Boorish at the SONA
THE reactions to President Aquino’s State of the Nation Address have been mixed, as usual. The President’s allies liked it, his critics of course didn’t. Some middlegrounders were kinder, giving the President the benefit of the doubt.
It was an epic speech, lasting more than two hours, Mr. Aquino’s longest and surely the longest presidential SONA ever. On the whole, the President did a good job with his valedictory, giving the nation a tour d’horizon of his five years so far in office.
If we go by the President’s enumeration of his accomplishments, we would give him passing marks, particularly in the economic sphere, infrastructure, fighting corruption (with leakages here and there), looking after the welfare of our men in uniform, and in setting the tone for good governance in the future.
But will future presidents continue the push for reforms that Mr. Aquino has started? That’s the big question.
No doubt, this president has initiated ground-breaking steps to curb corruption in government. He has set an example for stricter vetting of government projects that are corruptionfree, unlike the practice during the past decades of money-making side deals that enriched public officials and private contractors.
If anything, here’s one aspect of the President’s legacy that should be beyond question, that he tried to rid government of the historical practice of stealing the people’s money allocated for development projects.
Aquino’s critics have been hard on him, and the latest SONA was no exception. In the streets leading to Congress, the militants battled with the police as they protested the President’s address. Inside the Congress, militant representatives couldn’t resist to be boorish as they held aloft placards attacking the chief executive.
You can’t be rude to a guest in your own (H)ouse, that’s simply infra-dig. They deserve the boos they got for their antics.
Leftist activists leave the streets and join above-ground politics by getting elected to Congress through the party-list system. And yet they don’t shed their street tactics and break Congressional decorum by demonstrating inside the session hall. Isn’t that a lack of good faith, accepting positions in Congress but engaging in protest actions inside it?
In any case, the people should know how to differentiate among critics. There are critics who attack the President for political reasons. Naturally, the opposition and its propagandists will always attack the government because they want to replace or succeed the incumbent administration.
On the other hand, there are critics who will always attack the government no matter who is the incumbent. They never give credit to the government even when credit is due. This is because if they praise the government, then they’ll lose their raison d’etre.
They exist to criticize, weaken, and even bring down the government, any government. That’s the reason they are relentless. Otherwise they’ll lose their relevance in the politico-ideological scheme of things.
Actually, Ergo’s ideological leanings are closer to those of the leftist activists than to the other end of the spectrum. If only they’d tone down their inflammatory rhetoric and be more reasonable with their demands, they would rally more ordinary citizens to their cause.
People should be aware of the various actors in the body politic. There are sincere and constructive critics. But there are only a few such independent commentators. Most of the detractors have their respective agendas to push.
Not all critics have the country’s welfare in mind. There are many who have selfish political motivations. There are others whose mission is to weaken the government, not only in the eyes of the people, but in actuality, so they can promote their ideological agenda.
As the Latin warning goes: Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. As the popular saying exhorts: Don’t swallow what others say hook, line and sinker. Be alert and discerning.