You’re not looking at the big picture,” said someone who was giving advice.
What is almost always meant by that little piece of counsel is that one can only understand a situation by looking at its entirety sans the details that caused its existence in the first place.
Skipping the little building-block details is quite often a result of the scarcity of time.
“Go straight to the point. We have no time for little things,” say most people.
That is often heeded, too, but not without detriment to something. What they should really be saying instead is, “Make time to discuss the details, but don’t lose the big picture.”
Time–that’s what drives the haste that takes away thoroughness. In certain situations, yes, that would be true; yet, some other situations demand details to be addressed with equal regard and grip.
Political candidates are, even now, revving up their engines, smoking their tires for better traction, hoping to pull out of the starting stalls way ahead of the competition.
What is it they declare to the people? Well, they often say how they would solve problems that will, from the gist of their statements, occur during their term, should they win, of course.
So much energy is expended on conjured-up problems (the big picture) that no time is left to talk about the current problems (the details).
No matter how you put this, they would probably be able to weasel their way out clean. We need them to explain their plans to address the problems that now exist, and have seemingly always existed in the City.
Why should we care about “problems” that are not bothering us? How would you like your dentist to pull your child’s teeth now because he thinks they will eventually go bad, and would have to be pulled anyway? Would he be helping solve problems or creating them? Is it his attempt at being impressive?
Even if I were a psychologist of world renown, I would not be able to size up our politicians enough to be of any help to the voters. There is simply too much cunning that we can’t easily see the depth of their intentions.
I, for one, cannot be easily swayed by mere words when there really is no proof now or ever that any one of them has ever been thorough enough in what they do for us.
Every cake was half baked, and offered boastfully as the best there is.
Even planning and executing projects that are obviously part of their jobs are touted as extraordinary achievements, instead of simply the accomplishment of a job.
I guess the question I would like to ask here is this: Can they be capable of giving us projects that are worth every centavo of taxpayer’s money spent, without shortcuts and without leaving us to doubt their integrity?
I would like to believe they could be capable of that, if not for certain weird and strange things that, with enough attention to detail, anyone should be able to see. After all, you cannot question what you haven’t seen.
Recently, I came across a sight, something inconsequential-looking but something that deserves to be questioned. I guess I may be just too meticulous sometimes that I tend to look (not for faults, mind you) where others don’t, and then ask the why’s, when’s, who’s, how’s, etc.
I saw this bright street lamp at Silliman Beach, at the corner where the extension of Flores Avenue ends and turns west to Silliman Park. It is so much brighter than most City street lamps. It is also mounted on a tree, instead of a lamp post. 
It looked strange enough to be a City lamp, so I asked the lady that runs the corner store if she had installed the lamp. Even more strange was her answer: It was actually installed by the City.
Now, why would the City install a street lamp on a tree?
Let’s not even discuss the dangers associated with installing a street lamp on a tree but rather, the reasons that made the City approve of such an installation!
The lady said she had actually complained about the lamp being on the tree like that, but that her complaints were sort of suppressed by certain individuals belonging to the association of vendors lining Chizstik Country.
Why try to hush up someone’s valid complaint?
This street lamp should have been installed on a post, and because there were no existing posts in the desired area, one should have been installed for the purpose. 
I am not familiar with the local safety codes, but I am sure they exist. The government has enough guidelines and codes, we all know that. I do not believe there was no request from someone to have this light installed because it had to be an expense, and government expenditures must always have approval.
And if this had City/barangay approval, they must have known there is no post there, so the installation of one must have been included in the budget for it.
It is hard to believe that the City/barangay would give the signal for such an installation–ON A TREE! Was the cost of the post alone significant enough and worth swiping? By installing the light on the tree, quite obviously, the need for a post no longer existed.
So, where’d the money go?
This is one little thing about a street lamp, but I believe this goes a long way in sizing up the kind of officials we have, and even the system of checks and balances our government has.
If they can tolerate little leaks, how and why should we believe they can, and will plug bigger ones on their say-so alone?
I don’t know how many other lamps simply dangle from trees in this City. I haven’t scoured the entire City, but the government should have already done that, if only to correct them.
But that will never happen if we know our City officials.
The way things are leaves all of us futilely wanting change.
While we thrash about to find it, political aspirants want us to believe they are the answer.
Well, for me, anyone of them who is willing to and can keep his attention on both the big picture and the little seemingly-insignificant details would probably make for the best choice to effect meaningful changes in our dear City. Good luck to us in finding such a candidate!
_____________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
