Featuring Teddy Casiño, Democratic Party of the Philippines and Ang Kapitiran candidates.
This is the fifth part in a series on the candidates for the senate in 2013. Just a recap: I am attempting through this series to have a serious discussion of the aspirants and their political platforms (or lack thereof). These are put through what I call the pander-o-meter to determine whether the policy detail they have released so far places them in either the reformist or populist columns. The following table details the range of possible scores a candidate can get and the equivalent meaning of each reading:
Introducing: the ‘Pander-o-meter’ or Trapo Scale
|A reading of…||…is equivalent to…|
|Low levels of pandering detected, generally reformist in nature|
|A mixed bag of proposals aimed at both pandering and reforming|
|Trapo alert! Approaching dangerous levels of pandering|
|Could be likened to a vote buying trapo|
In part 1, I covered Juan Edgardo Angara, Jr, Benigno Aquino IV and Alan Peter Cayetano. In part 2, I covered Francis Escudero, Risa Hontiveros and Loren Legarda. In part 3, I covered Aquilino Pimentel III,Joseph Victor Ejercito and Juan Ponce Enrile, Jr. In part 4, I covered Gregorio Honasan, Ernesto Maceda and Juan Miguel Zubiri.
In this edition, I will be covering Teodoro Casiño, the candidates of the Democratic Party of the Philippines and the Ang Kapatiran Party.
Teodoro “Teddy” Casiño (Makabayan) is the lone candidate of his party which has adopted a “ten point agenda”. This agenda reads more like a vision statement, similar to the Liberal Party’s social contract formulated for the 2010 elections.
The party-list representative is seeking to offer an alternative to the two main coalitions whom he portrays as being cut from the same cloth, but his stand on issues tends to reflect what he is opposed to rather than what he would affirm as a senator. Perhaps this is the luxury of being in the minority—you don’t need to present a detailed policy position, just simply oppose things. I will highlight a few of these positions below:
- His opposition for instance to the Pantawid Pamilya or 4P’s program, deriding it as a “dole out” is surprising, given that it was patterned after reforms developed in Mexico and Brazil and supported by left-leaning governments. He asserts that providing employment or teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish should be the priority. The problem is that people who are locked in a poverty trap aren’t able to earn enough to sustain their families due to low educational attainment. This leads their children to have low levels of health and education which perpetuates the cycle. The 4P’s helps break people out of that trap.
- His opposition to the sin taxes bill, which he characterises as simply revenue generating, not a real solution to the health problems associated with vices, is also quite puzzling given that part of the revenues raised will be used to support disease prevention and treatment. I suppose he would also oppose my proposal of imposing a “fat tax” on unhealthy food and drinks on the same grounds, despite the evidence which shows that it influences eating behaviour.
- He opposes the kindergarten to Year 12 or K+12 reforms, saying it is an added burden to families. He wants the government to focus on addressing the classroom deficit instead (which by the way, the government is saying will be addressed by the time K+12 is fully implemented). Unfortunately, he fails to realise that part of the reason employers demand at least two years of college these days for entry level positions is because a Year 10 secondary qualification simply is not enough.
- It actually costs less to deliver two extra years of secondary education than two years of university. What in fact we ought to do is extend the 4P’s program so that youths stay in school and finish high school as was the findings of a recent review of the program. Our unemployment problem is largely due to the fact that youths are forced to work at age 15 or even younger. Very little in terms of future career opportunities arise for them if they do.
- He wants to put a cap on fees charged by higher education institutions to prevent “excessive profiteering” and seeks to uphold student’s rights to free education (translation: no tuition fees should be charged by state universities and colleges or SUCs). The country’s high participation rate in tertiary education relative to other lower middle income countries reveals we are already punching above our weight.
- We don’t need to incentivise this further by offering tuition free studies. What we need to do is help families finance the cost of it (through 4P’s and student loans), improve quality and ensure that people are equipped with the right skills that are in demand by industry, and that could mean encouraging vocational education and training, which is what the K+12 reform seeks to do. If the country is to rapidly industrialise as per Makabayan’s platform, greater focus needs to be placed on technical training and vocational education.
- Makabayan supports the growth of small and medium sized enterprise, and yet it would raise minimum wages to levels which would put many of them out of business. These are contradictory statements. The way Mr Casiño would solve this problem is to have government subsidise electricity and other costs of business. He hasn’t specified at what cost to the government and taxpayer, though. This reflects policy thinking that is disjointed and not well-thought through.
Some of the positions that Mr Casiño holds are quite surprising. Motherhood statements and muddled policy prescriptions that seek to please different sectors while at the same time undermining them.
In addition, Makabayan fails to provide us with an alternative program of government. They say they want to promote the growth of industry through a kind of state sponsored capitalism. Their platform however fails to specify how that will come about. What will be the framework for promoting industry in the country? Which industries will they target? How will they steer investments that way? What kind of economic bureaucracy will they foster? These are questions that remain unanswered.
This demonstrates that Makabayan is perhaps not quite ready to rule the country yet. Sometimes I wish they would be given a chance to do so, so that they could then realise just how untenable their positions are.
Pander-o-meter: 4 out 5
Note: while drafting this piece, Makabayan’s webpages that contained their 10 point agenda and stand on issues was replaced with two infographics presentations. The simplification of their message has softened the tone. The commentary provided above reflects the detailed policy statements present in the previous versions of the web pages.
The Democratic Party of the Philippines (DPP) has fielded three candidates (from L-R as seen above): Bal Falcone, Christian Señeres and Greco Belgica. On its website, the party has published a 12 point platform. Space does not allow me to cover all of them, but there are a few interesting bits that include.
- Funding of political parties during elections
- Moving to a federalist, parliamentary form of government
- Adopting the jury system
Unfortunately, their website does not provide any policy detail beyond perfunctory statements. In addition, Mr Belgica has a four point plan which is listed on his personal Facebook page, which includes:
- Imposing a flat tax of “not more than 10% for individuals or corporations.” The current tax system which collects less than 20% of GDP he calls “excessive”.
These proposals from the DPP focus much on the political system. They probably see the design of constitution as problematic. They do have economic policy statements too, but they tend to be quite general in nature. The most specific economic policy they have is to promote the export of halal food.
The DPP wants to overhaul our political system and one of their candidates wants to overhaul our tax system. These policy positions reflect a kind of high-brow intellectual approach to our country’s development needs. Although they have been supported by academics and policy elites there really isn’t a strong push either from the business community or civil society for them. They run the risk of becoming locked up in their ivory towers.
There also needs to be more detail. We cannot read their minds or interpret much from the statements they have released so far. Although the major parties are themselves not clear on their agenda, it is incumbent on minor parties to be more forthright and transparent about their policies and programs.
Pander-o-meter: 3 out of 5
Ang Kapatiran Party has fielded three candidates (from L-R as seen above): John Carlos “JC” delos Reyes, Lito David, and Mars Llasos. It has published a 50-point platform that begins with the “spiritual dimension” which involves “seeking the kingdom of god” as its first point. This party represents the social conservative movement in the Philippines, with its Pro-Life and opposition to violence portrayed in video games and the media. Unlike conservatives in the US however it also supports gun control.
Among its political advocacies are enacting a freedom of information law, the banning of political dynasties and the abolition of pork barrel.
The Kapatiran Party raises questions about the role of faith in politics. They should however exercise some caution that in promoting their religious convictions to society through public policy not to infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens in exercising personal choice. According to most religious beliefs, we are endowed with free will. What this party has sought to do is pander to the wishes of those who want to impose religious and moral codes of conduct on others who may not subscribe to them. That is the essence of “brotherhood” or solidarity among men (and women) in a free and open society.
Pander-o-meter: 4 out of 5
Up next: Grace Poe-Llamanzares, Eddie Villanueva and Richard Gordon.