal to distinguish among leave of absence, resignation and impeachment. In other words, without saying so explicitly, Pepe insisted that the point at issue is the end, a change in the presidency, rather than the means, whether by death, by permanent disability, by resignation, by impeachment or by leave of absence.
2. Verify whether for each DATE of the survey, you have enough data points: Out of 1200 data points, for October 16, dalawa lang; for October 30, labing-anim lang. Pero, sige na rin; isama na rin natin ang simula at dulo, kahit kakaunti lang ang data points nito. Anyway, sa computer naman, you can do anything you please, as long as you understand what you’re doing.
3. Perform a simple linear regression on each ERAP-related variable vs DATE. Simple linear regression will show whether over the period October 16-30 of the survey, the ERAP-related variables are rising, … or falling, … or unchanging.
And the results are devastating:Ang performance rating ni ERAP, pabagsak. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ang trust rating ni ERAP, pabagsak. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ang belief in the ERAP administration, pabagsak. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ang credibility in Juetengate, pabagsak. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Ang agreement with the call for a change, pataas. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
Once more, with feeling: Ang performance rating ni ERAP, pabagsak. Ang trust rating ni ERAP, pabagsak. Ang belief in the ERAP administration, pabagsak. Ang credibility ni ERAP sa Juetengate, pabagsak. Ang agreement with the call for a change, pataas. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
At hindi lang ‘yan. As regards ERAP’s performance rating, for instance: If you compare the rate of fall in October 2000 with the rate of fall in May 1999 when ERAP first fell from grace, the rate of fall ngayon is more than four times the rate of fall noon, more than four times. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.
But Sir, nambobola kayo. Kitang-kita naman natin sa table na ang regression coefficient ng ERAPRF, ang liit, -0.027 lang ngayon, whereas ang rate of fall noon, ayon dito sa equations, ang laki, -0.573 noon. ‘Yang maliit, ipinalalabas ninyong more than four times ng malaki? Ano ba ‘yan?
Yes, but you forget that ‘yong noon ay rate of fall per survey quarter, i.e., every three months, 0.573 ang ibinabagsak, whereas ‘yong ngayon ay rate of fall per day, i.e., araw-araw, 0.027 ang ibinabagsak. And to convert a rate of fall in units per day to a rate of fall in units per survey quarter, you multiply the rate per day by the number of days in a survey quarter, i.e., 3×30 or 90.
To conclude: At this moment, as an individual and not as a Pulse Asia Director, am I bothered by the fact that towards the end of October 2000, only 29% of the people seemed to agree with the call for ERAP’s resignation, and 44% seemed to disagree?
Well, yes and no.
Yes, I’m bothered … because these results tell me that as a people, we are much too forgiving. How often has it happened in our recent past that … nandaya sa election, pinatawad; nangurakot, pinatawad na naman; ipinahiya tayo sa buong mundo, pinatawad pa rin. Ano ba? Parati na lang ba tayong madadala sa awa-awa?
And no, I’m not bothered at all … because I realize that these figures represent nothing more than a movie still fr
om the opening scene of “Juetengate”, the movie in ERAP’s mind. But if we project a few more frames of “Juetengate” … in beautiful slow motion if you please, then not only will we see the direction in which the people are heading, we will also be amazed at the speed with which they’re moving.
I would now like to apologize to anyone who was expecting a high-tech briefing by Pepe, replete with charts and tables and numbers and figures in Microsoft Powerpoint for Windows 2000. What I just presented, at times in more colorful language than Pepe would have used, are merely highlights of this paper entitled “ERAP in Pulse Asia 2000-10″, which I authored. Many will probably find this paper too technical; for this reason,
I tried to lighten my low-tech presentation. Hanggan dito na lang, at marami pong salamat.
