“Sa tingin ko bukas naman siya sa development ng Pilipinas sa pamamagitan ng Filipino-owned industrialization and land reform at kumbinsido ako na makabayan siya at ipagtatanggol niya ang pambansang soberenhiya at integridad ng teritoryo nga Pilipinas (I can see he is open to the development of the Philippines through Filipino-owned industrialization and land reform and I am convince he is a nationalist and he will defend national territorial sovereignty and integrity of the Philippines).” Communist Party of the Philippines founder Jose Maria Sison
From Davao Today:
DT: What’s your assessment of Davao City Mayor Duterte? Do you see him as a possible presidential candidate come 2016? Rights advocates, including agencies under the GPH tag him for the summary killings in Davao, what’s your take to that?
Joma Sison: The local revolutionary forces in Davao City consider Mayor Duterte as someone they can negotiate with and make reasonable agreements with. Perhaps, if he becomes president, he can act like a statesman and negotiate with the NDFP. But will the big financiers and media lords allow him to win the presidential elections?
The Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly accused Duterte of violating human rights but refuses to take up Duterte’s challenge to put up or shut up. The same commission has never said anything critical of the gross and systematic violation of human rights by the Aquino regime and its military, police and paramilitary forces.
If he becomes president, Duterte can become
the Filipino Hugo Chavez.From The Manila Times
ChairmanJoma Sison together with NDFP peace panel chief Luis Jalandoni and NDFP spokesman Fidel Agcaoili recently sat down with the Times for a free-wheeling interview.
Sison said Duterte has all the characters of a good leader.
For Sison, unlike other presidential aspirants, Duterte has the grasp and understanding of the struggles of the Filipino people and the only one who has set a direction on how to address the peace problem in the country.
“Hindi siya sakim at kilala nya ang mga problema ng Pilipinas (He is not greedy and he knows and understands the problems of the people),” Sison said.
If he becomes president, Duterte can become the Filipino Hugo Chavez.
“He has the characters of Hugo Chavez,” said Sison, noting how the late Venezuelan leftist leader who galvanized the development of his country since coming to power in 1999.
Just like Chavez, Duterte, Sison said, is “dauntless and bold.”
Jalandoni called Duterte the “most forward” among the candidates.
“He is only the one who has laid down possible policies that underscore his commitment to peace. He is the most forward of all candidates,” he said.
He was referring to the earlier declarations of Duterte that he will forge a coalition with the Communist Party of the Philippines to end the 47-year communist rebellion in the Philippines.
The possibility of a coalition with the previous governments had been proposed by NDFP, but the past administrations spurned this.
Jalandoni also noted Duterte’s roles in the release of various prisoners of wars in Mindanao and his friendship with slain New People’s Army rebel Leoncio Pitao or Commander Parago.
Duterte has also repeatedly called for the government and the NDFP to resume the peace negotiations, even offering himself to become a negotiator.
But Sison also made himself clear that he complimented Duterte, a former student that he could no longer remember, for his type of leadership and distinct character that sets him apart from the others.
“Pinuri ko siya,” [I praised him]he said.
Hugo Chavez: The controversial leader of Venezuela
with Cuba's Communist Dictator Fidel Castro
From The Daily Beast:
Hugo Chávez Frias was not a dictator, a semantic point to which his supporters devoted much argument, but he was most assuredly not a democrat. Having burst onto the Venezuelan political scene in 1992 as the leader of a failed military coup, he would later reposition himself as a champion of the ballot box, though one without much concern for the niceties of democracy.
In the early days of Chavismo, despite his golpista background, Chavez commanded support from beyond the barrios, but his popularity waned significantly as he consolidated power by shuttering opposition media, rewriting the constitution, and expanding the supreme court.
As his rule become more arbitrary and power centralized, thousands fled into exile. He won elections in conditions that, had they taken place in this country, would likely provoke revolution (and, in 2002, actually did in Venezuela). Chavez took his semi-democratic mandate as license to rule undemocratically and rebuild state institutions, now staffed with loyal supporters.Chávez presided over a political epoch flush with money and lorded over a society riven by fear, deep political divisions, and ultraviolence. Consider the latest crime statistics from Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, which reckons that 2012 saw an astonishing 21,692 murders in the country—in a population of 29 million. Last year, I accompanied a Venezuelan journalist on his morning rounds at Caracas’s only morgue to count the previous night’s murders. As the number of dead ballooned, the Chávez regime simply stopped releasing murder statistics to the media.
All of this could have been predicted, and wasn’t particularly surprising from a president who believed that one must take the side of any enemy of the “empire.” That Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe was a “freedom fighter,” or that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko presided over “a model of a social state.” Saddam Hussein was a “brother,” Bashar al-Assad had the “same political vision” as the Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela.
He saw in the madness of Col. Gaddafi an often overlooked “brilliance” (“I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi”).
The brutal terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who praised the 9/11 attacks from his French jail cell, was “a good friend.” He praised and supported FARC, the terrorist organization operating in neighboring Colombia. The list is endless.
His was a poisonous influence on the region, one rah-rahed by radical fools who desired to see a thumb jammed in America’s eye, while not caring a lick for its effect on ordinary Venezuelans. In his terrific new book (fortuitously timed to publish this week) Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, The Guardian’s Rory Carroll summed up the legacy of Chávez’s Venezuela as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” One could add to that list grinding poverty, massive corruption, censorship, and intimidation.
This was Chávez’s reign and his legacy; extralegal, vindictive, and interested in the short-term gesture rather than the more difficult, long-term solution. From his revolutionary comrades in Cuba, he borrowed the slogan “patria, socialismo o muerte”—fatherland, socialism or death. The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead. May the “revolution” die with him.
What IF Pinoys Decide to Vote For Duterte
as President in 2016 ?
The Pros and Cons of a Rodrigo Duterte presidencyPROS:
Duterte has been mayor for seven terms, presiding in total for more than 22 years. He has also served as vice mayor and congressman in the city.
Supporters like Duterte's "straight-talk" and his record of achievement in Davao, the largest city in the Philippines by geographic size, which ranks as one of the most progressive areas in the country.
“A lot of Filipinos like Rody’s charisma and they believe he brought down the murder rate. People see him the way that, say, Wyatt Earp [a wild west lawman] would have been seen in Tombstone, Arizona.
Duterte’s fans span the political spectrum: from arch-conservative senators in Manila to Jose Maria Sison, the exiled leader of the communist New People’s Army.
It is outrageous that a man running for president can openly boast about illegal extrajudicial killings that he committed instead of being held accountable.
His most controversial policy is what some call a “zero tolerance approach to crime”. Others, particularly human rights activists, prefer to term it an “endorsement of summary executions”.
Contrary to expectations, the Davao Death Squad has not reduced crime. In the decade since the squad began operating, crime in Davao City has mushroomed ten times faster than the population.
People who applaud extrajudicial responses to crime are the same people who will demand due process when it is their turn to feel the state’s boot on their neck.