Why the spike in injuries in 2007? Detailed analysis of the data is not yet publicly available. Thus explanations at this point are likely to be inadequate and will require more supporting information. However, there a number of observations that can be made to cite possible reasons for the unusually high number of fireworks (including firearms) injuries this year.

A reason commonly cited by health officials is that the high numbers are simply a reflection of better reporting from hospitals and other health facilities. This was the reason given when the figures were higher than expected in the New Year of 1999 when some key private hospitals joined the reporting system of the DOH. The fact is that this expanded system has now been in place for eight years and cannot be invoked to explain the 2007 spike.

DOH watchers have noted that a high profile, intensive campaign to reduce individual use of fireworks as well as production of the more dangerous kinds did not seem to have been in place until after Christmas 2006. The dangers posed by "boga", the new PVC bazooka-like cannon that has been in use for about three years, were not anticipated, resulting in a rather hasty and very late banning of the device by the PNP just a few days before New Year’s Eve.

The apparent lack of preparation on the part of government agencies involved indicates that planning for the "Iwas Paputok" campaign was at best begun too late, probably well into the Christmas season. This is in contrast to the original campaign of 1992 when planning for fireworks-injury prevention started just weeks after the appointment of a new secretary of health in June.

A more serious observation is that the majority of the injuries occurred in impoverished shanty-town communities of the big cities. An overwhelming number of these were cared for by public hospitals. This is to be expected in a country where the rich have the luxury of access to sophisticated fireworks displays and other means of celebrating the New Year, while the poor have to make do with cheap, low-quality, and often harmful devices to express their hopes for improvement in the incoming year.

A reasonable wish for the year 2007 therefore is that, in this light, the present government will ensure that health action plans are in place well in advance for events where the most likely to be adversely affected are the poor masses of Filipinos. This can come about only if social policies are truly grounded in "pro-poor" values and are not just slogans and sound-bites – for "PR" effect and voting-image purposes only.

Yet another example of reactive management and adhocracy is the way the Arroyo administration bungled the Subic rape case. There is no question that the Visiting Forces Agreement, whose ratification by the Senate was strongly supported by the Estrada government, is a flawed document. But all treaties between countries, because the signatories each have their own agenda, are by nature imperfect. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details" – the actual implementation of specific provisions under the undefined conditions of real events.

In the case of the United States, their agenda has always been clear, although sometimes disguised by invoking the cute idea of "special relations" with gullible Filipinos. The objective of the VFA is and will continue to be the protection and advancement of American interests as a country and of Americans as individual citizens working for that cause.

The Philippines has the misfortune of having a government whose agenda does not reflect the values of its people. Because of its lack of commitment to women’s rights and reproductive health, the government position vacillated in the face of its anxiety that US military assistance may be at risk and its fear of the negative image that results from sacrificing a Filipino victim’s concerns.

Once again, the incident has demonstrated that public policies that are not firmly grounded on shared values will flounder for lack of guiding principles. The human aspects of persons involved are labeled as merely emotional reactions – of very low priority compared to the high stakes of "state security" and the superior value of foreign agreements (according to some "Filipino" newspapers closely linked to American diplomatic circles).

Another reasonable wish for the future then is that our foreign policy should also take into account a notion suggested by paraphrasing a remark made by a congressman from the south during the debates on the Generics Law in 1987 – "when it comes to the health and honor of Filipino women, we should be emotional."