Not a few bloggers have heaped praises on ANC newscaster Tina Monzon Palma for asking the participants of the first ANC Leadership Forum if they plan to support the investigation of President Gloria Arroyo after the 2010 Elections. Perhaps they thought Ms. Palma showed balls by asking such a question. Perhaps she did.
I’m just wondering was that question really difficult to ask? Was it anywhere near being the toughest question to ask of our presidential hopefuls? Was it even worth asking in the first place?
If you’re idea of a good candidate is someone who does nothing but criticize the incumbent then perhaps that would be the question.
“Will you support an investigation of the Arroyo family for corruption allegations?”
Personally, I think it wasn’t even worth asking. In the first place, if there really is reason to investigate shouldn’t that be automatic regardless of who is in charge? The fact that it was asked and that many saw it as a defining moment of sorts only shows that many of us don’t realize what elections are for. I’ve always thought elections are about plans and the future.
Many would argue that giving the incumbent her just deserts is a real issue. Of course it is. I’m not saying it is not. But — and this is a very big but — is the election period the time to focus on retribution? I think we shouldn’t burden our candidates with this issue anymore. Doing so would only distract them from the more important task of providing us with clear, definite plans (complete with timetables) on how they would lead our country out of the sh_thole it is in. Perhaps we should just ask them about retribution after they get elected. Then again that may not also be a good idea but let’s reserve that for another post.
Going back to the question. “Will you support an investigation of the Arroyo family for corruption allegations?” It’s not as tough a question as many of us would like to believe nor is it the most difficult to answer just ask Senator Francis Escudero.
I want to give our candidates the grilling of a lifetime or maybe I just want to see them squirm and pee in their pants trying to avoid a direct answer. So for me the toughest question is: Have you ever stolen public funds?
Of course, we already know the answer to that.
The answer, would of course be no.
What would be surprising and refreshing is if one of them said “Yes”.
I can imagine one of them saying, “Yes, I stole from our nation’s coffers.”
Thus following the logic accorded to Jun Lozada, the candidate can go on saying:
“And because I was honest about this transgression, you can trust me over these other liars. Vote for me because I have the integrity and honesty to admit that I did steal from the people.”
[Reply]
LPGD:
Come to think of it, tama ka. It’s almost a trick question. Why would post-admin prosecution of the Arroyos “need” support from the chief executive? The justice system has life of its own. It should kick in and moves wherever the evidence takes it . That said, I think any initiative on the part of the prez, for or against prosecution, will be a partisan act that diminishes the merit of any prosecution that might be levelled against whomever.
Now I know why the election of leaders is called “suffrage.” It’s the process of choosing under whom we wish to suffer. At this stage the search for a new president is the search for the least evil.
I’m glad the question was asked because in going for the YES TO PROSECUTION like a pit bull to a slab of juicy raw sirloin, one candidate revealed a lot about his character than he would’ve wanted to let on. Pols are such suckers for the sound bite that they completely lose their self-awareness.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“At this stage the search for a new president is the search for the least evil.”
unfortunately, that’s the reality we will have to live with for now. how i wish we could avoid this and instead really vote on the basis of who can really lead us to a better future.
instead of asking our candidates to commit to pursuing or supporting cases against pgma, we should force them to make a strong commitment (backed with concrete plans) to put a stop to graft and corruption.
i still believe we can fight corruption. as voters we can make that happen by clamoring for laws and policies that will make it extremely difficult for anyone to commit government graft and corruption. i also think we can’t leave the lawmaking process to our congressmen and senators especially when it concerns graft and corruption. we, the voting public, should get involved.
my suggested policy or law is posted here. i’m hoping other people, especially those with law backgrounds, would help develop my suggestion or come out with their own.
[Reply]
lpgd , I read your suggestions from the other post and wow, heavy. Hehe. We are known for our capacity to make allowances and I think creating a foolproof system that wouldn’t condone even a single innocent act of theft would be exactly what we need.
Now this may be off topic but a Korean friend once told me that in South Korea, the government always makes it a point to level the playing field of business. I know nothing about their economic landscape but he said that once the government sees that your business starts monopolizing the production of goods, they will find a way to bring you down. This is why almost all of them are eager to engage in it and even the biggest companies like Samsung offer livable wages than companies here in our country.
Wala lang, narelate ko lang sa post mo. Whatever rigidity we impose on our political system should also be extended to our economy.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 5:34 am
yes, onthe issue of corruption a foolproof system is the only way. making government a dangerous place for evildoers is the only way. humans cannot be entrusted with access to huge amounts of money. we cannot rely on human capacity to resist temptation. that’s a fact. even church people know this.
[Reply]
The question itself proves how stinking our system is. It just means when you are in the position you are innocent in any charges. (Wag lang me mag hudas)
[Reply]
The question was probably meant to reveal 3 things:
(1) Which of them cannot resist the temptation to bash Arroyo and pander to the masses;
(2) Whether the disunited opposition would show solidarity on the matter; and
(3) Where the candidates’ loyalties lie.
The question appears to be an attempt to dichotomize the set of candidates.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:06 am
my problem with that kind of questioning is that it only serves to give the candidates another opportunity to pander. i hope the media would realize that their interviews with politicians contribute to the formation of perceptions about these politicians. it would be better to just ask those questions that draw out answers that will truly help the electorate imake intelligent choices.
[Reply]
Politicians’ pandering can’t really be prevented, though it would be nice if right then and there they’d be made to put their money where their mouths were. Ultimately the responsibility in being smart about their pronouncements lies in the audience. That’s where HAUM and Platform Plez come in.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
August 24th, 2009 at 7:23 am
already made the adjustments. didn’t notice it too.
[Reply]