Blame-game syndrome

Information Technology is in the news again — this time of a different nature. I’m referring to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Information System set up by Stradcom Corporation which has been getting the flak for doing what it has been authorized to do.

My informed source says the LTO-IT system of Stradcom, begun in 2003, is in fact “heaven-sent to drivers and motor vehicle owners as it reduced the processing time of driver’s licenses to one to two hours from the standard three to six months, as well as the processing of motor vehicle registrations.”

Because of this system, motorists no longer have to wait for days just to get their licenses or have their vehicles registered. I for one get my license and car registration like in a jiffy now, unlike in the past.

There is a complaint of license cards fading, as my card has faded, too — but the reader must note that the contractor for such a card is not Stradcom, but another contractor.

The LTO-IT system is a build-operate-own (BOO) project. The contractor, Stradcom, shoulders the full cost of setting up the computerized network, including the continuous upgrading of computers, programs and associated equipment.

A charge being leveled against Stradcom is that it is making a killing from the P168 processing fee per transaction. But my source says considering that the company has to recoup its investment of P4 billion in the short time of its BOO contract, the P168 fee is a reasonable price to pay.

Actually, when NEDA’s Investment Coordination Committee (NEDA-ICC) laid down the ground rules of the project’s bidding, it put a maximum fee of P300 that a provider of the LTO-IT may charge, and this can be increased by 10 percent every year.

“Stradcom bested four other bidders because it submitted the lowest fee to be charged each customer at P120, which was far below the P300 NEDA-ICC ceiling,” my source said. “At the same time, Stradcom merely increased by 8 percent its fee, so much so that it is only P168 at present, five years after initial implementation of the project. The fact that Stradcom did not charge the maximum 10 percent interest for those five years speaks volumes about its social responsibility.”

Three other charges being raised are: 1) the LTO offices are not being electronically interconnected, and 2) the manual processing of licenses and registrations during power outages and computer downtimes, and 3) why Stradcom keeps its equipment after its contract with the LTO.

On the first, Stradcom says all LTO offices are now interconnected.

On the second, LTO does not stop processing licenses and registration just because of a power shortage. “But the thing is that the few manually processed documents are also uploaded to the computers of the LTO-IT system, so the claim that consumers should not be charged computer fees does not make sense.”

As to the third issue, the system is a BOO contract, and, aside from the fact that computers have high rates of obsolescence, the government, says my source, would not have any use for such computers at their end-of-life stage.

To cite an example, after the build-operate-transfer (BOT), the Social Security System computerization system was transferred to the SSS at the end of the BOT contract. The system has been moving at a snail pace because the government does not have the funds nor expertise to continuously update the said system.

What’s happening is evidently a blame-game syndrome.

*      *      *

As you well know by now, I am for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. But in the interest of fairness, I am reproducing here the contrary view emailed to me by Meldy Fider.

“Even now some pervert teachers in the public school system are using this bill to expose their genitals to school children in the disguise of teaching them how to put on a condom! This is the report we got from elementary children we tutor in the depressed areas! I think you need to see for yourself the quality of our teachers (who cannot even pass English tests) in the public schools and decide if you would allow them to teach OUR children or grandchildren.

“I am amazed at your optimism in the POPCOM or DepEd being able to accomplish this task — head of NEDA, the likes of Neri? Can you blame the people if they believe it all boils down to money? Remember, moderate the greed? It is bad enough that they destroy our country, now they want to get into the minds of our children and destroy them! By the way, sex education is already being taught in high school — I don’t think lowering the age of exposure will help much, maybe even spark more interest in sex at an earlier age.”

*      *      *

Here’s an e-mail from Texas. (They read me overseas, too, eh?) This one is from a mother, Zenaida Curo. “I agree with what you wrote, and I’d like to share my experience on sex education. I live in Houston, and my two kids, now ages 17 (son) and 15 (daughter) attended such awareness-classes as early as 9 years old (in 4th grade). The kids today reach their puberty earlier than we parents did. My daughter had her period at 10 years old! I had mine at 14 . . . This is how they did it in school. Consent letters were sent out by the school for parents to sign if they wanted their elementary-aged (starting at 4th grade) kids to attend this class. Parents who thought their kids were not ready could have their kids attend the class the next year. Separate classes for boys and girls, of course. The class topics included personal hygiene, like the use of deodorants, etc. . . In Middle School (6th, 7th and 8th grades), and high school (9th, 10th, 11th and 12th), sex education was part of their PE. I always signed the permission slips. I was so glad somebody else was doing the teaching for me.”

*      *      *

My e-mail:[email protected]