None
Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go #28
Senator, 19th Congress (as of Feb. 5, 2025)
Reelectionist Go said he will continue to focus on healthcare services, being the main proponent of Malasakit Centers. He also intends to improve food security, jobs, education, and youth programs. Go wants to promote sports to divert the youth from illegal drug use.
On Poverty, Controlling Inflation, and Jobs
On Fighting Graft and Corruption
On West Philippine Sea
On The Drug War
Made it at least once in the top 20 of pre-election surveys conducted by independent pollsters Pulse Asia, Social Weather Stations and OCTA Research.
Each profile also contains the candidate's legislative agenda, government experience or field of expertise, issues and controversies faced, relatives in government and other interesting facts. Also included are the pertinent fact checks of, or related to the candidate, done by VERA Files Fact Check and its media and academic partners in the Tsek.ph collaboration.
Part 1 of the series covers incumbent senators seeking reelection: Pia Cayetano, Ronald Dela Rosa, Christopher Lawrence Go, Maria Imelda Marcos, Manuel Lapid, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Francis Tolentino.
Sixth of a series
IN last week's column, a conclusion was arrived at as a response to a question on whether the Philippines can produce a moral leader with Lincolnesque qualities embodying "integrity, moral courage and principled leadership..." President FVR, after the EDSA revolution that he helped foment, may have been the closest exemplar of this type of leadership. Given the hindsight of history, however, the good president barely made a dent in the system of governance itself. He initiated changes in the dysfunctional unitary-presidential structure of government enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and attempted a constitutional revision, shifting to parliamentary government. He failed!
FVR was a believer in the "free market." He fashioned his "Philippine Vision 2000," his socioeconomic program toward industrialization by the turn of the century, by breaking down monopolies in the banking and financial sectors, power and energy and the stagnant telecommunications sectors, among others. But there were near misses as when he lost our steel industry, which thrived during the 1950s and 1960s. Liberalizing the economy without first reforming the political and systemic underpinnings of his government merely transferred control of these industries from inefficient state parastatals to the oligarchy.
Estrada, GMA, PNoy administrations
Subsequent presidents understood that the systemic defects in the 1987 Constitution needed to be eliminated. FVR's presidency was followed by the ex-actor "Erap" and economist Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Both attempted a restructuring through the former's Constitutional Correction for Development (Concord) and the latter's Constitutional Commission (2006 ConCom). President GMA proposed to shift our form of government from unitary-presidential to federal-parliamentary. The legislature, the bastion of political dynasties and the oligarchy blocked constitutional revisions to effect these changes. Inevitably, the system consumed Erap's and GMA's administrations in corruption, ending their careers ignominiously with brief jail time for plunder (which was later dropped).
President Noynoy Aquino had to protect his mother Cory's 1987 Constitution and her legacy, and no attempt at structural reforms was initiated. And the system's defects allowed him one of his most anomalous acts — the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, with the complicit legislature bribing the senators with millions of pesos to convict. Some of these honorable men are still sitting senators, and some are seeking re-election.
The Deegong
President Duterte's human rights violations through the extrajudicial killings (EJK) in his war against illegal drugs are no less deadly and shameful as his administration's massive corruption scandals during the Covid-19 pandemic. I wrote back then: "All these occurring during the country's highest regime of pain and trauma, the continued harvest of dead souls through mismanagement of the pandemic and its resultant economic devastation. The repercussions are wide and long-term, and the aftermath is grim. The leadership of today's branches of government will be answerable to the generations to come."
Corruption and incompetence — a deadly combination
And BBM's watch today is no better. It does not only reek with the stench of corruption in cahoots with his allies in Congress — Speaker Martin and his minions — but is exacerbated by his incompetence. There is no dearth of instances, as revealed by his first executive secretary, spokesman and erstwhile campaign strategist, lawyer Vic Rodriguez, that many positions in the bureaucracy and boards of government corporations remained unfilled for months on end because the president had to refer to the first lady. He was promptly replaced as executive secretary, reportedly upon the behest of the president's wife, after just 79 days in that high position.
This is presidential incompetence on a grand scale if an unelected individual in the confidence of the president, his wife, has a say in running the government bureaucracy. From the words of his own vice president — although self-serving as their UniTeam is irreparably broken — "The sitting leader does not know how to become president... I don't ever remember him discussing what he would do in government." VP Sara was referring to BBM's mishandling of such problems as inflation and food security to what she called a lack of clear government policies.
Asian exemplars
It is generally an accepted truism that after WWII, the Philippines was at par or even economically ahead or more progressive than our neighbors. For these purposes, I cite only three — Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia. Today, in the ranking of the most progressive countries, the Philippines (GDP $437/$10,755 per capita) ranks far behind these three countries: Singapore (GDP $501 billion/$141,500), South Korea (GDP $1.71 trillion/$54,033) and Malaysia (GDP $400 billion/$37,248).
Political economists attribute these to many factors. But among those dominant ones are their systems of governance. Singapore has a parliamentary-unitary form; Malaysia has a parliamentary with constitutional monarchy; and South Korea has a presidential system similar to ours but with a unicameral legislature and no competing power bloc equivalent to the Philippine Senate.
But more importantly, they have strong and driven leaders, patriots, and men possessed with the political will to ram their visions through for the good of their people — which we in the Philippines have pined for but never had.
These are the common features of Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, Malaysia's Mahathir Mohammad Mahathir and South Korea's Park Chung-hee.
These leaders appeared at crucial moments in their respective countries' history and played pivotal roles in transforming them into economic powerhouses. They may not be moral in the Judeo-Christian context that in the Philippine cultural profile we cherish so much in our leadership yet only pay lip service to.
Foremost among these traits were their clear visions for their country's future. They demonstrated strong, sometimes authoritarian, leadership to implement their plans. They prioritized economic development and national stability, often at the expense of the liberal Western-imposed values on personal freedoms and political dissent.
They embraced a model of state-led economic development, where government played a significant role in directing economic policies, investing in key industries, and fostering strategic sectors. This often included the establishment of state-owned enterprises and the promotion of export-oriented growth. And they valued meritocracy in their bureaucracy to manage these parastatals.
All three leaders recognized the importance of education and skills development, investing heavily in education systems to create a skilled workforce capable of meeting the demands of a rapidly changing global economy. The Philippine system is trimmed toward producing OFWs.
Each leader implemented policies that created favorable conditions for foreign direct investment (FDI). They offered incentives, established special economic zones, and ensured political stability with an iron fist to attract multinational corporations. The economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution have long been a hindrance to FDIs. Calls for amendment and revisions have been stymied by the oligarchy and their allies, the political dynasties out to protect their interests.
They promoted export-led strategies, focusing on manufacturing and technology sectors to drive economic growth. This was particularly evident in South Korea and Singapore, where exports became a significant driver of GDP growth.
And more importantly, these leaders implemented measures to control corruption and improve governance, which helped build trust in government institutions and created a conducive environment for business.
And so, I reiterate: shackled to an inherently defective system of governance, can we ever have this type of leadership in our country?