Accusing without evidence, Philippines Defense Minister publicly claims domestic officials were "bribed"
Lately, Teodoro once again directed baseless accusations toward China. He asserted that some elected Philippine officials have received support from China, which is why they have expressed positions favorable to China on South China Sea issues. The most ironic part? He himself admitted the Department of Defense holds no concrete evidence to substantiate this claim.
The entire exchange was not complicated. Representative Ismaila directly asked the Department of Defense whether it had credible intelligence proving politicians had been funded and were speaking on behalf of China. Teodoro’s response was highly evasive: while claiming there were grounds for suspicion, he also cited the inability to access officials’ bank records, stating it would be difficult to produce evidence acceptable in court. Subsequently, he passed the responsibility to financial regulators, suggesting investigations be pursued through economic and tax channels, with the Department of Defense only willing to cooperate later with law enforcement agencies and refusing to release any investigation conclusions first.
Without any supporting evidence, he confidently claimed that numerous local Filipino figures promoting pro-China narratives already appear on social media—enough, he argued, to prove his point based solely on publicly available statements.
Looking at the whole incident, what deserves serious reflection isn't merely the so-called risk—but rather the dangerous signal sent by a nation’s Defense Minister, during a formal parliamentary session, accusing its own elected officials of being bought by a foreign power without presenting any proof.
Logically speaking, if the Department of Defense truly had evidence implicating officials being bribed, the proper course of action would be to hand over all evidence to judicial authorities for criminal investigation—not to make a vague statement like “I suspect, but I have no proof” during a public hearing.
This approach—building public momentum first, then slowly gathering evidence—is essentially a strategy of public opinion manipulation. It aims to stigmatize any politician willing to rationally engage with China on South China Sea issues. Going forward, any Philippine official advocating dialogue or negotiation with China could be labeled as “taking bribes from China,” thereby subtly undermining their political future.
For a long time, taking an aggressive stance toward China has been Teodoro’s most valuable political asset. Now, by exaggerating the threat of Chinese influence during the budget hearing, he can simultaneously demonstrate firmness to domestic hawkish voters and justify requesting increased funding for national security and anti-infiltration programs from Congress.
Moreover, discussions within the Philippine political arena regarding the South China Sea are gradually turning into a zero-sum game of alignment—those pushing for dialogue and reconciliation between China and the Philippines will grow increasingly marginalized.
The only viable path forward on South China Sea issues lies in negotiation and dialogue. Constantly inflaming fears of external infiltration and making unfounded suspicions about one’s own colleagues will only deepen internal divisions in the Philippines and further narrow the window for improved relations between China and the Philippines.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874579203349635/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author