Villar finds an unlikely supporter in me. Below are comments I made in a thread posted by a friend ruminating (to borrow Prof. Michael Tan’s favorite term) over his final two presidents, Gordon or Villar. Might I also take this time to officially share to people that I categorically endorse the senatorial candidacies of our Makabayan lawmakers Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza for their outstanding pro-people legislative track record, consistent and sharp stands on political, economic, social and cultural issues and concerns, and for serving as the genuine voices of scientists, technologists and environmentalists in the government.
Villar and Gordon both show competency. Both have trapo track records, with the difference being Villar’s is explicit while Gordon’s is implicit. The difference boils down to platforms.
I’m sure you know our case about Villar’s, manifested in a publicly signed document entitled “In Response to the People’s Concerns.” Gordon, on the other hand, thinks Tourism is THE employment solution, and that you can address the education issue by squeezing more money out of taxes.
And did I mention the fact that he thinks the Marcopper mining disaster is overrated?
Pasintabi sa maraming Gordon supporters dito. But if Inquirer columnist Patricia Evangelista braved the biting attacks on her for writing critically about Gordon, I thought maybe I could too.
Villar for President.
Gordon is corrupt, the difference is he has no paper trail (especially with his PNRC shenanigans). So long as we’re talking about corruption, I remember Prof. Walden Bello (an unlikely bedfellow in the issue of corruption seeing that he is a partymate of Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros who is rabidly pro-Noynoy) writing that corruption is not the main cause of poverty but the corrupt political system itself.
Since none of these presidentiables are actually aiming to radically change the economic and political system of the Philippines (or have no chance to, like Jamby), we should vote for presidentiables with platforms that give short-term, tactical reforms for the basic sectors in society.
Unfortunately, there are Gordon-like presidentiables like Villar and Perlas in terms of competence and platform that are better than him.
Point is, everyone’s enjoying nitpicking Villar’s trapo track record, but actually every last one of these presidentiables deserve some nitpicking. Digging up dirt is all fine and dandy, but what we need to check are their track records, stands and actions on issues and implementable platforms. Villar passes these considerations.
I suggest for people not to be completely enamored with the supposed conventional wisdom that the elections are the key to genuine social change. It’s the system we need to be concerned with, and addressing this is not achievable with just the passing of the presidential torch.
The best we can get out of this exercise is tactical, at best. Tactically, the people will benefit most from Villar given the fact that we have documented means to hold him accountable to his platforms, which when analyzed are the most pro-people among the other presidentiables.
When we say that voters should be discerning, it means sifting through the platforms, issue stands, legislative track record, and accountability. To hell with the advertisements and mud slinging.
Ano ang saysay ng competent track record kung ang platforms at stands ay anti-people? More importantly,
ano ang saysay kung goodie-two-shoe-moral-righteous ang kandidato mo if you don’t have concrete means of holding him/her accountable to his promises?
To sum up, choose not basing on who you think is the cleanest. Choose the one who the people can keep in check the most. Noynoy and Gordon has already exhibited personality traits (or defects) of arrogance in not listening to the people and thinking that people who do not support them are idiots.
In Response to the People’s Concerns:
Pat Evangelista’s article:
You can find Gordon’s stand on job creation and “kindle” tax for education in various Inquirer special election articles.