http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=542667&publicationSubCategoryId=66
Public and media reaction to the Presidential Policy Forum organized by the Carlos P. Romulo Foundation at AIM last Jan. 14 has run the gamut from enthusiastic (how exciting to see the presidential candidates facing-off with one another), to supportive (how good of the Romulo Foundation and ANC to stage the event), to interesting (how revealing that Villar will visit Saudi Arabia first if elected), to disappointed (what a pity that Noynoy Aquino and Erap Estrada did not show up). Others criticized the question panel for not asking substantive questions.
I should also mention that there were some who said the forum was irrelevant and useless because the masses of voters (classes CDE) do not care about seeing the candidates debate.
If this were true, it would mean that the Filipino electorate does not care about the current campaign. Yet key indicators – survey responses, TV viewership and public comments – are telling us otherwise. Our people are keenly discussing the progress of the campaign and what the leading candidates are doing. Without a doubt voter turnout will be high in May.
I think this idea of voter indifference to debates is coming mainly from the camps of Noynoy and Erap who got roasted in the media and coffee shops for their non-appearance in the policy forum. Some said they were scared by the prospect of being questioned by experts on policy issues. Others commented that both can only function with prepared scripts. And most thought Noynoy is trying to sit on his lead in the surveys, afraid to take any risks in a face-off against presidential rivals. The suggestion that the forum at Asian Institute of Management (AIM) was a touch highbrow because of its focus on policy issues is more to the point. We adopted this focus because the other forums had already highlighted the personal and motherhood issues in the discussions. We believed it is important for serious policy questions to be answered, and for the business, diplomatic and international communities to also be on hand to hear the candidates, considering the tie between our national life and the international community today.
Did the forum talk over the heads of voters? I don’t know. But I would caution against underestimating the capacity of Filipino voters for serious reflection on issues. It’s not just the elite asking what the candidates stand for. I keep getting surprised by how ordinary citizens care about the candidates’ answers on how they’re going to create jobs, handle the rise in gas prices, protect overseas workers, raise economic growth, etcetera.
It’s a measure of the interest that the forum generated across the country that we have received inquiries on when the next presidential forum or debate will be held. The public really wants to hear more from the candidates.
In response, I can say that we are now busy planning for a second and final forum or debate. We are targeting the first week of April for the event. We’re considering some adjustment in format and the topics to be covered will be more comprehensive. And we will definitely strive to bring Noynoy Aquino and Erap Estrada into the mix – if they can shed their reluctance to face their rivals in public!
If this were true, it would mean that the Filipino electorate does not care about the current campaign. Yet key indicators – survey responses, TV viewership and public comments – are telling us otherwise. Our people are keenly discussing the progress of the campaign and what the leading candidates are doing. Without a doubt voter turnout will be high in May.
I think this idea of voter indifference to debates is coming mainly from the camps of Noynoy and Erap who got roasted in the media and coffee shops for their non-appearance in the policy forum. Some said they were scared by the prospect of being questioned by experts on policy issues. Others commented that both can only function with prepared scripts. And most thought Noynoy is trying to sit on his lead in the surveys, afraid to take any risks in a face-off against presidential rivals. The suggestion that the forum at Asian Institute of Management (AIM) was a touch highbrow because of its focus on policy issues is more to the point. We adopted this focus because the other forums had already highlighted the personal and motherhood issues in the discussions. We believed it is important for serious policy questions to be answered, and for the business, diplomatic and international communities to also be on hand to hear the candidates, considering the tie between our national life and the international community today.
Did the forum talk over the heads of voters? I don’t know. But I would caution against underestimating the capacity of Filipino voters for serious reflection on issues. It’s not just the elite asking what the candidates stand for. I keep getting surprised by how ordinary citizens care about the candidates’ answers on how they’re going to create jobs, handle the rise in gas prices, protect overseas workers, raise economic growth, etcetera.
It’s a measure of the interest that the forum generated across the country that we have received inquiries on when the next presidential forum or debate will be held. The public really wants to hear more from the candidates.
In response, I can say that we are now busy planning for a second and final forum or debate. We are targeting the first week of April for the event. We’re considering some adjustment in format and the topics to be covered will be more comprehensive. And we will definitely strive to bring Noynoy Aquino and Erap Estrada into the mix – if they can shed their reluctance to face their rivals in public!
Watch for our official announcement on this.
Politicians are the problem, not the solution in RP sports
What would happen if a politician was appointed to run the National Commission on Culture and the Arts? There would be an immediate revolt among musicians, dancers, actors, writers and culture workers, and the agitation would not cease until the appointment was recalled.
I think of this unlikely scenario when I look at what is happening to Philippine sports today. How did it happen that in the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC), the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and a number of National Sports Associations (NSAs) the commanding heights of leadership and management are manned by dyed-in-the-wool politicians? This while sportsmen and specialists who really know sports are left to watch them strut and fumble on center stage.
Along with a number of sports experts and friends, I have come to the conclusion that what ails Philippine sports and keeps it underdeveloped and underachieving is the plain fact that its fortunes are in the hands of politicians. With Peping Cojuangco at the helm in POC and Harry Angping ruling the PSC, there is nowhere for our sports to go but down.
The justification for politicians being installed at the top of our sports was ostensibly because they can use their political clout to secure funding for sports development from both Congress and the private sector. But the practice has only thrust our sports into the hole of partisanship and petty politicking. Sports have been turned into bases for a politician’s ambitions and agenda. And the private sector has not exactly been turned on by Cojuangco and Angping into giving.
Everything that has happened since the politicians began infiltrating our sports in the ‘80s has shown the steady decline of Philippine sports in international competition. Sports development programs have been distorted. And power politics has replaced merit and achievement.
As things stand today, politicians are the problem, not the solution, in Philippine sports. Unless they are removed or stand aside, we will continue to founder in the shallows, always biting the dust behind other nations.
I agree with those who say that the choice between Cojuangco and Angping that is being foisted on the nation is a false one. Their feud does not make either of them qualified to lead our sporting life; there are others more capable and worthy of leading.
If our sporting prospects are to change, the POC and the PSC must be led by those who have invested a considerable part of their time on the pursuit of sporting excellence and sports development. If this is the rule in art and culture, it should also be the rule in sports.
Politicians are the problem, not the solution in RP sports
What would happen if a politician was appointed to run the National Commission on Culture and the Arts? There would be an immediate revolt among musicians, dancers, actors, writers and culture workers, and the agitation would not cease until the appointment was recalled.
I think of this unlikely scenario when I look at what is happening to Philippine sports today. How did it happen that in the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC), the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and a number of National Sports Associations (NSAs) the commanding heights of leadership and management are manned by dyed-in-the-wool politicians? This while sportsmen and specialists who really know sports are left to watch them strut and fumble on center stage.
Along with a number of sports experts and friends, I have come to the conclusion that what ails Philippine sports and keeps it underdeveloped and underachieving is the plain fact that its fortunes are in the hands of politicians. With Peping Cojuangco at the helm in POC and Harry Angping ruling the PSC, there is nowhere for our sports to go but down.
The justification for politicians being installed at the top of our sports was ostensibly because they can use their political clout to secure funding for sports development from both Congress and the private sector. But the practice has only thrust our sports into the hole of partisanship and petty politicking. Sports have been turned into bases for a politician’s ambitions and agenda. And the private sector has not exactly been turned on by Cojuangco and Angping into giving.
Everything that has happened since the politicians began infiltrating our sports in the ‘80s has shown the steady decline of Philippine sports in international competition. Sports development programs have been distorted. And power politics has replaced merit and achievement.
As things stand today, politicians are the problem, not the solution, in Philippine sports. Unless they are removed or stand aside, we will continue to founder in the shallows, always biting the dust behind other nations.
I agree with those who say that the choice between Cojuangco and Angping that is being foisted on the nation is a false one. Their feud does not make either of them qualified to lead our sporting life; there are others more capable and worthy of leading.
If our sporting prospects are to change, the POC and the PSC must be led by those who have invested a considerable part of their time on the pursuit of sporting excellence and sports development. If this is the rule in art and culture, it should also be the rule in sports.
No comments:
Post a Comment