We want to know
what you think, FPJ

THE DECISION of opposition presidential candidate Ferdinand Poe Jr. to stay out of an upcoming televised debate between presidential candidates is unfortunate. The Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino standard-bearer is adopting the tough guy, no-nonsense persona of one of his onscreen heroes, saying that the hardships of the people must be attended to first rather than engaging in what he called "divisive and antagonistic" political debates.

I see where FPJ is coming from when he says that. After watching one too many debates between the Democratic presidential candidates in the US on television, one can only conclude that most of the time in these debates is spent attacking opponents or showing off about one's accomplishments. Yuck! Although the masses may be content in voting for a candidate that promises to look after their welfare, the middle class and the technocrats need a more detailed governance plan to feel comfortable about a possible Poe presidency.

Poe has appointed a team of 19 experts in economics and governance to advise him during the campaign and when he is possibly elected to the presidency on May 10. This was a good first step in surrounding himself with intelligent advisers. The next step is for Poe to listen to them, absorb what they say, then come out with his own position on a range of issues from the national debt and how to attract more foreign investment, to improving the country's education and infrastructure.

Political debates and speeches do not have to be all about posturing and self-masturbation. They should be a form of communicating one's ideas and principles to the general public who will be choosing the country's next president on May 10. They need more than just general platitudes about defending the poor and imprisoning the criminals. Life is not a cartoon strip.

To find out more about what the various presidential candidates think on major political issues I visited INQ7.net's Eleksyon 2004 website.

A set of identical questions were put to the six presidential candidates and their answers are posted on the website for all to read. Not surprisingly, the nuisance candidate Eddie Gil provided no answers, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's answers sounded like she was reeling them off by heart, Panfilo Lacson had some good ideas, FPJ continued his deafening silence, Raul Roco read like he's running for a student council rather than the highest position in the land, and born-again preacher Eddie Villanueva had some surprisingly good ideas!

When asked what they would accomplish in their first 100 days in office if elected, Arroyo said she would just continue her current government's program. Lacson gave a sweeping and detailed answer pledging to fight TB, dismiss corrupt cops, set up special law courts to deal with drug cases, and make sure that any transaction with a government agency doesn't take more than 7 calendar days, with a 24-hour turnaround being the "gold standard". Roco would focus on providing free education to all, and on increasing tax revenue. Finally, Villanueva detailed how he would meet with Congress and attempt to cut pork barrel, and talk to his Cabinet members and their families about the sacrifices they would have to make for the next six years to improve the country. His style of talking to everyone that comes his way, betrays Villanueva's background as a preacher who talks and listens to his flock. Does the Philippines really need a pastor as its president? Villanueva might find that politics is much dirtier than he ever imagined.

When asked what measures they would take to fight graft and corruption, Arroyo gave an unconvincing answer of continuing lifestyle checks on public officials; Lacson said he and all his Cabinet members would sign a waiver exempting them from the Bank Secrecy Law should a complaint of corruption be lodged against them at anytime during their term in office; Roco harped on the fact that he turned around the Department of Education from being the fourth most corrupt government agency to the government's most trusted agency in just eight months, while Villanueva continued his pastoral approach to issues by saying that he and his family would lead by example, showing they were willing to sacrifice their personal financial motives for the good of the nation.

Finally, all were asked what they thought of abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage, gun control and capital punishment. Unsurprisingly, for an overwhelmingly Catholic nation, all said they were against abortion and same-sex marriages. Although the Philippines has a large and highly visible gay population, and most Filipinos are tolerant towards gays, the concept of same-sex marriage is far from being widely accepted. Lacson interestingly said that although he was against same-sex marriages, he isn't homophobic. Perhaps he would support same-sex partnerships instead of marriages? Villanueva, naturally, went off on a spiel of how God abhors homosexuality but loves sinners. All supported gun control, while Arroyo gave a bizarre and convoluted reason for supporting the death penalty. She claims to be averse to the taking of human life by the State because she considers herself a devout Catholic. But she also claims to be heeding the public's clamoring for justice by allowing the execution of criminals by lethal injection. If ever there was a politician's convoluted illogic on a hot issue, this is it!

On the issue of divorce, Arroyo is against it, Lacson supports it, while Villanueva says he would allow legislators to decide whether or not to legalize divorce, but with the proviso that divorce shouldn't be made too easy.

So what are your opinions on these issues FPJ? Filipinos deserve to know now.

Comments or questions? E-mail the author at manilamoods@hotmail.com.