Reforming the pork

 

SAY pork in the context of Congress and thoughts of corruption and anomalies immediately come to mind. Renaming what used to be known as the Countrywide Development Fund, created in 1990, into the more jargonistic Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2000 did nothing to change the widespread perception that the pork is dirty. With the recent scandal over a staggering P10 billion worth of PDAF allegedly filched methodically by a private citizen from five senators and 23 house representatives, the spotlight is now seriously blaring on the pork.

But the pork barrel is not a bad concept per se. It is intended to deliver services to the districts not covered in the national budget as identified by the representatives who are supposed to be closer to the cities and municipalities and are more in tune with the community’s needs. A Supreme Court ruling even labelled the pork as a means to “make equal the unequal”.

The problem is in the policies governing the PDAF and to a large extent how the senators and congressional representatives manage the people’s money that has been entrusted to them.

In Pangasinan, a good list could be easily drawn up of commendable projects accomplished using the PDAF, just as there would be tainted pork projects as well.

Reforms are needed to maximize the pork’s impact in the districts, eliminate opportunities for corruption, make officials strictly accountable for completion of projects per specifications, and make implementation more transparent.

 

*          *          *          *          *          *

Laughable

 

MIRIAM Santiago has raised hell again over the issue of Ping Lacson being possibly named to head an anti-corruption body.  First, the senator said creating a presidential commission against corruption would be unconstitutional.  Second, she hit Lacson for presenting an anti-corruption agenda to President Aquino.

“His (Lacson’s) plan is laughable and ridiculous,” Santiago said in a statement, calling it even “illegal, immoral and egotistic.”

How can a plan designed for the common good be so evil-looking as Miriam wants us to believe?  Does one wanting to weed out the corrupt qualify as “egotistic?”

The laughable thing here is the outburst of Miriam, who is notoriously known more for her often-misplaced ballistics than her penchant to rant at people that routinely dismiss her as all noise and no sense. Lacson, who once called Miriam “a crusading crook” who pretends to be clean “when she is not,” reacted to Santiago’s latest tirades, thus:  “Only the corrupt will oppose the creation of the anti-corrupt body.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments