Living without ‘Pork’ by Josephine Jaron Codilla Aug 18, 2013 10:16pm HKT Senator Lacson, in his privilege speech in the Senate ten years ago calling for the scrapping of the pork barrel system, said: “It is time to bring the pork barrel system down. Or, we all go down under.” The Napoles issue has opened the can of worms. THIS privilege speech of former Senator Panfilo Lacson on March 11, 2003 is now being shared online ten years after it was delivered at the Session Hall of the Senate. During his term, Senator Lacson has not only steadfastly refused to receive his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel allocation but has also actively called for the scrapping of what he considers to be a “very corrupt and corrupting system” in the country’s political institutions. “One thing, I may say is apodictic. It is still counting. There is nothing in the pork barrel system that gives us pride. There is only everything that makes us hide in shame,” Senator Lacson said. Netizens lauded Senator Lacson for his stand, albeit more than a decade later. Most of them are in accord that the scrapping of the pork barrel “will help create an environment free of corruption.” The comment in the post that earned the most “likes,” however, was by a certain Phons Ang who said, “No matter what you think of Ping Lacson, his consistent rejection of pork barrel, with his proposal to scrap it in a privilege speech as early as 2003, is something to be lauded. His detection of the evil of pork barrel was a reflection of his sense of political wisdom.” A petition by change.org to abolish the PDF is also circulating online. Change.org considers the pork barrel as “a wide opening to corruption via personal greed and political patronage…, a great injustice to faithful taxpayers and a criminal act against the poor who would benefit more from less corruption in government.” Senator Lacson traced the origin of the pork barrel “to the pre-civil war days in the United States when, in periodic fits of generosity, white masters would give their black slaves salted pork in barrels. More often than not, the eagerness of the slaves would result in ugly shoving and rushing to grab more pork than the others. The more pork one could grab for himself, the more triumphant he would appear than the others who were meek and reluctant.” “We may not realize it, but the Filipino people would sometimes see us behave like slaves rushing to the pork barrel. A critic has a worse description – that of swines rushing to get more slabs than they can consume,” Senator Lacson added. Senator Lacson stated that under the pork barrel system, only less than half of the taxpayers’ money actually goes to the programs of work and more than half habitually goes to the pockets of corruption. Occasionally, he said, depending on the insatiability of the corrupt, “a shameful twenty percent of the fund is left to finance the project.” In 2003, at the time that Senator Lacson delivered his speech, he revealed that 2% of the legislator’s pork barrel goes to the Commission on Audit as S.O.P.; 10% is given to the district engineer and other officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways; 2% is passed on to the Barangay Chairman; 14% goes to the contractor – 10% in profit and 4% as value-added tax; 5-10%, if the Mayor or Governor so demands; and 20% of project cost is earmarked for the legislator who identifies the project. He assured that he has his own sources for making the allegations, and that the figures were not speculations and were never just a figment of his imagination. Because the pork barrel issue has caused public perception that people in Congress are all “dirty, corrupt and greedy politicians,” Senator Lacson urged his fellow legislators to “make good laws for the common good and never to make gold under the pork barrel system. We are here to make laws, not to build roads and bridges.” Indeed it was prophetic of Senator Lacson ten years ago to say that “It is time to bring the pork barrel system down. Or, we all go down under.” Are we seeing an end to the PDAF with the Napoles issue? Public clamour is so widespread it just cannot be ignored this time. Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0 2 Responses for “Living without ‘Pork’” Ampiyong says: August 19, 2013 at 12:04 am Maganda ang sinabi ni Senator Lacson, pero, bakit ngayon lang yata nabigyang halaga? REPLY Barakong_jose says: August 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm KUNG AALISIN NA ANG PORK BARREL… ANG KASUNOD NA AY… KOKONTI NA ANG TATAKBONG POLITIKO.. HAHAHA! REPLY LEAVE A REPLY Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website CAPTCHA Code *
Posted on: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:49:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015