It wasn’t difficult to agree with your editorial about Naga City Mayor Jesse M. Robredo’s move of “taking away” the P500 monthly “performance incentive” that his office used to give to each of the members of the city’s police force for “jobs well done”. Why, indeed, should our taxpayers continue to foot the bill for “undeserving” law enforcers?

        Personal perception would have it that police performance on crimes (petty or otherwise) in this “maogmang ciudad” or elsewhere has been far from being remarkable. More often than not, police action ends up in virtual dead ends - the police blotters and media reports. And despite the “existence” of anti-smoking and a lot more anti-something ordinances, including ancient rules on road safety and courtesy, culprits would still go their way as if there isn’t any force (police visibility?) to reckon with.

        But on second thought, will the “taking away” of such trifle stipend help boost the already battered morale and induce “better performance” among the government work force, particularly the low-paid and exploited ranks?

        Take the case of this city’s public school teachers. Some two years back, their P350 monthly cost of living allowance (COLA) was transformed into some “performance incentive bonus” (PIB) by the “re-invented” City School Board chaired by the good mayor. Having made the results of the “National Achievement Tests” (NAT) that come out only once a year as basis for the payment, the timely and full release of the said allowance has been unnecessarily jeopardized. Where before the teachers received, albeit irregularly, their COLA for four quarters each year, recently it looks they have no choice but to “perform better” despite their PIB getting released on piece-meal basis and so late that quite many teachers had already retired sans having received their full entitlements for 2004 and 2005.

        And with the poor state of education in the country, largely attributed to “non-performing” or “poorly trained” teachers, plus their perceived complacency and uncomplaining nature, it would seem to be not surprising if their measly allowances be gradually or eventually “taken away”.

        But, our multi-awarded city mayor shouldn’t be taken to task for “taking away” certain employee allowances. Such a move could be some “cost effective” expertise engrained in his style of governance that has gained him world-wide recognition. By discontinuing or reducing entitlements of some “non-performing” state employees, any local administration could be just exercising its prerogative or merely apt to something better: saving millions of much-needed public funds.

        One could only wish that correspondingly something drastic is being done to reduce, if not “take away”, the excessive and undeserved benefits (read: pork barrel and perks) of most congressmen, senators and other public officials who may have deserved anything but having themselves called “honorable” or “gentlemen”. Such an Herculean task, if politically willed and seriously undertaken, would have generated funds at least enough to provide better livelihood and wage opportunities, and quality education and health services for our long suffering masses.

        But then all this is not there is to it. Where, or to what better uses, will possible “savings” derived from any cut in some state workers’ allowances and perks go? Will they lead to really addressing such perennial or vexing problems as shortages in classrooms, textbooks, well-trained teachers, well-equipped hospitals and qualified health workers? Will they be used to build good roads and bridges or at least repair existing facilities lying in wretched condition elsewhere, particularly in the countryside?

        Or, God forbid, would such revenues help in directly or indirectly producing even more crooks and lots of uncomplaining, hapless and helpless morons in our midst?

MANUEL A. COLLAO, via e-mail