http://www.malaya.com.ph/01152010/edbanayo.html
MY friend Jun Campillo invited me to the Presidential Policy Forum sponsored by the Carlos P. Romulo Foundation of which he is one of the main movers, and I am glad I went. There is a difference between watching a forum on television, no matter if live, as against being right there where it unfolds.
The forum, held at the AIM Conference Center, was mainly focused on the country’s external relations and international competitiveness, which are the primary concerns of the policy center named after one of our history’s top diplomats, and is ably presided over by his son, himself a seasoned diplomat, former ambassador and foreign minister Bobby Romulo.
Only three of the five major presidentiables went to yesterday’s jam-packed forum – Gilbert Teodoro, Dick Gordon and Manny Villar. The audience was pretty distinguished, with foreign diplomats and heads of multinational agencies, foreign trade chambers, credible business community leaders, media, and even a former president, Fidel V. Ramos. Erap probably dodged the forum wisely. That crowd would not have warmed up to him, nor he to them. But Noynoy should have been around. Most in the audience empathize with him and Mar. His absence became more felt when FVR asked the obvious when he stood up to ask the last question – "Where are the others?"
If he were not Gloria’s candidate, and he was not the standard bearer of a traditional party where crooks abound and in fact preside, I would give my vote to Gilbert Teodoro, based on what I know about him, and what I have heard, especially in yesterday’s forum. He never pandered to the audience, whether in the hall or among the live audience, unlike Manny Villar who would address the OFW voters and their influence at every possible opportunity. Nothing wrong with that, except that the ideas and solutions he offered were things he could have authored in Congress, particularly when he was Senate President and before that, chair of the Senate Finance Committee where he instead prioritized the funding for his beloved C-5 Road.
Gilbert, in contrast, showed mastery of facts and figures, and I must congratulate his staff for preparing him well. But as most of us who have been on the staff of candidates and political personalities in the past know all too well, the credit really goes to a sharp, responsive, studious and responsible principal, more than we could ever input our thoughts and counsel.
Dick Gordon would also make a fine president, and his credentials, particularly as Olongapo mayor and Subic free zone administrator speak for themselves. Unfortunately, with little by way of machinery and a wide chasm in the surveys to overtake in so short a period of time, 2010 is not going to be friendly to Dick in his presidential quest. He reminds me of my ninong, Vice President Doy Laurel in 1992, certainly most prepared, certainly most eloquent in a field of seven candidates, but whose quest was doomed by an avalanche of numbers in favor of the leading contenders – FVR, Miriam, Danding and the late Tata Monching Mitra. With a corresponding paucity of resources, the role that the late Doy Laurel inexorably played was that of gadfly against Mitra and Danding. His attacks weakened the two and perhaps involuntarily promoted FVR’s chances, which is exactly what happened. For by touting his accomplishments and taunting others who may not have had the opportunity to excel in administration because they had been no more than legislators in their shorter public life, Gordon could, effectively or not, impair the chances of a leading presidential candidate.
Which is why I rue the fact that Noynoy’s handlers did not ascertain his presence in this forum. Noynoy, based on his improved presence in previous for a, would not have paled in comparison to the three. At the very least, he would have held his ground against Villar, who after all is his main protagonist, and whose motherhood statements and rote performance in the foreign policy forum was the least outstanding compared to Gilbert first and Gordon second.
Still and all, while Gilbert and even Dick and Villar showed adequate preparation and gave out pretty well-studied answers, there was a clear lack of demonstrated leadership audacity, the kind of daring and boldness, whether in foreign or domestic policy, that the forum elicited. There was also a lack of specifics. And furthermore, one could have made a case against both Gilbert and Villar, who held positions of high authority, who nonetheless did little of what they themselves proposed in the forum, when they had the actual chance.
For instance, on the first topic, which was Maguindanao and the prevalence of private militias in the South, Gilbert was firm about the need to reduce these and increase the presence of regular soldiers and policemen. But he was secretary of national defense the past two years. What did he do to reduce those private armies, or at least mitigate the over-powering control of the Ampatuans?
Villar mouthed motherhood – poverty is the root cause. And we should, he said, provide the basic services – health, education, infrastructure, which would have increased the awfully low human development index of the ARMM population. Nobody is going to quarrel with such platitudes, but then again, would he have prioritized a road in Sulu over double appropriations for C-5 which would traverse his properties?
I waited for bold statements, specific answers to opportunities which the panel of interrogators, Amy Pamintuan, Ambassador Rod Severino, and CNN’s Jimmy Flor Cruz gave the candidates in their questions.
For instance, when Jimmy asked about the obvious prevalence of non-career ambassadors in our diplomatic service, a straightforward statement like declaring that as president, he would stick to the acceptable ratio of career versus non-career diplomats would have been the very least affirmative action expected. That never came.
Villar talked about preferring specialists more than generalists in the diplomatic service, Gordon worried about financial constraints that somehow justified the appointment of wealthy non-career ambassadors, and Gibo defended having a surfeit of military and police retirees littering the foreign service, while correctly emphasizing the need for good research and policy studies support.
I would have advised a presidential candidate to answer such a good opportunity in straightforward, definitive and declarative manner. Such as: "There are less than 100 ambassador-level positions in the foreign service. I will limit the number of non-career appointments to just about a dozen, at most 15 ambassadors. And while I have identified in my mind what postings I shall yet accord to the non-career service, I will do so only when I have been elected. But mark my assurance now --- no more than fifteen."
The people want change, and they want bold new measures. Not the usual platitudes. Not motherhood. And certainly not answers which betray a sub-conscious political and/or transactional "need" to protect certain segments of society or the political elite, or answers carefully crafted so as not to slight the feelings of one’s patron or patroness.
No comments:
Post a Comment