Amid the simultaneous price hikes of basic necessities, fares for passenger vehicles also soared higher than they were before, making life harder for the daily commuters on account of their day-to-day routines.
As the public transport operators and drivers would have it, it’s the big increases in oil prices that triggered their demands for fare hikes. It’s the culprit, actually, that explains why the prices of other services and commodities had soared high. Fuel prices dictate the cost of other essentials to human existence.
But while this argument of transport operators and drivers makes sense, there seems to be a problem with their hike demands. First, they ask for a fixed amount for the fares based on distances. This is quite inappropriate because the prices of oil, which they blame on their demands, are not fixed but fluctuate. Sometimes they go up; sometimes they go down, to the advantage of these drivers.
Another is that when the fuel prices decrease, their fares remain high. And even if said prices go down further, their fare rates remain the same. That’s unfair. Supposedly, their fare rates should also go down every time the prices of oil decrease. But no, they don’t anymore bother to change those rates though the oil products go cheaper.
As a result, sectors that earn low and those that earn nothing at all are heavily burdened by costly trips to various destinations. Classic examples are the students and the elderly. They earn nothing, yet they spend much on transportation fares. Government agencies tasked to look into this matter should wake up and activate. It’s their job to help the riding public.
Excessive demands
Far from simply having a dialogue, the concerned lawmakers in Congress have been debating on the controversial SOGIE Bill, suggesting that it dwells on highly sensitive matters consisting of rights, privileges, and prohibitions.
What really is the issue, in plain words? Well, it’s about a group of people, the LGBTQ and all, who are basically seeking to prohibit discrimination among their ranks, hence their lobbying behind this bill. But in addition, they are said to be riding on this bill to address their needs and to achieve their desires with the backing hopefully of the law, via legislation in Congress and the Senate.
Should the bill get signed into law as it is, however, many people claim it would be disadvantageous and even dangerous to selected sectors and individuals. Some provisions of the bill are being cited as suppressive of religious freedom, harmful to family structure, and obstructive of other people’s freedom. The LGBTQ empowerment and protection sought by the bill are accordingly excessive, quarrelsome, and punitive.
For these reasons, this bill is languishing and lingering in Congress as the opposing lawmakers are making sure the welfare of the majority prevails. Because whether we believe it or not, the majority of people still do not agree with all the things that the LGBTQ groups desire to do and have. Recognition and acceptance are something, but prohibiting others from adhering to what they have traditionally upheld is another.
The saying: “Your freedom ends when the freedom of another begins” doubtless applies here. One cannot just be asserting rights that, in the process, will consequently deprive others of more established entitlements. For instance, it is the right and obligation of parents to guide and protect their young children at home. If we prevent them from supporting and maintaining the biological identity of their children, then we are messing with the moral right of the bigger sector of society.
When we accommodate the wishes and caprices of the few, that could become a precedent for other groups with similar, unique desires. Our country already recognizes and tolerates people who derive sexual pleasure from the same sex. Demand for such recognition could have a domino effect. Likely, other groups could assert similar privileges and recognition for their unique sexual attraction to children, animals, the dead, etc.
As regards discrimination, this could be experienced by everyone, not just by the members of the LGBTQ. Discriminatory treatments could be a consequence of one’s choices. If one chose to be a prostitute for livelihood, then one should be ready for such treatment. She may demand for acceptance and recognition, but to seek for rights to sue in court those who ridicule her for her choice, that’s another story because, in the first place, nobody had forced her to choose that option.
While the LGBTQ community is seeking to ensure their rights and privileges, they should also consider that the people around them have their own rights, needs, and demands. No need for anyone to be overacting, overly demanding, and excessively self-centered. This is an opinion, anchored on the freedom of the press, or freedom of expression.