By PROUT
With the pronouncement of the president during his third State of the Nation Address that Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) will be banned (after 2024), the immediate response was one of approval. Recall that POGOs have been linked to a number of illegal activities, the most controversial one of late even involving a municipal mayor, who is in hot water not just for her alleged involvement with the criminal activities of POGOs but also for apparently not being a Filipino citizen, a basic requirement to run for an elective post in the country.
But POGOs have recently (October 2023) been renamed as International Gaming Licensees or IGLs. So, are POGOs really going to be banned or have they just been renamed as IGLs; that POGOs are out and IGLs are in? Or, as can be argued logically, if the concept of POGOs, even if they are now called IGLs, is the one that is being banned, will IGLs also be banned? This should be clarified as Representative Joey Salceda distinguishes between POGOs and IGLs; according to him, POGOs are just a subset of IGLs.
In other words, have POGOs just been reincarnated as IGLs; or are they both dead?
Granted that POGOs are really being banned, at least 22,000 employees would lose their jobs. If alternative employment opportunities are not provided to them, they will lose their source of income; they will not be able to provide for the minimum needs of their families. It is a basic proposal of PROUT that alternative livelihoods should always be provided to those whose livelihoods will be affected by a new government policy.
While banning POGOs is a decision supported by many, government should think through its consequences. People should not lose jobs because the government did the “right” thing.**
