PITY the politicians. They’ve all filed their certificates of candidacy and now have to wait for the official campaign period to begin before promoting themselves. This may seem a good thing for them — because they can avoid spending — but wait! Christmas is just around the corner! And no politician can escape spending for Christmas.

Pity the politicians.

I’ve actually wondered why filing has to be done so early when everything should be electronic these days. If we could set filing in the middle of January, then these poor folks get to avoid being visited by their constituents during the holidays. Well, I guess they can’t prevent constituents from dropping by and singing carols but they can opt not to be home when that happens.

So imagine filing in January, say the 15th, with the Comelec announcing the names of those they deem as qualified to run by the end of January. That’s still enough time for campaigning if the elections are to be held in May and solves the issues caused by having declared but non-campaigning candidates when Santa Claus comes to town.

Pity the politicians.

At least in America, they get to avoid this. Party primaries happen in March, April, May June sometimes even July, with conventions in July and August, and elections in November — way long before Christmas. Very practical timetable if you ask me. But the same can’t be said about the Philippines, we who have a penchant for making simple things complicated or stretching things out. See how our version of the Oscars can stretch into the wee hours of the morning. Or beauty pageants end at 3 a.m., even those held in small towns to commemorate fiestas.

The same goes with the election season, stretched and elongated when it shouldn’t be.

In America, while “Election Day” is the second Tuesday of November, voting has actually begun. More than a million mail-in ballots have been released in many states, including the so-called battleground states of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Georgia. In Georgia, over 300,000 ballots have been mailed, breaking old records. And while mail-in ballots are usually Democratic, even Republicans have requested mail-in ballots for 2024 so it’s too early to tell whether the heavy turnout will be good for one party or the other.

Mail-in ballots will be a strange idea for Filipinos because we are so used to one big holiday on Election Day and take advantage of the break to go on a trip after voting, or to hang around polling stations to watch the count. In contrast, Election Day in the US is never a holiday, and that’s why if buyers can vote early and by mail, they do so.

Obviously, they trust their mail system, yes?

It’s decision time for America, while it will be ours seven months from today. There’s reason to pity the Filipino politicians who will now be the target of the “namamaskong” voters this Xmas season. But life has a way of evening things out: you see, after decision time, it will be time to pity the voters because the winners will put self-interest above all else!

‘Will we ever see ourselves in the people we vote for, and therefore take far more time and care in considering the implications of our vote?’

IN three weeks, close to 200 million Americans will have trooped to the polls to elect their 47th president. If Republican Donald Trump wins, he will only be the second president in US history to serve two non-consecutive terms in office. The first and only one to have done so was (Stephen) Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) who was the 22nd and 24th president;

Cleveland lost his reelection campaign in 1888 to Republican Benjamin Harrison despite winning the popular vote. Trump, who was president #45, will be the first Republican and only the second ex-president to achieve this feat if fate is kind.

On the other hand, should Kamala Harris be successful, she would only be the 16th vice president to become president and the seventh to ascend to the presidency by being elected on her own terms. Nine others ascended to the presidency because the president died in office: five by sickness, three by assassination and one by resignation.

More significantly though, Harris would be the first woman and the first of mixed race to ever become president.

As of this writing, Americans are deeply divided. This is not really recent, but what is recent is that the divide is no longer simply along partisan lines based on programs and principles; today the divide is along values, values that used to keep America united and in the leadership position of the Western democracies.

These days even the values that are critical to a working democracy — like fair play and “sportsmanship” — are challenged. For the first time in US history, you have a significant segment of the population supportive of the idea that a loser refuses to admit defeat and rejects a peaceful transition of power from one president to the next.

I do not know, though, whether democracy is in greater danger in the US or the Philippines. Trump aside, the two-party system remains robust with clear differentiation among the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans. I expect (hope?) that after Trump disappears from the political scene the Republican Party will find its way back and contribute to a healthy and constructive battle for the political soul of all Americans.

This is not how it is in the Philippine version of democracy. Here it is all about personalities, personalities, personalities. No one talks about policies, even about vision. Our democracy is founded on shallow expectations and, as a result, we get shallow leadership.

I’ve always wondered — will the Philippine electorate ever mature? Will we ever see ourselves in the people we vote for, and therefore take far more time and care in considering the implications of our vote? Will we ever ask our political wannabes what exactly they stand for and what their vision of a future 10 twenty or 50 years hence is? Or is our democracy condemned to be shallow forever because we ourselves are shallow?

We get the leaders we deserve, Jose Rizal warned us. Because democracy — at the bottom — is not so much about who our leaders are, but about who we — you and I — are.

‘… we Filipinos still do the stupid thing and vote separately for president and vice president, very often putting two people a heartbeat away who do not see eye-to-eye…’

NON-HISTORIANS closely following the US presidential elections — including the discussion on the Electoral College and whether this institution is still relevant — may not be aware that presidential elections were not always conducted this way.

While the Electoral College has always been a fixture of elections, the original manner of voting is not what we know it today.

Originally, the Electoral College would cast two votes, theoretically one for president and one for vice president. But they didn’t have a clear list of presidential and vice-presidential candidates to choose from. Instead, this is what happened: the presidential candidate who received the highest number of votes was elected president, and the vice-presidential candidate who received the second highest number of votes was elected vice president!

This was how George Washington was elected in 1789 with 69 out of the 72 electors, while John Adams, with the second highest tally of 34 electors, was chosen vice president.

In 1792, Washington received the maximum 132 electoral votes and Adams was again second with 77, and so they held on to the posts for another four years.

In 1795, Adams was elected president with 71 votes as a candidate of the Federalist Party, while the candidate of the newly-established Democrat-Republican party, Thomas Jefferson, with 68 votes, became vice president. In effect, the leader of the opposition was now vice president and one heartbeat away from the presidency.

During the election of 1800, Jefferson and Aaron Burr ended up tied — throwing the elections to the House of Representatives —which fueled the adoption of the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution clarifying that electors should choose a president and vice president separately, mainly to avoid the confusion of 1800 and, worse, the situation in 1796 where the US president had to work with the leader of the opposition who was sitting as vice president.

The Americans quickly widened up to the silliness of electing a president and a vice president from opposing sides of the political divide.

They wisened up in 1804. That was 220 years ago. Yet in this year of our Lord 2024 we Filipinos still do the stupid thing and vote separately for president and vice president, very often putting two people a heartbeat away who do not see eye-to-eye and have very different visions for a future.

Of course, a ticket can still be elected as a team in the Philippines but then they split apart as the UniTeam has shown. But this is a rarity, which can be cured by a second suggestion I will detail on Monday. For today’s purposes, however, I simply wish to argue that Philippine presidential elections should be all about tandems — we should always be voting for a ticket and in fact, it may be best if we make it clear that a vote for a presidential candidate is a vote for his vice-presidential candidate.

Split voting for president and vice president should be stopped. Americans realized how stupid it was to elect rivals as president and vice president — and they realized this 22 decades ago!

It’s time for the Philippines to follow suit. Tandems should matter.

‘… now that every candidate has passed his papers, let’s take time to assess each and every one of them before we commit our votes…’

AT 5 p.m. yesterday, the period for filing certificates of candidacy ended. Around the country, men and women aspiring for public office filed on the last day, sometimes because they decided late, sometimes as a tactic.

In the latter instance, filing at the last possible moment forces the hand of your opponent to reveal his cards early, giving you the last say. You get to know who is running for what position and which post you can select your opponent by choosing the position to run for.

And many pols did just that.

There were a couple of races I was watching.

First, for the Senate. Who would show up on the last day? Surprise, surprise! Apollo Quiboloy, the erstwhile anointed son of God, threw his hat into the ring to become just another in a long list of indicted men who have chosen to run for the Senate.

He joined earlier filers like incumbent Senators Bato dela Rosa and Bong Go, plus new senatorial wannabes, including Philip Salvador and Jimmy Bondoc, as part of the PDP Laban senate slate that is seen as “Team Duterte.”

Rumors have been flying that the former president was going to run for the Senate despite earlier filing to run for Davao Mayor; whatever he does, the PDP Laban will be hoping to bank on the Duterte “mystique” that made the former mayor of Davao a force to reckon with in Philippine national politics from 2016.

The polls will test whether that mystique is still formidable, a little over two years after he stepped down from office.

I was also keenly following the lineup for San Juan since friends are running for reelection. Mayor Francis Zamora is almost a shoo-in for his third and last term, while councilors James Yap and Paul Artadi are also virtually assured of a next term.

As for the lone district congressional seat, there were whispers that outgoing Sen. Grace Poe would challenge re-electionist Ysabel Zamora-Jornada but this didn’t materialize; the congresswoman is up against Jana Ejercito who, if my memory serves, ran in the last local elections and lost.

Finally, my eyes were also set on Taguig, ruled by the Cayetanos since 2010 when Ma. Laarni Lopez-Cayetano beat the machinery of the Tingas to win the mayoralty despite not being able to carry a majority of councilors. No problem; by the time her re-election came around in 2013, there was virtually no opposition in sight prepared to stand up against Mayor Lani.

Of late, however, there have been issues besetting the family to the extent that Lino Cayetano, the youngest of the Cayetano children of Rene and Sandra Schramm, gave up his mayoral seat in 2022 allegedly unwillingly.

This year, after being rumored to be running for mayor against his sister-in-law, the former director of hit teen shows on GMA7 and ABS-CBN chose not to mess up the family by doing so; he chose to run for congressman of the Taguig-Pateros district (a post once held by father Rene during the Batasang Pambansa days when the district included Muntinlupa).

But there was a wrinkle: the official Cayetano lineup included re-electionist Congressman Ading Cruz, a former vice mayor himself to Mayor Lani and a long-time Cayetano family friend and loyalist. This means that while Mayor Lino is not running against his sister-in-law and has in fact asked voters to support her, he is challenging the slate that his elder brother and sister-in-law put together.

I saw the Cayetanos “grow up,” having been the executive assistant of their father from 1984 to 1987, the tumultuous pre and post-EDSA Revolution years. And I’ve remained in touch with them through the years. So I have mixed emotions as I watch things unfold in Taguig, taking consolation in the fact that I am a registered voter in Laguna and will not have to be forced to take sides.

(How very Filipino of me, yes?)

Anyway, now that every candidate has passed his papers, let’s take time to assess each and every one of them before we commit our votes, ok?

‘We turn a blind eye when someone we know in public office commits a grievous error, even a crime…’

TOMORROW is the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy for the thousands of elective positions that are up for grabs come May 2025.

This early, we have been treated to a gallery of images of aspirants — from young ones and fresh faces to old names and just the old. There are the dreamed and idealists and there are the ex-cons; the refined and the uncouth; the educated and the less. Some can give you in five minutes a succinct reply to the question, “Why are you running?” and there are also those who even after being given one full day will not be able to fully explain why they are seeking public office.

Some are confident that all that matters is looks, and in many instances, they are right; but there are also those who take time to study and prepare for the office they seek to be elected to, and their constituents get rewarded in the process.

Amused as many of us are as we see this parade of names and faces — characters all — who have begun that three-year ritual of being nice to us voters and promising us the moon, I cannot escape the feeling that “unfit for democracy” is the label we all deserve. And when I say we I begin with us the voters and end with us the voters, with our political aspirants coming in between.

We lament the “rise” of political dynasties. But these political families can only offer themselves to us and it remains our choice as to whether to elect them or not. Unless they have a gun to our heads as we cast our votes, or have a way to steal our votes and change the outcome, by the time we enter the voting booth, ballot in hand, their fate as well as ours is precisely there — right in our hands.

If we lament the rise of political dynasties then we only prove that we the voters are unfit for democracy. Because under democracy it is we the voters who choose from the aspirants, and we are the voters who install and re-install those dynasties that we lament, time and time again.

We complain that some of our elected officials are ex-cons who have demonstrated a propensity to violate the law and try to get away with it if they can. Yet again, who put them there in the first place, and are still more than happy to send them back?

We are quick to bash political wannabes who cannot even explain clearly in whatever language they are comfortable with why they believe they will be a good public servant and what their platform of government is — and yet we do not mind giving them our vote.

We turn a blind eye when someone we know in public office commits a grievous error, even a crime — and yet we are quick to condemn those we do not know or do not like when it is they who are under scrutiny. Deep down, we cannot escape a trait singularly Filipinos — knowing that who you know is as valuable as gold. So who cares if who we know is a despicable person; he is in a position of power and inference, yes? And if he or she has been kind to us anyway, the opinion of others be damned.

We vote for the devil we know. For the best singer and dancer. For those who make us laugh. We vote for the son or daughter of those we voted for in the past. We vote for the good-looking — the handsome and the sexy. We even vote for those who can make us cry.

Are they fit for public office? For the position they aspire for? Do we ask how they will spend our public money and what they will spend it on? And how do they intend to raise the funds they need for the programs we need? As voters, we hardly ask ourselves these questions, when these are the questions that matter. But decade after decade after decade it’s not how we judge our candidates, it’s not how we decide who to vote for. It may have been that way in the distant past — but it is becoming less and less as we stumble into the future.

Unfit for democracy: that is us — the voting public.

‘… our elections are just a way for us to look at ourselves in the mirror every three years or so.’

I’VE been following social media posts and comments by so many different people reacting to so many politicians filing their certificates of candidacy for the various elective positions we have to fill in May of next year.

At the same time, it’s interesting to watch the politicians themselves march up to the Comelec to file their paperwork, some with supporters in tow, and then make pronouncements declaring why they are submitting themselves to the judgment of the people while promising to serve to the best of their ability if and when elected.

You and I know that the field is diverse — the promising to the epitome of broken promises; the fresh faces to those with many faces, those who have no spine when what the people need is spine, and those with spine but are rejected for their principles.

On my way to the airport two days ago, my Grab driver showed a range of emotions about our politics and our politicians. One moment he would be laughing at them and their antics, the next moment he was cursing them and their kin to eternal damnation, blaming them for everything that’s gone wrong in his life. But he was also talking about money — how elections are now beyond doubt a matter of money, particularly who has the money to spend in the homestretch of the campaign, releasing enough at the right time and to the right people to be the ultimate criterion for the voter’s decision on who to give that all-important vote. What he told me came as no surprise, because I’ve seen so many campaigns up close and know that having the logistical muscle when needed can make or break a campaign. And I also know, as told to me by a barangay captain on a small island in Samar, that unless you fork across some funds not even your relatives will vote for you.

Imagine that.

But maybe the relatives just want to get an advance of the big bonanza you will have access to once you’re in office. 

Indeed, money is a great motivator in our politics.

But I told my Grab driver what I’ve told other friends too — directing our ire at our politicians is disingenuous because they couldn’t get to where they are if we didn’t put them there. It’s you and I as a collective who sit our politicians in the posts from where they are supposed to help shape our lives for the better but from where they shape their own lives for the better even more.

We put them there — the fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and grandchildren, maybe initially because we hoped the first one would be a decent and effective leader but later on because we are too tired — and too jaded to gamble on someone else. And because incumbency has power, it’s easier for those already in power to keep that power within the family. Which we carp about. But we many times celebrate because, heck, these are our friends in a country where who you know is what matters most, most of the time.

So our elections are just a way for us to look at ourselves in the mirror every three years or so. Those who end up winning are a mirror image of who we are.

Do you like what you see?

‘In our democracy, family names matter.’

PIA is running. Erwin is running. Camille is running. One a re-electionist, the other two seeking to move from the House of Representatives to the Senate.

Arguably, they are qualified for the position they are running for. As are millions of other Filipinos. But why are the three running and the millions of others holding back?

It’s in the name, I guess.

Pia is a Cayetano. Her younger brother is also a senator. Erwin is a Tulfo. His older brother is also a senator. And Camille is a Villar. Her mother is an outgoing senator while her older brother is also an incumbent.

In our democracy, family names matter.

This is not surprising in a country that is family-oriented. We are so family-oriented that our radius of trust — as Francis Fukuyama put it — is almost always just all about our families.

And so for years, we have elected families into public office. From the local government units to national offices — like the Senate and even the Presidency. And it is something that almost certainly we will continue to do.

Everyone has a right to run for public office. This is one hallmark of democracy. But ours is unique because we seem to have a hard time breaking away from the pattern of electing husband and then wife, then son, and daughter-in-law and grandson, and so on, ad infinitum, as if only select families have a monopoly of a sense of public service or the capability to render honest to goodness service to the public, no matter how thankless the job.

Then again, maybe the Filipino electorate is just lazy. Or wary — preferring to choose the devil they know over and over again to someone new. They’re all the same anyway, the more cynical will say, so better stick to the familiar. To the more familiar family, that is, over the fresh new one. At least we already know what we are getting.

Pia, Erwin and Camille, having served in the legislative branch of government for the last three years (at least), do have a record to speak of. Whether their record is sufficient to reward them with a slot on the ballot — we have 12 names to fill — is for each individual Filipino voter to decide on his own.

Whenever my thoughts focus on political dynasties and their hold on the public, I am reminded of the first time Edward Moore (Ted) Kennedy ran for senator of Massachusetts. The year was 1962: John F. Kennedy was president for two years, and younger brother Edward was now aspiring to become the junior senator, a seat previously held by the President himself.

During the campaign, an exasperated rival of Kennedy asked: “Would your candidacy be taken seriously if you were simply named Edward Moore?”

To be fair to Ted, after winning the election in 1962 he went on to win every re-election (there are no term limits in the US) and served until August 2009 — over four decades — during which he was highly respected as a senator and was considered one of the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

This just goes to show that, yes, perhaps a name could propel a newbie into office over even more qualified others — but that newbie could, through diligence and dedication, become a statesman and respected leader.

Hopefully — and for our sake — more often than not.

That’s because ours is a dynastic democracy.

‘If we can’t even have as good as or a better toll system than what they have in Malaysian highways, how else can we do better than Malaysia in everything else?’

I FIRST got a chance to visit Malaysia — Kuala Lumpur in particular — in 1989, when I was a part of a UP Law debating team that represented the Philippines in the First ASEAN Student Debate Championships. The Islamic University of Malaysia played host, and the four of us from UP (then future-Attorneys Manjo Oyson, Abe Espejo and Janet Cruz (now Regalado were my teammates) were even given two student guides, both Malaysia-Chinese, who helped us enjoy our week-long trip that saw us return home with the runner-up trophy, with Singapore winning the top plum.

At that time, it was evident (to me at least) that Malaysia was like a racehorse chomping at the bit; it had a Prime Minister in Mahathir Mohammed who had grand dreams of a modern and secular Malaysia, one that balanced its culture with the demands of the modern world. His “trophy” was to be the Petronas Tower, which had its groundbreaking in 1992 and was completed in 1996, at that time the tallest building in the world.

Malaysia has always benefitted from its rich and vast natural resources (oil, palm oil, timber, minerals and agricultural products) and its relatively “small” population: in 1990, while the Philippines had a population of 61 million, Malaysia’s stood at 17 million. (Note: the Philippine population as of 2024 was listed at 119 million, while Malaysia’s stands at 34 million). Think about it: with such a big pie to be divided among a small number of people, each one gets a bigger slice!

Last week, I had a chance to make my seventh trip to Malaysia, this one not school or business-related, and so much more relaxed. During that short trip, what I saw only reinforced my opinion of Malaysia — it is a country focused on the future and one that places great importance on good governance.

Now, while good governance in the West may mean something else in the East, especially in the area of civil rights and freedoms, it means the same thing in the leading countries of Southeast Asia when it comes to taking corruption seriously and jailing people no matter how high up in society whenever corruption is involved.

We should be embarrassed when we compare our attitude towards corruption to that of Malaysia. They’ve jailed ex-prime ministers; we pardoned ex-presidents.

In the 1980s, Malaysia’s main gateway was the Subang International Airport while ours was the NAIA — with two terminals at that time. Today, the Malaysian capital has the new and sprawling Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) with two terminals and more to come — while 40 years later we still have NAIA, albeit with three terminals crammed in a small area.

Not only that, I was particularly conscious of the highway we had to take from the Petronas Tower to KLIA, noticing not only the quality of the road network but also the super-efficient RFID system that worked almost without incident every time. Interestingly, there are at least three RFID systems a motorist can choose from: Smart Tag, Touch and Go and MyRFID. In contrast, the RFID system in our highways is dependent on who made the highway, because the highway builder’s RFID is the only RFID system you can use.

We should stop fooling ourselves, giving ourselves pats on the back, and celebrating our successes. Instead, it’s about time we took an honest-to-goodness look at the eyes around us and benchmarked with the best.

If we can’t even have as good as or a better toll system than what they have on Malaysian highways, how else can we do better than Malaysia in everything else?

‘…when confronted with lists of wannabes, ask yourself: when do I consider a politician disqualified from holding public office?’

BY Tuesday next week, politicians and politician-wannabes all over the country will troop to the various offices of the Commission on Elections to file their certificates of candidacy for the elections in May of next year. At stake are half of the Senate, all seats in the House of Representatives, and every provincial, city and municipal position.

To be clear, there are 24 senators so 12 seats will be contested, and there are 316 seats in the lower house, 253 rep-resenting legislative districts and 63 from party lists. There are 82 provinces, and 1642 cities and municipalities all over the country. So you can imagine how much fun we will again be having, and how much money will be flowing.

This early, I’ve seen the list put out by the Marcos administration naming its Senate slate, a combination of incum-bents running for re-election (Pia Cayetano, Lito Lapid, Imee, Bong Revilla and Francis Tolentino), former senators (Ping Lacson, Manny Pacquiao and Tito Sotto), House members wishing to get “promoted” to the smaller but upper chamber (Erwin Tulfo and Camille Villar), and two with Mayoralty experience now wishing to become legislators (BenHur Abalos and Abby Binay).

On the other hand, the Liberal Party has indicated an interest in fielding Kiko Pangilinan, Bam Aquino and Chel Diokno for the Senate, while the Dutertes, through PDP Laban, are fielding Bong Go, Bato dela Rosa and Philip Salvador and maybe a few more.

The list is interesting. It is a mixed bag of the proven, the promising, and the “por Dios, por Santo,” at least as far as I am concerned. And this early, I think I can already say that my 12 will be a mixed bag — chosen from two of the three slates that I have identified above. Just don’t ask me which slate I am not going to choose from.

During elections, from the many who present themselves, I always identify those who, in my book, are disqualified. I don’t always find one or two, but my criteria are clear and simple. Anyone who has been the subject of an investiga-tion or, worse, a court case that involves taking the life of someone else or pocketing funds of the Filipino people drops down my scale of electable, falling even further below the ranking of my only-when-needed driver, and to think that the latter is not even running for office.

How about being involved in, say, an extramarital affair or a sex scandal? To me, these are not as disqualifying and in fact are welcome as they provide fodder for the Maritess of this world, the only qualification being if the other indi-vidual involved is a minor, then that ranks close to taking a life or pocketing public funds.

In the case of an acquittal, I remain wary. Furthermore, I strongly believe that we must apply the “Caesar’s wife” test if we want to improve the quality of the public servants we call “Honorable” while trying so hard not to barf.

This is why where US presidential politics is concerned, Trump is a non-entity in my book. Never mind the cases against his fraudulent businesses, from the Trump University to the Trump steaks to the foundation that siphoned off funds for children with cancer. But someone who eggs his supporters to storm the US Capitol in an attempt to prevent the Senators and Congressmen from certifying the results of an election as Trump did on January 6, 2021 — is disqualifying.

Add to that his phone call to Georgia state election officials asking them to find him over 11,700 votes so he could overcome the lead of rival Joe Biden and, in the process win the state of Georgia, its electoral votes and hence the electoral college — is another disqualifying matter. No one should be returned to office if, in his previous capacity, he did what he could to violate the oath he had taken to uphold the law of the land as well as the Constitution itself.

While I consider myself a sympathizer of the Democratic Party in US elections, I’ve learned to admire, or like, or both admire and like several Republican politicians such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and John McCain, and, de-spite the Watergate scandal that properly ended his presidency, Richard Nixon earns raves from me especially for his geopolitical views.

Elections, we must remember, are as much about you and me as voters as it is about the people we choose to en-trust our government to. If they do poorly, then that means we have chosen poorly. If they do well, not only does that mean we have chosen well, but we are also immensely benefited by our choice.

Remember that elections are akin to a company hiring people, and we the electorate are the Human Resources de-partment, tasked with putting the candidates through the hoop to test their mettle and identify who deserves the job.

And that’s why we must have criteria that are clear and a line (or lines) that should not be crossed, otherwise, the candidate is disqualified from even being considered.

So let’s try this for 2025: when confronted with lists of wannabes, ask yourself: when do I consider a politician dis-qualified from holding public office? Then strike his or her name immediately from the list!