As election day looms closer, the population of Philippine voters must confront the inevitable decision as to who will become the next president. Will it be the crime and punishment advocate who promises to instill order and free the entire country from criminals within six months, perhaps through the same extra judicial executions prevalent in his local territory? Will it be the fighter against graft and corruption, who is also fighting to survive cancer and its complications? Will it be the former mayor of the country’s flourishing business district turned vice president, who continues to be haunted with corruption charges? Or should the presidential throne go to the administration bet who has enough resources to come up with campaign ads graced with innuendos against his opponents? Or should the new kid on the block be given a chance, the one whose citizenship was questioned, overshadowing the fact that her lack of experience in government service is a bigger reason to question her candidacy?
The deal is far from sealed, but the two presidential debates aired live definitely served as an instrument to bring the five candidates up for scrutiny – just like the potential candidates for the highest position in a company (okay, in this case, in the country). The debates not only exposed the ideals each candidate stood for but also how they respond to attacks. Some of the more notable expositions follow.
The candidate who vows to remove income tax for employees earning below 30,000 pesos has no idea how this is going to work, he merely assumes the government’s other sources of funds will be able to compensate for the taxes that will no longer be collected in honor of his promise.
The administration candidate who boasts about the increase in the number of drug pushers his department has placed behind bars, had no sound rebuttal to the claim that drug pushing continues behind bars.
There is an overlapping of authorities when it comes to the control and supervision of the police force, as the candidates who occupied a mayor’s post and the internal and local government secretary ended up pointing fingers over a failed military operation a year ago which claimed the lives of forty-four soldiers.
The candidate whose citizenship was questioned was alleged to have said she hates the country she is now attempting to run. Her rebuttal is at least she is not stealing from the government.
The divorce bill, if ever subjected to veto power is a goner since none of the candidates will support it…but, hey, there is a chance that the death penalty will rise from the grave.
Now, back to square one: who should be the next president among such ‘promising’ candidates? May 9, 2016 for the answer.