Professor David makes point on pork barrel controversy in style

RANDY DAVID’S Aug. 22 column carries the title “Can pork be good?” At one point, he states: “But I can understand why the average president of our country would want to retain the pork barrel system. In the absence of a strong political party system, the power to release or to withhold Priority Development Assistance Fund allotments offers the executive strong leverage in its dealings with Congress. We may also presume that every president could, if he asked for it, obtain a dossier on PDAF misuse by particular politicians, a weapon against political foes that is too good to give up.”

David asks: “Why is the clamor for the abolition of the pork barrel being addressed to P-Noy rather than to Congress? It’s because we expect much from him. We expect him to be different—to be a modern, not just a moral, president. We want him not just to set the example of honest leadership, but to change the system that corrupts even the best of our leaders....

“My hunch is that when the Commission on Audit completes its review of PDAF utilization, it will be found that at least half of the members of Congress were engaged in one form of irregularity or another. Many routinely took kickbacks. They knowingly channeled millions of their PDAF to shell NGOs .... Others lost all sense of shame and created their own NGOs, fattening these with their annual PDAF. All contrary to law.”

At this point, even the usually calm Randy David must sound off. “Can pork be good after it is cured? Not in a political system dominated by insatiable swine.”

Is that our “Filipinoway”? Davidmakes his point in style!