Herbie Gomez I EMERGED from the polling precinct without anyone knowing which presidential candidate I voted for. Except for my wife and children who learned about how I voted in the car while we heading back home, most likely, no one will ever know. Of the five presidential candidates, I only had three choices, and yet none of them, still, were good enough for me. As I stated in this corner earlier, I felt I had no choice but completely fill out my ballot lest a blank space benefit the two candidates I dislike the most by default. And just as I stated in my pre-Election Day column, I emerged from the polling precinct unhappy knowing full well that the tide of public opinion favored one of the two presidential candidates I dislike the most. Even before the last polling precinct closed its doors, it was already very clear who would win. Up to this day, I maintain my position but I know there is nothing we can do about it now. It’s water under bridge now. In Tagalog, nandyan na yan eh. My only wish is that I and the over 25 million others will be proven wrong for the sake of this country, and so that there will be no need for us to hold the 16 million accountable for what they have chosen to bring upon all of us. I would really be happy to be proven wrong. My greatest fear is that I am correct.
  • •
A report in Bloomberg reads that “Presumptive Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will continue the macroeconomic policies of the outgoing administration of Benigno Aquino, according to an eight-point economic agenda released on Thursday that also prioritized tax reform, education and infrastructure spending, and fighting corruption.” Carlos Dominguez, a key figure in the Duterte transition team who served as his campaign finance manager, was quoted in the report as saying, “We will continue and maintain the current macroeconomic policies,” and the incoming administration is planning to “enhance competitiveness and follow the Davao City model that Duterte instituted.” The Davao model, it seems, will be the only change in our economic direction in the next six years. Such model needs to be examined. How that can be considered a radical departure from the Aquino administration’s economic policies is something that remains to be seen. Maybe, Charter change or amending specific provisions in the 1987 Constitution and a shift to a federal form of government would work. Maybe, maybe not. One thing is certain: radical change in our economic direction is going to be a long jump from where were are today--it won’t come overnight. And I don’t see how “papatayin ko kayo” (if Duterte really meant that) would figure in this picture. Since 2010, the country’s GDP growth registered an average of 6.2 percent. Still, such growth under the Aquino administration has not been felt; it did not trickle down to the discontented masses. There are approximately 100 million Filipinos, and the six-percent growth using the Aquino forumla, albeit the highest in four decades, is simply not enough. That kind of growth did not quench the thirst for radical change of the frustrated masses. Now, assuming that we will move forward towards the same direction and achieve another six-percent growth, that will be good. But I really doubt if that growth would be significant vis-à-vis 100 million Filipinos most of whom are lacking in spending power. The discontent would grow as the population swells alongside the GDP. If it’s going to be a status quo, then people would basically have the same complaints about the economy. Now, the worst scenario is if we move backwards towards the exact opposite direction. This is the government’s dilemma: feed 30 million Filipinos and 70 million others will complain about not being served. Mere rhetorics and comedy won’t work. Pastilan.