THE State of the Nation Address (SONA) is by all means a significant political event in many countries, particularly in the context of the Philippines, where the president addresses the nation. It outlines the administration’s achievements, priorities and plans for the coming year. In the Philippines, this annual event, usually in July, is not just a ceremonial occasion; it holds substantial importance in the democratic process and governance. Fundamentally speaking, the SONA is a direct communication channel between the president and the citizenry. It embodies the democratic principle of governance by the people and for the people.
In essence, the SONA is an opportunity for the president to inform the public about the progress made on the promises and initiatives outlined in previous SONAs. This includes reporting on economic performance, social and welfare programs, infrastructure projects, the effectiveness of good governance measures, and other government activities and the challenges ahead. It also promotes transparency and accountability in the administration’s performance and holds it accountable for its actions and policies.
Nevertheless, the third SONA of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has sparked a wave of debate across the country, prompting citizens and political analysts alike to ponder its success and impact. As with any significant political event, perspectives on its effectiveness vary widely, painting a complex picture of public reception and opinion. Its reception was far from unanimous in many ways, with various sectors providing critical insights into the address’ strengths and weaknesses. Allow me to share my two cents’ commentary on Marcos’ third SONA.
Promise and anticipation
The third SONA began with a sense of promise and anticipation. President Marcos took the podium, radiating confidence and pride in his administration’s achievements over the past year. He underscored the continuation of the Build, Better More program, a testament to his commitment to enhancing nationwide infrastructure for economic growth. He emphasized the revival of the economy post-pandemic, particularly in agriculture, tourism, digital infrastructure, and advancements in health care and education.
Nevertheless, even if Marcos’ rhetoric, mastery and eloquence were undoubtedly excellent in many ways, the whole speech seemed hollow if one dissected it with a critical view. For the most part, the speech was all about ambitious plans and promises, and was not tight, well-aligned, or anchored on the realities faced by millions of Filipinos and the nation’s true state. There were not even visual aids like photos to reinforce the reporting of his administration’s achievements for the past two years of his presidency.
Marcos’ rhetoric on economic recovery, indicating a somewhat stable Philippine economy and increased foreign investments, has primarily overlooked some critical nuances. For instance, inflation and the cost of living remain high, eroding ordinary Filipinos’ purchasing power and leading to a deteriorating standard of living among ordinary Filipinos. According to the latest Pulse Asia survey, 72 percent of Filipinos are clamoring for the Marcos administration to control inflation. This blatantly signifies that the administration’s measures to curb inflation were not sufficiently effective and, most importantly, were not explicitly detailed in the third SONA, leaving many skeptical about the government’s ability to manage rising prices effectively and efficiently. Also, unemployment and underemployment continue to plague the nation, yet Marcos’ SONA offered no detailed plan to address these critical issues. The same Pulse Asia survey released a few days before the third SONA stated that 30 percent of Filipinos are clamoring for creating more jobs, and 44 percent demand an increase in wages.
Indeed, the lack of comprehensive solutions to these pressing economic problems leaves many Filipinos feeling the pinch of rising costs and stagnant wages with the impression that the Marcos administration is not delivering on its promises, and has not crafted and implemented more concrete and practical measures to address these predicaments, casting doubt on the administration’s optimistic projections as delivered last Monday during the SONA.
The elephant in the room
Another significant critique of Marcos’ third SONA was the lack of substantial discussion on curbing corruption. Regarding the allegations of blatant corruption in the Marcos government, his SONA did not provide clear strategies for tackling this critical issue, leading to doubts about the administration’s commitment to transparency, accountability and curbing corruption. Another critical issue that the third SONA failed to address is media freedom. Concerns over media freedom and the administration’s relationship with the press were not addressed. An independent and free media is crucial for democracy, and the lack of commitment to safeguarding this freedom is troubling.
Political grandstanding
Marcos did not provide strategic clarity in foreign policy. He failed to elaborate or mention a more defined stance and approach on critical issues, especially regarding the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. Instead of offering concrete solutions on how to address the SCS dispute with China and other claimant states, he resorted to political grandstanding by claiming that the West Philippines Sea is not just our imagination, it is ours, when in fact, that area of the SCS is disputed with two strong contenders, Vietnam and China. Marcos Jr. failed to recognize that effective diplomacy requires tact, sensitivity and clear policy directions rather than mere political grandstanding.
Overall, the SONA’sinternational relations section was vague, lacking specific initiatives or agreements that could reassure citizens and the international community of the country’s strategic intentions on the SCS dispute and how his administration would calibrate its more heavily US-leaning and beholden foreign policy amid the geopolitical tensions between and among major powers in the Indo-Pacific region.
Another issue on which Marcos engaged in political grandstanding that verged on deception was his pronouncement that effective last Monday, all Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) are banned. This is a bit deceptive precisely because, in reality, POGO has been rebranded as Internet Gaming Licenses. The rebranding raises significant concerns and can be seen as deceptive. This rebranding does not merely involve a change in nomenclature; it carries more profound implications that obscure the underlying issues associated with POGOs.
Conclusion
Indeed, while President Marcos’ third SONA presented an optimistic vision of progress from his administration’s perspective, as far as many Filipinos are concerned, it failed to address critical issues with the depth, accountability and transparency required. It even failed to mention what’s going on with the Maharlika Fund, which is even more perplexing. This lack of transparency and accountability is a concern, as many perceive his SONA as more of lip service rather than a true report to the nation.
As the nation moves forward, the critical question remains: Will the Marcos administration’s “Bagong Pilipinas” (New Philippines) align with the realities on the ground faced by the Filipino people, or will the gap between rhetoric and reality widen further? Only time will tell if Marcos’ third SONA was a fleeting performance or a foundation for a better Philippines.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2024/07/27/opinion/columns/was-marcos-third-sona-a-flop/1960073
