Is Bunye licking his saliva on polls?

Earlier, Bunye said: This nation will not move forward on the weight of polls. It is a clear plan for the nation and the determination to carry it out that will make the difference.

But lately, SWS released a report stating it was commissioned by Malacanang to conduct survey on four test items. The results of that same survey were released last Sunday by the Philipine Information Agency. Does this mean Malacanang is eating its own filth on surveys?

In a way, yes. But the palace is always like that -- saying something but doing another. Orwellian doubletalk?

But more than this, the survey test statements were so designed for PR or propaganda purposes. All of them are ambiguous and are composed of several statements rolled into one. The result: elucidating a response from a poor and hapless victim-respondent an affirmative answer.

The test statements, as dissected, are as follows:

Test Statement 1. "Ang mga miyembro ng oposisyon laban kay Pangulong Arroyo ay dapat nang magsimulang tumulong upang bumuti ang kalagayan ng ekonomiya at ihinto na ang sobrang pamumulitika" (The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy and stop too much politics),

The test statement has two parts: (1)The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should start helping to improve the economy, and (2) The members of the opposition against President Arroyo should stop too much politics. What Laylo, the pollster of Gloria in the Palace, did is to combine the two statements into one sentence that if a respondent is not keen, or is not closely paying attention to the interviewer (which is the usual thing because respondents are doing something while answering their guest-interviewers), the answer will definitely be yes. It should be stressed that helping to improve the economy is different from stopping too much politics.

Test Statement 2 "Anuman ang nangyari noong eleksyon ay tapos na at panahon na para isantabi ito at hayaan ang pangulo na pagtuunan ang mga tunay na problema ng bansa" (Whatever happened in the elections is over and it is time to move on and let the president focus on the real problems of the nation).

Again, the statement is a combination of multiple statements. These are as follows: (1) Whatever happened in the elections is over; (2) it is time to move on (3) let the president focus on the real problems of the nation. The elections is over, no doubt. It is time to move on, really. And who doesn't want to move on? Generally, nobody, right? And lastly, the president should focus on the real problems of the nation. All of these will elucidate affirmative responses. But the most crucial part is the third one: the president should focus on the real problems of the nation. Did the test statement laid out the qualifications for the phrase "real problems of the nation"? Well, it seems not. Even the SWS is silent about it. What if the respondent thinks the real problem is the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration? And that question of legitimacy needs to be addressed because it prevents us from moving forward? Will not the respondent agree to the test-statement because his only choice is to agree or to disagree?

Test statement 3: (c) "Tama ang plano ni Pangulong Arroyo para sa bansa at ekonomiya ngunit hindi ito umuusad nang kasing bilis sa inaasahan ng karaniwang mamamayan" (President Arroyo has the right plan for the nation and the economy but it is not moving fast enough as expected by the average citizen)

How should we expect the respondent to answer this test statement then? If the stress is given to the phrases "plano ni Pangulong Arroyo para sa bansa at ekonomiya" and "hindi ito umuusad nang kasing bilis sa inaasahan ng karaniwang mamamayan", the answer will, of course, be on the affirmative.

Simply put, the statement is again divisible into several parts: Does the respondent know that Arroyo has plans for the nation? Does the respondent know that Arroyo has plans for the economy? What are the plans that the respondents know? Which plans do the respondents think are right? Which are not? Are the plans being implemented? Is the implementation as fast as what an average citizen thinks?

Test Statement 4: "Dapat bigyan ng pagkakataon na ipakita ng mga kumpanya sa pagmimina na posibleng mapangalagaan ang kapaligiran habang nagbibigay ng kinakailangang dagdag na trabaho sa bansa" (Mining companies should be given a chance to show that it is possible to protect the environment even as they offer the needed jobs to the country).

This, again is leading. it is composed of several parts: That mining companies be given a chance; that mining companies should be allowed to provide jobs; and that for mining companies it is possible to protect the environment.

First, the statement is an appeal to the emotion and character of the Filipinos hence many agreed that "mining companies should be given a chance." Second, Who doesn't want job, anyway?If the respondent is a jobless person, he might focus on the term habang nagbibigay ng kinakailangang dagdag na trabaho sa bansa. In a sense he will agree to give the mining companies a chance. The same with the statement, "to show that it is possible to protect the environment" especially if the respondent is concerned on the environment. But the issue is "When, specifically, will the companies protect the environment?" Did the test statement captured that?

We can further digest these statements and test for fallacies but i guess these are already enough for the moment to show how Malacanang is trying to manipulate the surveys to serve its purpose. And to note, it is, at the same time, trying to to destroy the credibility of SWS by using it as an instrument of elucidating dubious results for propaganda purposes.

And SWS is allowing it to happen?