A DAY AFTER President Aquino’s second State of the Nation Address, the nation broke out from the spell of the fluent delivery of his speech and Filipinos started asking: “What has he done?” and “Where is he taking us?”
Measured in terms of eloquence, the speech was a huge success. The President spoke in the national language, which enabled him to communicate to Filipinos, and to be understood with ease. It was a no-frills speech, down to earth, without any pretensions to erudition—so unlike the pomposity of the bombastic oratory of Ferdinand Marcos, the pedantic tutorial of the convent school head mistress Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the engineering precision of retired Gen. Fidel Ramos’ methodical battle orders to a sapper team storming an enemy bunker, or the buffoonery of ex-actor Joseph Estrada. The President proved to be a more effective and articulate communicator than his overmanned and overpaid communications team, suggesting they are superfluous.
More than anything else, Mr. Aquino’s second Sona was a revelation. It unveiled his leadership style and its flaws, and showed up the hollowness of the substance of his accomplishments in his first year in office. There are those who were swept off their feet by his effortless delivery, prompting some to praise it as one of the most eloquent speeches ever made by any Filipino president, barring none. Listening to the speech one couldn’t help but feel like being intoxicated by drinks on a Friday afternoon “happy hour.”
But it is the hang-over effect of too much of the good thing that distorts reality. When reviews brought the audiences back to reality, questions were asked. What really did the Sona say and where’s the beef? Most of the spectators listened respectfully to the President. There were no catcalls or jeers in the gallery of Congress when he was speaking. But the rounds of applause from the captive audience consisting of members of Congress, Cabinet members, senior bureaucratic, and polite diplomats, lasted only up to the cocktail reception inside the Batasan.
The hangover soon made way to skepticism in the morning after when the public shook off the spell of a speech that mesmerized the nation. When the reactions came in from the various sectors and audiences, the views were mixed, the nation was divided between those who praised the President and those who were more skeptical.
Some members of Congress were disappointed. They had expected the President to present a legislative agenda of specific measures or a roadmap of where he is leading the nation in his “daang matuwid ” (straight path). Criticisms came from the academic community, society and most of all from the business sector, all of which demanded more rigorous standards in assessing the accomplishments of the government.
Some academics noted that while the speech covered the issue of corruption they would have wanted it to focus on the general direction of the economy. They said that while the President mentioned economic growth as a goal, the speech did not say how it would be achieved.
The critics pointed out that the speech omitted a number of key economic and social issues, and was heavy with moralistic themes associated with the campaign of the administration to uncover the alleged corruption and venalities of the previous administration. The Makati Business Club was specific in criticizing the President for not revisiting his administration centerpiece program, the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) launched in his first Sona. It said that since it was announced, only two projects have been launched and none has been awarded.
A review of the speech shows that Mr. Aquino did not claim many achievements in terms of big-ticket economic projects. In fact, the achievements he cited were about barangay roads, clean water in a barangay in Romblon and electricity in a barrio in Agusan del Sur—projects more worthy of the attention of barangay captains than of the President of the republic.
What was noteworthy was that the President toned down his demolition campaign against the alleged corrupt practices of the Arroyo administration. Although he did not mention the name of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, he still served notice that there would be no let-up in his anti-corruption campaign. Defending himself from criticism that he was carrying on a personal vendetta, Mr. Aquino said:
“It’s true: What’s right is personal. Making people accountable—whoever they may be—is personal. It should be personal for all of us, because we have all been victimized by corruption.
“What is wrong remains wrong; regardless of how it has been allowed to persist. We cannot simply let it pass. If we ignore the crimes of the past, they will continue to haunt us. And if we do not hold people accountable, they will do it again and again.”
But the question of when he will deliver the economic goods will continue to haunt him time and again. The speech contained a heavy doze of moralizing but had little to show by way of economic and social justice accomplishments. (Hacienda Luisita was hardly mentioned in the speech.)
Mr. Aquino said, “We have to put an end to the culture of entitlement, to wang-wang along our roads, in government, in our society as a whole. This will bring confidence that will attract business; this will also ensure that the people’s money is put in its rightful place.”
To realize this, Mr. Aquino is offering a miracle drug: the moral regeneration of Philippine society. But how will this transformation translate into economic results and reduce poverty?
Results come from lots of home work, not from self-righteous sermons.