Undivided service or none

By Egay Uy

ELBERT Hubbard, a philosopher, author and a publisher, said in Get Out or Get in Line (Selected Writings of Elbert Hubbard): “If you work for a man, in heaven’s name work for him! If he pays you wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him––speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and stand by the institution he represents.

“I think if I worked for a man I would work for him. I would not work for him a part of the time, and the rest of the time work against him. I would give an undivided service or none. If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.” Translated into a scenario where work has to be done for the city, in heaven’s name, let’s all work for the welfare of the greater majority. It’s the people who are paying the wages of the public servants, hence by all means we should work for what is good for the taxpayers, not what is good for, or dictated by, one man or one group.

Work started by one that has brought positive changes to many deserves to be supported rather than obstructed. Sadly, that is not how some others see things. On the contrary, positive work done by somebody must be derailed so the obstructionists’ own selfish agenda can be put forward.
••
What could be the main reason for the repeal of the sharing law by the city council that’s dominated by the group that passed it years ago?

Is it the clamor of road users to end the aggressive implementation of the laws and rules on traffic? Is it the clamor of a certain sector of the city that was allegedly hit hard by the implementation of the traffic code of 2007?

Or is it just part of a game plan to further cripple the administration of Mayor Oscar Moreno?  In repealing the sharing law, the oftepeated reason then was the indiscriminate apprehension done by the traffic enforcers of the RTA so they could later receive huge amounts as their share in the traffic fines.

While the proponents of the repeal only mentioned the RTA, they were also referring to all those who were entitled to the sharing law proceeds which includes the traffic police officers of the Cocpo, the dedicated volunteers who spent hours on the road just to help restore order to the streets, and to the other deputized traffic enforcers.

If the intention of one councilor was to give the incentives instead to the barangay police, then was the repeal the answer? Not even a simplistic view will provide a yes answer. It looks more complicated that it appears.