after googling for information, i found a transcription of a podcast from the gma news website similar to what i found under zubiri’s name.
i wonder why pichay did not sound this INFORMED when he was under fire in the Forum 2007 program. he rattled off a lot of statistics, but, as per his trademark, he managed to sound repetitive.
one thing i’d like to focus on is this: (taken from here)
Joel Guinto: Sir, yung political ads, do you favor it over traditional means of campaigning. Is this a part of your strategy?
Prospero Pichay: Well, we’re a country of 45 million voters, 7,000 islands. If we use the traditional form of campaign[ing], then we will not be able to bring the issues to the people. You know, it’s very important in an election that the people know about the issues, the platform of government.
And so, I think the new style of campaign which is done through TV, radio, electronic media is a better alternative. It is quite expensive though, and that’s one of my arguments as far as Charter change is concerned because now you’re witnessing a very expensive campaign; and it only goes to show that the office of senator is for rich people, or people who have a lot of supporters. Now we want to level the playing field. We have a lot of people who are not rich and yet they are capable of becoming good senators. And this is what we want to equalize.
i don’t quite understand this part. pichay says that yes, campaigning through media is a good “alternative,” but what is he saying about leveling the playing field? is he saying that if the charter change pushes through, campaigning through media will not be allowed anymore in order to “level the playing field” in favor of those who cannot afford the media campaigns?
on one hand, i see the great advantage that media campaigns afford the candidates who use them, but if pichay really wanted to equalize everybody, then he should have been the one to serve as an example of a candidate who can campaign without the use of media and still stand a fighting chance in the elections. IF he wins, that will be the blow he needs in order to really push for charter change, which, by the way, appears to be one of his top priorities.
but like i said, i need help clearing up that part with which i’m still confused.
okay, from what i remember from the Forum2007 discussion and from what i read in that podcast transcription, pichay seems to focus on “creating a climate of investment” that he believes will be able to address the problems of “brain drain,” tourism, and poverty. how will he create a climate of investment? he’s going to address the peace and order issue (mindanao, industrial peace, etc). i wonder how he’ll be able to restore peace in mindanao. he didn’t mention any strategies or plans.
again, my one peeve about pichay is his lack of conviction in making statements about his platform. he sounds wishy-washy a bit. it is because of this that i will not vote for him in the coming elections. a candidate may have a lot of good plans, but if s/he does not show any conviction that s/he will most definitely push through with any of what he is saying, then he does not deserve my vote. i want a candidate who can come up with good plans for the country and convince me that he will make these plans reality. how? his background should speak for him. (this leaves me with the dilemma of whether or not i should go with my decision to vote for a certain doctor-candidate with no political background. hm)
in any case, pichay, in my opinion, has a lot of good plans and ideas for the country which he seems to “understand.” what worries me is he has TOO many plans that he might have a difficult time focusing on one and seeing it through to reality.
it’s back to the drawing board for me. i don’t know who to vote anymore. not kiko, not zubiri, not even the doctor. *sigh*
what i do know is who NOT to vote for:
**helpful websites i found on prospero pichay: