 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| ChaCha Charade
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on Sept.23, 2006 For the Standard Today, September 25 issue Or ChaChaCha. Or how I learned to hate this dance. SIEM REAP, CAMBODIA . In my article, No to ChaCha (Aug. 28) I had written that, contrary to the false claims of its advocates, the parliamentary system government a) does not by itself dismantle political dynasties; b) does not automatically wipe out or even only reduce corruption in government; and c) does not guarantee economic progress. Recent events in Asia and Europe also debunk other false claims of parliamentary advocates, namely that the parliamentary system makes coups d�etat and people power street demos unnecessary because an unpopular prime minister can be removed by a simple, democratic and painless vote of no-confidence in parliament. That benign and na�ve view is good only on paper. The reality is that even parliamentary systems are subject to extra-constitutional processes if and when political forces outside the halls of parliament decide to exercise these processes. In neighboring Thailand , Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was unceremoniously removed from power last week by the Thai military who launched a peaceful and bloodless coup against him while he was in New York waiting for his turn to address the United Nations General Assembly. Depending on who is doing the counting, this was the 26th or the 40th coup d�etat launched by the Thai military in the past 74 years, during which Thailand had a parliamentary system in place except during periods of military rule. So the blissfully ignorant or deliberately lying rah-rah boys and girls of Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP should now admit that the parliamentary system does not insulate a sitting government from a military coup d�etat. Nor does it protect that government from People Power agitation. In far-away Hungary , daily street demonstrations in Budapest have been calling for the ouster or resignation of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurgsany. While Mr. Gyurgsany has so far stone-walled these street protests and refuses to resign, time may not be on his side. The latest news is that the street demos have spread to 12 other cities in Hungary . Hungary has had a parliamentary system of government since 1989, after the communist regime was ousted, like those of Poland , Czechoslovakia , East Germany , etc, by People Power street demonstrations. The military coup d�etat in Thailand was resorted to by the generals because of perceived corruption by the prime minister and his cronies (which sounds familiar), and the would-be People Power agitation in Hungary was triggered by leaked audio-taped recordings (which also sounds familiar) of the prime minister candidly telling his inner circle that they had won the recent elections because �we lied in the morning, we lied in the afternoon, and we lied in the evening� about the state of the national economy. In neither case was a vote of no-confidence in parliament resorted to by the opposition parties. The military just ousted the sitting government in Thailand by surrounding Government House with tanks and telling the prime minister that he was out of a job, while street demonstrators hope to pressure the sitting government in Hungary with daily protests into resigning.. I do not know if People Power will win out in Budapest , but the military coup d�etat in Bangkok is a fait accompli which Thaksin has no means to reverse. The coup has been given the seal of approval by the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej, of whom the coup leader, Army Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin , was said to be the unofficial spokesman. So it is possible that the King knew of the coup even before the first tank rolled out of army barracks last week. And the fact that Gen. Boonyaratglin is a Muslim suggests that he was chosen by the king himself to launch the coup because of royal displeasure at the way Thaksin had handled the Muslim insurgency in the south of Thailand, which has claimed almost 2,000 lives in the past two years. The military has decreed a ban on political gatherings of five or more persons.. Radio and television broadcasts are under strict military censorship. But Gen. Boonyaratglin has promised to turn over the reins of government in �two weeks� to a new interim prime minister of their choice: the short list of possible PM includes an economist, a former central bank governor, and a former Supreme Court justice. The fact that no politician is included in this short list suggests the military and the King have no more confidence in the nation�s politicians. The military has also announced that a new constitution will be drawn up in time for new parliamentary elections that will be held in October 2007. In the meantime, the military has re-appointed a nine-man civilian National Counter-Corruption Commission which is tasked with investigating allegations of corruption under Thaksin. The commission will examine the tax records of the ministers of the past government, presumably including Thaksin himself. Thaksin had sold his telecom empire to a Singapore company last January for $2 billion and, allegedly, did not pay a single baht in taxes to the government. Despite the draconian measures so far taken by the military, the coup seems to have won cheers from the urban middle-class. (Thaksin is popular in the rural areas, like a Filipina politician we know). The leader of the opposition, whose name I cannot recall (polysyllabic Thai names are so hard to remember), was interviewed by CNN yesterday and, surprisingly, gave his approval to the coup �even though it is against my democratic principles.� There are lessons to be learned here by both the government and the opposition among our own urban middle class. A military coup d�etat would also gain support from the middle-class here if a) politicians were excluded from its list of interim leaders; b) an anti-corruption commission were immediately installed to investigate allegations of corruption at the highest levels; c) democratic political rights were temporarily shelved; but d) the military promises to return to the barracks in two weeks; e) a new constitution will be drafted; and f) elections are scheduled in the near future. Our middle class would most likely also want to see the communist movement excluded from any new government . This is not mentioned in the Thai laundry list of reforms because there is no more communist insurgency in Thailand . The coup leader, Gen. Boonyaratglin, who is said to be a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy, cut his soldier�s teeth battling and defeating the communist insurgents in Thailand . But the most important lesson to be learned from the latest Thai coup is that the parliamentary system does not immunize a sitting government from being overthrown by a military coup, contrary to the na�ve Pollyanna claims of its champions, like Jose de Venecia, Jose Abueva and the cumbancheros of Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP.. So if the parliamentary system cannot dismantle political dynasties, cannot eliminate or even only reduce government corruption, cannot guarantee economic progress, cannot shield a sitting government against coups d�etat and People Power uprisings, why are we being stampeded into changing our constitution in order to shift to it? There seems to be only one answer: to allow Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to remain in power beyond 2010, either as prime minister in a Westminster-type parliament, or as president in a French parliamentary model. ChaChaCha! Que rico! ChaChaCha! ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �ChaCha Charade�
I have the same assessment that the game plan is to stay on beyond 2010. As for a coup ala Thailand to stabilize the ship of state, its armed forces is professional, skillful and has the resources to carry one out. Besides it has a real king to rally to. In our case, it is none of the above. The few good ones who are the exception do not have critical mass, and she knows it. Raffy Alunan III, [email protected], Sept. 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Mr. Abaya, I read your article recently published here: http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=antonioAbaya_sept26_2006 and couldn't agree more. I also wanted to ask you, have you read my father's book, "Trapo Governance and the Cha Cha Conspiracy"? His name is Manuel Valdehuesa and writes often for the Mindanews website. Best, Basilio Valdehuesa, [email protected], Sept. 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, You are absolutely right. The parliamentary form of government will not dismantle dynasties nor will it weed out the undesirable elements of the government. The switch from presidential to parliamentary system of government is nothing more than legitimizing a fixed term of office to several more years and extending the lucrative practice of corruption and inefficiency. Allow a system of government to work for centuries and make it better instead of constantly changing it. Permanency is the key to progress and stability. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, [email protected], New York City, Sept 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Right again...and with a writing style that is distinctively Abaya! Bravo! Tony Joaquin, [email protected], Daly , CA , Sept.26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww General Boonyaratglin graduated from Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy in 1969 and was commissioned into the Royal Army Infantry Corps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonthi_Boonyaratglin Nonoy Ramos, [email protected], Pennsylvania , Sept. 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tito! I really enjoy your articles! Thank you for sending them. I've attached an article for you. Perhaps there is still hope for a First Amendment in our press? Go Olbermann! Watch the video. Its amazing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/ Jessica (Dosch), [email protected], New York City , Sept. 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya: I thoroughly enjoy your articles. As an expatriate now living in New Jersey, your articles provide a timely concise overview and meaningful analysis of important Philippine matters. I share your articles with my large extended family and friends. However, I only receive your articles sporadically and indirectly from others. Please include me in your direct distribution list. Thank you. Carlos H. Castro, [email protected], New Jersey, Sept. 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Solita Monsod is now jumping up and down, in glee, using the events in Thailand and Hungary as her arguments against the proposed shift to a parliamentary system, as if the prevention of coups were the only justification for Charter Change. She presents these two countries, as if they were representative of all others that have adopted the parliamentary form of government. What about countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Venezuela? All of these countries have parliamentary systems of government. Is Monsod now saying that these countries are in danger of coups d'�tat, as well? And, under our present form of government, haven't we IN FACT experienced several coup d'�tat attempts from the time of Marcos up to the present? So, what makes the present system more desirable for Monsod than the parliamentary form? Isn't this woman having a selective memory? Apparently, Monsod restricts the arguments of pro-Charter change to the prevention of coups and "people power" demonstrations. She purposely omits discussion of systemic grid-locks between the Executive and Legislative branches that we have all witnessed under the current presidential-bicameral form of government. She finally concludes her column (PDI Sept 23/06, "Parliamentary lessons from Thailand and Hungary") with the statement, "Democracy runs more than skin-deep in the Philippines. Something we should be proud of. And should protect." Right she is, on this point; but she implies that a parliamentary shift will veer us away from democracy. What rubbish! Victor N. Arches II, [email protected], Sept. 28, 2006 MY REPLY. Your facts are wrong. Taiwan, South Korea and Venezuela have presidential systems of government, not parliamentary. China has neither a presidential nor a parliamentary system, but a communist system in which the secretary-general of the Communist Party is the most powerful political figure, not the president or prime minister. Your logic is also flawed. Solita Monsod did not make any general statement that all parliamentary systems are susceptible to coups. It is the parliamentary advocates who made/make the general statement that parliamentary governments are immune to coups and people power because an unpopular prime minister can easily be removed from power through a no-confidence vote in parliament. Monsod merely pointed out that the recent events in Thailand and Hungary show that even parliamentary government are susceptible to coups and people power demonstrations. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The Thailand coup might not be a perfect argument against claims of pro-cha-cha advocates because of the significant presence of the King. Anyway, the argument that attracts me most is that there will no longer be any national elections. Our record of electing national presidents, vice presidents and senators leaves very much to be desired. On the other hand, there are more and more outstanding governors and mayors. It seems our voters score comparatively much better when selecting local executives, probably because they have more personal knowledge of the candidates beyond movies and television. Victor A. Lim, [email protected], Sept. 28, 2006 Asian Institute of Management MY REPLY. That is assuming the Westminster model is the parliamentary choice. But GMA�s people will almost certainly do a survey on how Filipinos feel about NOT being able to vote directly for their leader. And if the results are negative, they may decide on a French parliamentary model, like Marcos before her. The idea in both choices is to allow GMA to remain in power beyond 2010. That is the long and short of it. It�s really a charade. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (The following article was emailed to us) Fallen Empire: Rome and the US By Martin Weiss Oct. 16, 2006 Money and Markets Monday, October 16, 2006 Dear Subscriber, Yesterday, Elisabeth, Anthony and I walked the streets of Rome, the little village of seven hills founded in 753 B.C. that rose to rule the world from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic coast. At its height, Rome dominated 120 million citizens and subjects, nearly half the world�s entire population. Its land area stretched across 2.5 million square miles, more than the total of all West and East European countries today (with the exception of Russia�s). What caused its demise? For the answer, Edward Gibbon�s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has long been the bible of historians. Gibbon attributed Rome�s decline to the gradual weakening of its military � the outsourcing of its defense to questionable foreign mercenaries and the dilution of Roman martial virtues with the advent of Christianity. But in recent years, historians, sociologists and economists have begun to recognize a series of closely linked economic factors that played a larger role in the empire�s decline than previously believed. And today in Rome, I saw some of the evidence ... First, everywhere we went, we saw the remnants of massive � and often excessive � government spending. The Roman Forum, the Arch of Titus and many more were built out of pure marble and probably cost the Ancient Roman Empire the equivalent of hundreds of billions in the context of today�s economy. The Pantheon, a great circular temple located near Piazza Navona, could easily have cost billions more. It�s one of the few that still stands almost exactly as it was built nearly 1,900 years ago. The massive Castel Sant�Angelo, on the banks of the Tiber at the other end of the Via della Conciliazione from St. Peter�s basilica, was built by the Emperor Hadrian as a mausoleum for himself and his successors � another huge drain on Rome�s coffers. Rome�s networks of roads, aqueducts and public baths were also not cheap. A clear pattern that we noticed today: The most magnificent structures were built in the early years of the Empire, between 50 B.C. and 200 A.D. But in the third and fourth centuries, the big civic building projects dropped off rapidly as Rome was forced to spend more on its military and social services. One major exception: The vast Aurelian walls that snake their way through modern-day Rome, built in 270 A.D. But unlike the structures of earlier years, these were strictly military fortifications � not temples or public buildings. Rome�s coffers were further drained by the cost of its vast standing army of 500,000. Nor was it cheap to keep the restless populace happy and distracted. Rome paid a fortune for its network of great games and spectacles � the equivalent of $100 million per year, according to historians, which, in proportion to their resources, would be the equivalent of thousands of times more today. Plus, Rome dug itself into a financial hole with huge pension liabilities owed to a growing mass of retired soldiers and bureaucrats. Second, much like the U.S. today, Rome was drained by threats from the Persian Gulf. Most people think the primary attacks against Rome came from the north � frequent battles with Germanic tribes such as the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, which for centuries harassed the Roman Empire ... plus even bloodier conflicts with the Huns, stampeding from Eurasia. But now, recent studies are shifting much of the blame to the east � especially Persia (now Iran), which Rome fought for more than 600 years. First Rome battled the Parthian Empire, which included all of today�s Iran and Iraq. Then, Rome battled the even larger Sassanid Persian Empire (A.D. 226 - 651), encompassing not only today�s Iran and Iraq, but also Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, all of the Persian Gulf states, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and others. Three of the biggest names among Roman leaders � Pompey, Mark Anthony, Trajan � became enmeshed in battles against the Persians. Many others suffered similar losses. Indeed, historian Peter Heather, in his recently published The Fall of the Roman Empire, suggests that it was Rome�s long entanglement with the Persian Gulf and Mid-East empires that largely sealed its fate. And it was primarily the colossal spending to meet the growing Persian threat that forced the Roman government to seek new sources of revenues, which leads me to ... The third factor that drove Rome into ruin: Excessive taxation! In the early days of the Empire, the tax burden to Romans was minimal: Citizens paid a sales tax, but it was capped at only 1%. Land taxes were limited to 10% to 20% of the land�s yield. Inheritance taxes were only 5%. Import duties and tariffs were inconsequential. And there was a tiny per-person head tax, based on a regular census. In this low-tax environment, the economy prospered. But as the costs of maintaining the Imperial army grew, so did the tax burden. Rome began to levy special income taxes and fees � like the primipili pastus, an obligation of local landowners to supply all rations necessary for a garrison ... or the follis, a tax on senatorial estates. The taxes became so onerous that heirs routinely declined large inheritances because they couldn�t afford to pay the taxes required. Middle-class Romans went bankrupt. Upper-class Romans soon joined them. Tax revenues plunged. Rome was strapped for cash. And it could no longer pay its professional soldiers � mostly Germanic tribal mercenaries � to guard its northern borders. Another pillar of the empire was crumbling. The fourth and most fatal blow to Rome: Inflation. When the Roman government needed more funding and had difficulty raising more tax revenue, it did what nearly all governments have done before and since: It manufactured more money and debased its currency. The silver content of the most common coin, the denarius, was a hefty 90% in the age of Nero (54 - 68 A.D.). Two centuries later, by the reign of Claudius II (268 - 270 A.D.), it was down to a meager 0.2%. The value of silver surged and inflation raged. One historian estimates that the cost of a measure of Egyptian wheat rose from seven to eight drachmas in the second century to 120,000 in the third century � an inflation of 15,000 percent. The combination of these factors � not just the Goths and the Huns � was the true cause of Rome�s collapse. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |