I had the privilege of being invited as guest analyst, together with former NEDA Head Dr. Dante Canlas, to PiliPinas Debates 2016: The Bloomberg TV Philippines Analysis, ably hosted by news anchors Quintin Pastrana and Regina Lay.
The show came immediately after the last of the COMELEC-sponsored debates series, this time held at the PHINMA University of Pangasinan in Dagupan City. Previous legs of the debates were held at Cagayan de Oro and Cebu City.
As part of my analysis, I remarked that not one of the presidential candidates at the debates – and they were complete this time – stood out in the sense that they had something new or explosive to say or reveal, that they practically said the same things as they did in the previous debates and in the prior GO NEGOSYO Meet the Presidentiables Series which I also served as panelist. This can be taken as positive as they were able to crystallize more what they had to say, focus more on the essentials, with no room for flip-flopping, a sign that they had been honed to the rostrum through the course of these debates.
Four main issues were tackled in our post-debate analysis: China and the West Philippine Sea; Solving Traffic; Securing Jobs and the Plight of OFWS; and the Mining Question.
This was the first time that foreign policy (tackling China) was in the middle of the debate, probably because there was no need to discuss this before. There was a need to focus on foreign policy, though, in light of agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (which was not brought up) and the ASEAN Integration. China remains a “hot button issue” which needs both a legal and diplomatic approach.
On solving the Metro Manila traffic situation, no one talked about reigning in vehicle sales, but everybody had something to say about infrastructure. All agreed that there was a dearth in infrastructure development, but aside from putting up infrastructure, what each candidate failed to mention was how they can put into place a system that would discourage people from bringing their cars (i.e. mass transport system).
Perhaps now is also the time to rethink having a Metro Manila governor again as there has to be a single point of responsibility to deal with air pollution, traffic and the solid waste problem. Traffic, I have always said, was a form of thievery as it steals precious time and money from Filipinos and their families.
(photo courtesy of Bloomberg TV Phils)
(photo courtesy of Bloomberg TV Phils)
There was also a need to study existing laws on contractualization. This practice is undoubtedly not good, but in studying the law, there was also a need to listen to the employers. It is also important to come up with job-matching and education-matching.
On the question of mining, most of the candidates had nothing categorical to say about it. Our own discussion immediately jumped to energy, and we all agreed that the next president should come out with her or his own pronouncements about a new energy mix.
All in all, the presidential debates, and the other forums that preceded it, afford registered voters the opportunity to make learned choices, again not just based on the personal popularity of the respective candidates, but on their respective platforms of government. Let us continue to discuss, analyze, and eventually come up with our own learned choice come May 9.