More than the issues on pink fences or the latest UAAP ball game, we have to focus on the imminent danger that has been hanging in our midst yet is left untouched due to many a political issue. Terrorism is an act familiar even to the poorest family in the Philippines. And yet, we are rendered inutile by it, because we lack the resources to push through with a fight against it, hence the controversy circulating around the House of Representatives and the senate.
Unless they pass an anti-terrorism bill that will hopefully secure the citizens of this country a little more. Although unsure of the negative effects of this bill, people have already started speculating as to whether it will be effective or not. Opinions from both Max Soliven and Marichu Villanueva, both from the Philippines Star have its differences, and yet both look forward to the approval of the said bill.
Soliven's column strongly favors the anti-terrorism bill as is expresses by the line "This is why I say: we must have an anti-terrorism law. And the more teeth we put into it, the better." However, though he supports it, he sees the initial flaws of the plan, and concludes that due to more politics the bill will end up useless even if it is passed. He is really skeptic when it comes to the ability of our law makers to create a law that is both efficient and effective. Because of the issue of "human rights", the senate and congress reduced the number of detention days from 90 to 15. Seriously though, who would be afraid of such "punishment"? Our justice system holds on to suspected drug users and pushers for an indefinite period of time, as such it should give a more apt response to suspected terrorist, as they are recognized as a greater danger to all.
Soliven compares our manner of handling terrorist to those of our neighboring countries. He cites countries such as Indonesia, United Kingdom, U.S., Malaysia and Singapore. Albeit needed to prove his point, comparing the Philippines--a third world country--to that if the United States and UK is somewhat illogical, given the financial difference between the countries. The U.S. and the U.K. can go on an elaborate man-hunt for terrorists and keep them captive for the longest time, because they have the resources to manage such a scheme. Maintaining the prisoner's well being for example, will use up tax payer's precious money, that can be used for other more urgent issues. Malaysia and Singapore both have aid from the Colonial British, therefore it is understandable that these developing countries are able to protect themselves from terrorism. He mentions the way in which a country could trap a terrorist within the bounds of the law, but again the issue of money comes to mind.
What's impressive is that despite the seemingly pointless endeavor that the lawmakers has taken to, Soliven still wishes to have the bill passed. For what it's worth, the country could start at something small, and hopefully all other things will...