DAVAO is in the news with the President-elect or as some say “presumptive president” giving lengthy news conferences, everyone interested in a piece of the action, making a beeline for the city. I presume those who voted for the fulfillment of their rising expectations for which instant gratification is the desired end are also in the watch-and-wait mode that we all have adopted.
So far, no gravitas, no change in the mode of making appointments. Obviously, it is returning-favors time. All in all somewhat of a let-down.
Also, there is a surreal air about, made by pronouncements of changes that will be made that merit not a say-so but a campaign in the legislature to make them real. Is the death penalty just waiting in the wings to make a return appearance? Is the Speaker of the House already elected as one newspaper said, the chosen one already has 180 votes!
What seems to be going on is a policy of indiscriminate undoing. Is that the new definition of change? We will be taking two steps back after having already taken one forward. It won’t be a status quo, it will be something antedating it if what has been accomplished will be deconstructed. Nation-building is a continuous effort in the pursuit of improvement of society.
Let us talk about the DPWH whose leader of the last six years by consensus did a great job of cleaning it up. The new appointee is a young developer from a family-owned business. Moreover, that business has featured in a scandal regarding re-designing public roads to favor the family’s properties. Developers need roads and, most of all, public roads.
Wouldn’t appointing a developer to the Department of Public Works and Highways be creating a conflict-of-interest situation? Do we need that? Does the new government want that? Or, is it the old you-scratched-my-back-now-I-will-scratch-yours?
This is no Daang Matuwid. However contemptuous the phrasy may be, it serves to draw the picture of what direction our new dispensation seems to be inclined to take.
If the President-elect ran on the platform of change, how come oligarchs have been handling him albeit Mindanao oligarchs? Have these people done it for patriotic reasons, or for the tribal concerns as Mindanaoans? Do they really advocate the change of sharing their wealth by giving more employment with adequate salaries and generous benefits, profit-sharing and all that it takes for a more equitable and fairer division of business gains? It will have to be proven and demonstrated that patriotism and justice were what compelled them to do so. We watch and wait.
In the final analysis, it is about the electorate and what they have voted for and whom they wish to lead. But as the old adage says, “Be careful what you wish for!”