US Philippine Corrupt Parallels
by Peter G. de Krassel
Hong Kong, February 28, 2005. America and the Philippines have numerous current and historical political parallels. Both have presidents courtesy of their political lineage -- including fathers who were former presidents. Both George w. Bush and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo were first sworn in to office in January 2001 under controversial political clouds. George W. was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo was installed by the Philippine Supreme Court.
America and the Philippines are both fighting terrorism at home and together in Iraq. Both countries fought side by side in Vietnam, against the Japanese during World War II, and against each other after America liberatedthe Philippines from Spain.
The recent presidential elections in the Philippines and America highlight the current corrupt monied political process in both countries.
The unlimited financial contributions presidential candidates and all candidates for political office can receive and accept in both countries naturally corrupts the political process. The financial contributors in both countries expect a reasonable return on their investment. The winning candidates ensure the return to their financial backers by supporting and passing legislation that favors their backers and usually adversely affects the public at large. Enron is the most glaring U.S. example and Philcomsat is its Philippine sibling.
Halliburton's multi billion dollar contracts in Iraq secured without any competing bids mirror countless contract issued in the Philippines, the closed International terminal being the daily reminder. The payback legislation and contracts the major financial backers of the winning presidential candidates receive in America and the Philippines is at the expense of the people that the highest office holders in both countries are supposed to represent. While the corporate and individual financial backers in both countries toast their spoils over champagne and caviar, the masses live in squalor and struggle to make ends meet.
The public needs are not addressed because the president and all newly elected office holders are pre-occupied repaying their political debts to their financial backers as they jointly labor to ensure a comfortable and profitable retirement plan for themselves both in America and the Philippines.
The recent controversial presidential elections in America and the Philippines are a millennium reminder of why both countries need to reform their political systems in the 21st century. Campaign finance reform is long overdue in both America and the Philippines. The Hong Kong campaign contribution law is a good model for both countries to emulate as a first step -- strict limitations on how much money candidates can receive and spend! Getting rid of all private political contributions by enacting legislation that limits campaign contributions to a publicly financed system must be the ideal goal for both countries in the 21st century. Only then will the political process become one the constitution promises. A Government of the People for the People.
Hong Kong, February 28, 2005. America and the Philippines have numerous current and historical political parallels. Both have presidents courtesy of their political lineage -- including fathers who were former presidents. Both George w. Bush and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo were first sworn in to office in January 2001 under controversial political clouds. George W. was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo was installed by the Philippine Supreme Court.
America and the Philippines are both fighting terrorism at home and together in Iraq. Both countries fought side by side in Vietnam, against the Japanese during World War II, and against each other after America liberatedthe Philippines from Spain.
The recent presidential elections in the Philippines and America highlight the current corrupt monied political process in both countries.
The unlimited financial contributions presidential candidates and all candidates for political office can receive and accept in both countries naturally corrupts the political process. The financial contributors in both countries expect a reasonable return on their investment. The winning candidates ensure the return to their financial backers by supporting and passing legislation that favors their backers and usually adversely affects the public at large. Enron is the most glaring U.S. example and Philcomsat is its Philippine sibling.
Halliburton's multi billion dollar contracts in Iraq secured without any competing bids mirror countless contract issued in the Philippines, the closed International terminal being the daily reminder. The payback legislation and contracts the major financial backers of the winning presidential candidates receive in America and the Philippines is at the expense of the people that the highest office holders in both countries are supposed to represent. While the corporate and individual financial backers in both countries toast their spoils over champagne and caviar, the masses live in squalor and struggle to make ends meet.
The public needs are not addressed because the president and all newly elected office holders are pre-occupied repaying their political debts to their financial backers as they jointly labor to ensure a comfortable and profitable retirement plan for themselves both in America and the Philippines.
The recent controversial presidential elections in America and the Philippines are a millennium reminder of why both countries need to reform their political systems in the 21st century. Campaign finance reform is long overdue in both America and the Philippines. The Hong Kong campaign contribution law is a good model for both countries to emulate as a first step -- strict limitations on how much money candidates can receive and spend! Getting rid of all private political contributions by enacting legislation that limits campaign contributions to a publicly financed system must be the ideal goal for both countries in the 21st century. Only then will the political process become one the constitution promises. A Government of the People for the People.
posted by Peter de Krassel's Custom Maid Politics at 4:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home