Decisive indecision

So many candidates have used their family like human shields or as a convenient excuse not to make an early announcement of their candidacy.

They tell us that they are thinking or considering running for the Presidency or the Senate, but it will all depend on the approval of their grandchildren, children or the entire family. Most of them try to peddle this socially correct position so that people will think of them as people who have the correct priorities and are socially sensitive to the importance of the family.

Frankly, it’s all hogwash!

Do you seriously believe that if these people win and make it to the Senate or Malacañang that they would consult their immediate family or their grandchildren regarding budgetary allocations, peace negotiations, or how to insure the survival of Phil-Health, Pag-ibig, and GSIS after 2010?

Of course not! Once in office, their family will start hearing about schedules, responsibilities and the need to make sacrifices for the country. Private or public, most “leaders” and executives immediately forget the fact that their families actually make the biggest sacrifices so they can have a life or a career. The sad part is that these successful people don’t even make an effort to publicly recognize or honor their family for those sacrifices.

Sorry, but the only candidate I want in office is someone who has the competence, and the political will to make all the necessary decisions without having to ask his wife, his kids or his grandchildren!

It is pathetic that some people would aspire to take on the herculean responsibility of governing a nation but would start their quest by telling the world that the decision will ultimately be made by family members. No wonder we have so many politicians whose family members have made business from government, profited from government, and have treated public office and its resources like the family home. As the locals put it: “At home na at home sila”.

Don’t use your family as human shields because judging from the many personalities who have used this lame excuse, most of them already have several careers, titles or positions in which their family members did not have much say except to smile and live with the consequences of an absentee partner or parent. 

*      *      *

Some people have finally come to realize that candidates actually believe Filipinos are stupid. It’s bad enough that most of them are shamelessly trying to take advantage of others by premature campaigning. But when this same “thick skinned Rhinoceros” make fools of us by telling us that their commercials are paid for by their friends, it is clear that they think Filipinos are stupid.

In the first place, if the advertisements were paid for by “friends”, why are their friends embarrassed or avoid saying who they really are? Is it because their friends are actually “themselves”? Or relatives who own malls?

 Are the friends who pay for political ads actually jueteng lords, people who own gambling franchises, or established government contractors interested in prolonging their stranglehold of customs, piers and railways or the airports?

I sincerely hope that Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago won’t stop at a mere privilege speech against aspiring politicians and infomercials. She owes it to the Filipino people to investigate who the “rich friends” are of political aspirants so we can know if they are idealists or “investors” hoping to buy and control elected officials.

While I appreciate the theatrical necessity that Senator Defensor Santiago injects to her privilege speech, what she has started and advocated in the Senate regarding political advertisements must place her very own colleagues under scrutiny. When Senators are the first to violate the spirit of the law and fair competition, nothing, not even professional courtesy should be used to excuse them from being held accountable.

Cabinet members who use their position or jobs as justification for “infomercials” must still make an accounting of their “expense versus profit” margins. Traditionally, any business executive in the private sector is usually given ten to 15 percent of the total projected sales, revenues or financial goals. So the cabinet members should have a performance audit in order to show that their advertisements were really necessary and effective in achieving the goals of their respective agencies.

*      *      *

I used to think that LTFRB Chairman Bert Suansing would be a major agent of change as far as our public transport landscape is concerned. Sad to say, he has largely been about plans but very little visible or appreciable impact.

From the LTO to the LTFRB, Suansing has chirped so many ideas and so many plans and sadly guys like myself fell for his enchanting lullabies. Time and again he has talked about cleaning up irregularity on bus franchises. He talked about reducing the volume of buses and taking out rolling coffins or smoke belchers, he has talked about revamping the operating system of transport operators.

Unfortunately, if Suansing can’t even force operators to pay fixed salaries in order to stop taxi drivers from driving 24-hour shifts, or to stop bus drivers from killing each other so they can earn their boundary and then their salary, it is pointless to expect him to make major changes.

Sadly, very few government officials get media support. For Suansing to squander it on press release is a reason why media hesitates to cooperate with promise makers and promise breakers.