| Close Encounters with the Immortal Kind This is a continuation of the Reactions to my article �Provisional Government�, which should be read first, together with the first reactions, before this continuation is read. Dear Mr. Abaya: Where was I from February 1986 to September 1987 when Mrs. Cory Aquino formed and headed a provisional government that ruled by decree? Well, during the EDSA Revolution I was in 4th year high, after which I entered the University of the Philippines at Los Banos in June 1986. I could not even say if i was already an adult then, as we have different measures of adulthood. As some would say: "Conforme sa talong". But nevertheless, the next question is: did I protest that we had a working constitution then that she had no right to abrogate? Now I don't know about you Mr. Abaya but did you just insinuate right there that the1973 Marcos Constitution was then a working one? Working for whom? Pray tell me, sir. The problem with your logic is that you are trying to take in parallel the situation before and now. We had a martial law constitution then that was forced down our throats. We have one now that has gone through the process and properly drawn. Did I write sarcastic letters to the editors about who she might or might not appoint to her provisional government? Of course I did not. But of course you know, Mr. Abaya, that Cory Aquino actually went through the rigors of an election (snap, feb.7.1986), and was it not for the massive use of goons, guns, and gold, and the election fraud that saw the walk-out of 30+ government computer technicians overseeing the ballot-counting, she would have had a clear way to Malacanang. Having said that, of course I did not assume a supercilious air and ask where she got her mandate from, because she did not lose the snap elections of February 7, 1986. The official Comelec count is just a figment of your imagination. You may have to rethink your idea of "official". There was an independent, more credible tally. And I did not look down on my own nose and question her grasp of international economics and "the real issues" because she happens to had been the clear opposition leader, she united the opposition, and she ran under a political banner. There was a unified political machinery behind her. If she appoints people from her political side, that is totally understandable. Unlike your idea of appointing people from all sides of the fence, your fence seemingly having more than two sides, that is. Can you imagine the havoc that will be wreaked by a cabinet full of people trying to pull the economy in different directions? I did not demand guarantees that her provisional government will be stable. But I recall to have thought about demanding that she should hammer out a provisional constitution until the ConCom is able to properly draw up one. And hammer out did she. The 1973 Constitution was greatly amended so that we will have a provisional one in place until Sept. 1987. Do you remember PROCLAMATION NO. 3, DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION? I think the key words here, as I had been trying to explain is, "mandated by the people". A hodgepodge provisional government under your proposal will not have this basic necessity, sir, sorry to say. That I, or my elders or betters (hopefully) accepted the Cory provisional government as a fait accompli is an assertion that came from you, and will just be that. Cory's rule by decree was of course an acceptable solution to an otherwise potentially disastrous situation. But it did not just happen. The Filipino people chose her to be there. She also had the gumption to make a clear decision and run in regard of the people's call. We did not all say "andiyan na yan" as fait accompli would mean. On the other hand, you insist that we can take your idea of provisional government now as fait accompli. Again i implore you Mr. Abaya to rethink your recipe, as you do not have the right ingredients now. I can not even begin to think about how a "societal consensus" can be transformed from magic to reality. I saw you say that on TV and I had goose bumps all over. What in the world.... Oh, of course you will give me the litany about Charles de Gaulle in 1958. I am really tempted to give you a day of lecturing about De Gaulle, and how it is not correct to compare the situation in France in 1958 to what we have here now. But maybe instead I could just tell that De Gaulle was not a product of societal consensus. He was widely recognized as political leader of the Resistance movement (Free France Movement) in 1944 and the years before that. It was he who transformed the Committee of National Liberation into a provisional government of the French republic even prior to D-Day/liberation of France. After the war in 1945, he was unanimously ELECTED as the president of the provisional government, although he resigned in 1946 because he did not agree to the constitution that was forged in 1946 under the 4th French Republic (And I doubt it very much that this constitution was ever ratified). So when the Republic stumbled on a crisis in 1958 fueled by mass actions in Algeria, among others, he was uncontested as the choice of the National Assembly to become Premier. Take note, Premier, not President. And take note, the National Assembly, a democratically elected body, named him Premier. And it was 01 June 1958. In 4 months, a new constitution (espousing a presidential form of government) was ratified by an overwhelming majority of the population (if I recall it right it was pretty close to 90%). 3 months after, an election was held and De Gaulle ran, and won the election so he became president of the 5th French Republic. A new premier was also installed. Does that sound like societal consensus at all? And Ms. Arroyo, she was the incumbent VP when Mr. Estrada was ousted. Was he ousted extra-constitutionally? I'll answer that with another question: As in the case of Marcos, was the constitution in the case of Mr. Estrada trampled upon? You may have some years in you, sir, but 33 years in this world and I can tell when a rotten idea is placed on my plate. My take is that there is a working constitution now, and as long as it is not trampled upon, I will not mind if FPJ becomes the President. If truly the people said so, I will go with the decision of the majority. You can call that "Tapat" sa Constitution. And, Mr. Abaya, I post in Pilipinas Forum, "The E-group Where Immortals Argue". I do not wish my postings here to appear in your website. My apologies, sir. You reply to the reactions in Tapatt.org with no proviso for those you lambast to argue back. But here, we can argue fairly and squarely. This is my kungfu, Heybuhey Rodolfo Azanza wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony Abaya, Muchas gracias for responding in PF first, and not in tapatt.org :-) With this reply of yours, a barrage of more questions will come upon you. You made the proposal of "Provisional Government", hoping to get public support for it. Hence, the burden of proof with regards to its viability, operability, etc. is on you. (1) Nonoy Oplas pointed out: a) What to do with the losing groups (the Erap/FPJ camp or Gloria camp or Roco camp or Lacson camp or Bro. Eddie camp or military camp or leftist camp, etc.) whose manok or kandidato was never "annointed" as head of the Provisional Government and making lots of destabilization? b) What to do with the losing groups (same camps above) who feel their membership in the Governing Council is not enough, and are making lots of destabilization? c) Arent the members of the Governing Council effectively amending the Constitution by mandating who can run for elective post and who can not, etc.? (2) Ozone Azanza asked: a) Where will the mandate of the Provisional Government come from? From whom? What wil make it stable when it gets attacked, for instance by military adventurists? b) The armed forces have their allegiance to the constitution. How will the AFP then support, serve and protect a provisional leadership? (3) Sam Aherrera asked: a) Why stop there (members of the Council) Se�or? Why not invite also the abu sayaff, Ecleo & his cult, the drug lords, smugglers and the cast of Eat Bulaga and the Bubble Gang for good measure? That would be truly democratic wouldn't it? b) Do you think every Juan, Juanita, Kulas & Kulasa will agree to the establishment of the same? Much more presumptuous, don't you think? Where are the answers, Mr. Abaya? For the pleasure of debate, I am responding to some of your questions. My answers designated by an arrow (--->) From: "Antonio C. Abaya" <[email protected] Subject: Re: [pilipinasforum] Provisional Government Sam Aherrera, Rodolfo Azanza, Nonoy Oplas:, and others who join this exchange: Where were you from February 1986 to September 1987 when Mrs. Cory Aquino formed and headed a provisional government that ruled by decree? ---> I was here in Metro Manila, working. Edsa 1 was the first experiment of this country at extra-constitutional way of changing government and I -- and millions of other Filipinos -- supported the Cory government. Assuming you were adults then, did you also protest that we had a working constitution then that she had no right to abrogate? ---> No, I did not protest the abrogation of the 1973 constitution because I felt that a new constitution had to be written and approved. ---> Edsa 1 was good because it was a first attempt to change government by extra-constitutional way. Mistakes and lessons have been learned from this first experiment. Edsa 2 became questionable because "people power" is becoming a bad habit. Edsa 3 was bad because "people power" has been abused, especially the bloody attempt to storm Malacanang. Edsa 4 -- should there be one, power grab attempt by coup-pals, Provisional Government and similar extra-constitutional ways to change government will be equally bad. They will invite an Edsa 5, 6, 7, etc. They will invite a "New Provisional Government 2", a "Real Provisional Government 3", "People's Provisional Government 4", "Democratic Provisional Government 5", "Revolutionary Provisional Government 6", and other what have you. More questions here, Mr. Abaya, aside from the above that I have outlined. Remember, the burden of proof of the workability of this proposal is on you. a) Don't you forsee that this can happen? b) And if it does happen, was your Provisional Government 1 not to blame for perpetuating endless, ad nauseum extra-Constitutional change of "Provisional Government mania"? ---> Rally to change the Constitution if you want, join Speaker Joe de Venecia for this undertaking, then we can rewrite the rules of who can run (and who cannot) for President and other elective posts. But do not appoint yourself and your allies as the "annointers" of who will be the head of your Provisional Government, who will be the member of your Governing Council, what rules it will rewrite. Not desperately yours, Nonoy Oplas, [email protected] February 03, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, When I read your response to the comments of Mssrs. Aherrera, Azanza, and Oplas, I noticed that you really didn't answer their questions or clarify doubts about your proposal. Nor did you respond directly to their criticisms. Instead you launched an attack on them with a non-sequitur question like "Where were you from February 1986 to September 1987...?" Furthermore, it seemed as if you were trying to attack these three people directly instead of answering the points they raised. Tsk, tsk. That's not the proper way to win an argument, especially in this forum. Let me remind you then of certain words of wisdom which I'll post directly below. Perhaps later we can hear your replies which have been further thought upon instead of the knee-jerk reaction which you just engaged in (like the example I cited above). Cheers, and best regards in coming up with the burden of proof regarding your proposal for an extra-constitutional method of installing a new government. By the way, I personally think your idea of a Provisional Government is unworkable and totally unfeasible in any pluralistic and combative society such as ours, and especially now when we already have an existing framework for selecting who will emplace as our governors and leaders. One more question: Have the people you proposed to head such a Provisional Government explicitly agreed to take on that presumptive role that you have pushed on them? I doubt very much if Chief Justice Davide will even bother to snicker in disdain at you for trying to foist on him a very unconstitutional means of reform. He repeatedly defended the Constitution and now you want him to be the first to violate it? Get real! Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan, [email protected] February 03, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Antonio Abaya wrote:"(Your reactions and my reply will appear in the website www.tapatt.org. In four or five months, one or some of us may be forced to eat his/their words. Let us wait and see who it will be.)" On behalf of the esteemed members of this forum, I welcome you to the arena of ideas. In this forum, we respond to posts that invite, incite and inspire. The responses elicit equally intimidating, inimical and sometimes infuriating replies. The cycle goes on and on until the issue is truly exhausted. And exhausted it will be, in this forum. NOT in any other venue but our dear forum of which you are part & parcel. You have chosen to post in our forum. We will oblige you with our response. We hope that you would too again, in our forum, so that together, we can test, substantiate and eventually validate each other's ideas. And like a gentleman of the old order, I know you will oblige us with the same in our forum and not another website masquerading as a forum.. Allow me now to respond to your reply and allow me further to say that it was sweet of you to reply. Off-tangent, but sweet nonetheless. Your response, while devoid of substance pertaining to the issues at hand, merely highlights what I have indicated all along. Witness again your line of questioning: "Did you also assume a supercilious air and ask where she got her mandate from, she having lost the snap elections of February 7, according to the official Comelec count?" LOST? It would be good for you to walk down memory lane and to jog some of that gray matter between your ears as I distinctly recall the absence of any vehement, vicious & violent objections to her winning, both locally & internationally. No Se�or Abaya, it was not a fait accompli as you suggest. It was a cohesion of spontaneous desire by an agglomeration called People of the Philippines that put one Corazon Aquino to become the 11th President of the Republic. Extra-constitutional? What do you think?. And there's the rub and it's plain to see. MANDATE? Sus! Unless you categorically state in this forum that you were avidly & rabidly pro-Marcos, then & only then will I understand where you're coming from. The Aquino government with all its warts & imperfections proceeded with the establishment of the constitution that you & I now deem the bedrock of our nation. It is not perfect either and there are procedures & processes to implement change. Davide, Salonga, FPJ, Roco, Lacson, MILF, CPP-NPA, PNP and the other dimwits you proposed to implement change is not one of the procedures & processes enshrined in our constitution. They are not the "messiahs" that will lift us from our bondage. Neither am I nor are you. Democracy works in mysterious ways. It's not about eating one's words in four or five months as you have said. It's more about what we did to make sure we have something to eat in four or five months and thereafter. A distinguished member of this forum aptly named the citizen, recently said, "we have for a long time made an excuse of our politics...kayod ng kayod hindi daldal ng daldal". That's what we have too much of, excuses, daldal & politics. And that's what makes us do desperate things, extra things, extra-constitutional things. It's time to buckle down to work with what we have instead of what we do not have. Buenos tardes Se�or as I look forward in earnest to your reply. Sam Aherrera, [email protected] February 03, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww In February 1986 we toppled a dictatorship and installed a provisional government that was tasked to restore democracy. It promptly did because, if it didn't, we would have also toppled it and install another one that would. Your proposal is exactly the opposite of what transpired then. You are proposing to set aside a democracy in favor of a dictatorship that would introduce reforms. Isn't this what Mr. Marcos said he would do the last time? Please spare us this ploy. The idea is to make our existing democracy work and not to have a dictatorship. We all agree that things are not going right. But we want to change things through the existing democratic process and not through a dictatorship. Never again! Gico Dayanghirang, [email protected] February 06, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww dear mr. abaya, why focus on the issue of dictatorial powers when a lot of questions were raised as to who would lead and what would be the basis in choosing those who are to lead this provisional government you are proposing? there is no big clamor now from the people to change our government. at least not like the one we had during the last years of marcos before he was toppled. there are proposals to shift to a parliamentary form or to a federalist form of government but all the proponents of these ideas are working their way through a constitutional change because that is the logical and practical way of doing it. however, you are proposing for a provisional government without really laying down the foundation and rationale for your call. even just for the sake of discussion, we need clearer discussion from you about these things. harking back to the provisional government that cory aquino then headed after the 1986 EDSA uprising does not and will never give any legitimacy to what you are proposing now. unless you can show us in clearer terms, and not just through hazy generalizations, that there is indeed a need for a provisional government, i feel that what you have written is just an exercise to fill up your column in the paper you are writing for and not really to engage us in a healthy debate and discussion of the finer points and details of your ideas. and i have also noticed that you have been posting all your writings not only in this forum but in a lot of e-groups. unless you can engage us in healthy debate and discussion about these topics you have been discussing, am afraid that those articles would just end up deleted and unread. we don't need one-way traffic of ideas. if that's what we want, we would just buy the papers and read the articles there. we joined e- groups so we can engage the writers in a swordplay to test the strength of the ideas we present. and thanks for posting one of my responses to your article about the davide impeachment. but i also believe that asking permission from the authors of articles before uploading them to any site is a basic form of courtesy. you might be gaining a lot of mileage now in your website from other people's efforts. have a good weekend, sir. danAdan, [email protected] February 07, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww My Reply to: Rodolfo Azanza, Sam Aherrera, Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan, Nonoy Oplas and others who joined this exchange. 1.. One of you insinuated that I was "avidly & rabidly pro-Marcos." Let me mention this once and I hope I do not need to mention it again in this forum. I was one of the first to urge Cory Aquino to run for president against Marcos, when she (a good friend of one of my sisters) came to pay her respects at the wake of my father, on June 26 or 27, 1985 at the Immaculate Conception parish church on Lantana Street in Cubao. Her joking reply: "You are not my friend." I hope this settles this matter. 2.. In addition, a few days before EDSA 1, I was having dinner with a political officer of the US Embassy, urging his government to drop Marcos in favor of Cory, and pointedly asking him "what level of violence do you require before you will do so?" He did not reply. In dozens of my columns, from 1987 to 2003, I have urged for the speedy prosecution of the Marcoses and have lamented, more times than I care to remember, that even though there were/are more than a hundred cases pending against them, not one of the Marcoses or their cronies has been jailed. Can any of you Marcos-haters top that? 3.. On the first and second days of EDSA 1, my three then-teenaged children and I (my wife was abroad) were in the then empty lot now occupied by Robinson, together with hundreds of thousands of other middle-class Filipinos, clambering up or blocking Gen. Fabian Ver's tanks to prevent them from proceeding to the embattled mutineers at Camps Aguinaldo and Crame. On the second evening of EDSA 1, the four of us were at the corner of Timog and Morato where we (foolishly) made our ageing Mercedes Benz a part of the barricades there. On the third evening of EDSA 1, we were scouting around the Nagtahan-J.P. Laurel-Magsaysay area, (again, foolishly) looking for another barricade that we could join, but there was none .Did any of you Cory commandos do anything like that? 4.. Part of the problem seems to be that your cynicism is selective, while mine is even-handed. Just as I was cynical of the Marcos win in the Comelec, so was I also cynical of Cory's win in the Namfrel count. And the reason is common sense. Although Cory was a clear winner in the early part of the Namfrel count, her lead kept on shrinking as the votes from outside the cities were tabulated by Namfrel, and when Namfrel stopped counting altogether, with 72% of the precincts accounted for (the total extent of the Namfrel coverage), Cory's lead was down to a slim one, about five percentage points, if memory serves. It is perfectly logical to assume that if the remaining 28% (mostly from the rural areas, traditionally the bailiwicks of incumbents) had been inputted, Cory's slim lead would have narrowed even more and could have even been overtaken by Marcos. Contrary to quasi-religious beliefs, in 1986 the country was not divided 99-to-1 in favor of Cory, more like 55-to-45, even 52-to-48, if the incomplete Namfrel count were extrapolated. I explained this in my original article, but one of you either did not read it or did not to internalize it. Instead he insultingly suggested that I "jog some of that gray matter between your ears as I distinctly recall the absence of any vehement, vicious & violent objections to her winning both locally & internationally." Why don't you jog some of the gray matter between your ears and visit the morgue of the newspapers at that time, or ask Joe Con himself, or visit the Namfrel headquarters, and thereby educate yourself with the fact that Namfrel's coverage of the 1986 snap elections was limited to 72% of the precincts as it did not have the personnel and the resources to cover more. I do not recall a single election where Namfrel, which I supported and support, had a 100% coverage. 5.. Although I was/am cynical about Cory's victory in the unofficial and incomplete Namfrel count, I accepted/accept that her assumption of presidential powers (through an extra-constitutional process) and the formation of her provisional government were the best possible solution to the crisis situation then. I did not question where her mandate came from, I did not cast doubts on her grasp of international economics and the 'real issues,' I did not protest that she had no right to abrogate an existing constitution, I did not write sarcastic letters to the newspapers about who she might or might not appoint to her provisional government, I did not demand guarantees that her provisional government be stable. The hasty departure of the Marcoses and the rise of Cory to presidential power in February 1986 was a fait accompli that I welcomed and accepted completely even though it was done through an extra-constitutional process. It just was not possible to squeeze the toothpaste back to inside the tube, even if Marcos tried. 6.. Don't you read the newspapers and react to the news in it? I read only two broadsheets: Today and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which together have a circulation of at least 300,000 and a pass-on readership of at least 1.2 million. Between Jan. 25 and Feb 03, one or the other or both of these broadsheets carried stories about 1) Alejandro Lichauco's and his CCNC's letter to AFP COS Gen. Narciso Abaya urging a "temporary military takeover"; 2) Ret. Gen. Fortunato Abat's and his ANTS' proposal for a "transitional government" to be headed by VP Teofisto Guingona; 2) an alleged plot by Gringo Honasan and his group to assassinate FPJ (for whom he is/was head of security) and Raul Roco in preparation for a civilian-military junta to be headed by him; 3) another alleged plot by Honasan and a group called New Filipino Heroes to force the presumed winner FPJ to step down after winning the May 10 elections, or else "he would be physically eliminated and replaced by a military junta;" 4) an alleged plot by Boy Saycon and another new military group called Kawal Pilipino to destabilize the GMA government, for which Saycon et al are now being charged with inciting to rebellion; 5) a call by Linda or Lydia Montayre and her Philippine Consultative Assembly for a No-El scenario in May. I do not recall reading a single line from you brave and brilliant defenders of constitutional democracy attacking, dissecting, refuting, lambasting, critiquing, and tearing apart any of the above proposals and alleged plots, to which some 1.2 million impressionable Pinoys were theoretically exposed. Instead you chose to heap your collective scorn and sarcasm on a proposal for a provisional government that reached only a tiny fraction of those 1.2 million. Aren't you failing spectacularly in your self-appointed duty to protect constitutional democracy? 7.. Of course, you will reply that only my proposal was posted in your august website. But that's a LazyBoy cop-out. Out of several dozens or hundreds of Immortals in your egroup, there must be at least one or two who knows how to get in touch with Ding Lichauco, one or two Gen. Abat, one or two Gringo Honasan, one or two Boy Saycon, and one or two Linda or Lydia Montayre. How many muscles do you need to tear yourselves away from your computers and send your drivers to pick up the manifestoes, proposals and other documents from these worthies so that you can post same in your website for you to have a feeding frenzy on, as you did on mine? 8.. If you had done so, you would have noticed (or might not have noticed, since you are not as perceptive as you obviously think you are) that of the above five proposals or scenarios plus mine, it is mine that is closest to the Cory provisional government, which you now admit you did not raise any objections to in 1986. Like the Cory provisional government, my proposed one would be headed by a respected civilian public figure, would be made up mostly of civilians, and would be supported by the mainstream (not rogue) military. 9.. Of course, there are and would be many loose ends in my proposal, as there were in the Cory provincial government in 1986. Many of your objections revolved on the point of: what about this group or that group, why are they not in the provisional government? One of you asked "why not also the abu sayyaf, Ecleo & his cult, the drug lords, smugglers and the cast of Eat Bulaga and the Bubble Gang for good measure?" This reductio ad absurdum is not worthy of any Immortal in any intelligent debate. You might as well have questioned Cory in 1986 why her provisional government did not include any lepers. 10.. Some of your other objections revolved around the matter of: will this provisional government work? Will it be stable? What happens if some groups do this or that? Will this not create more instability? The answer is, I do not know, no one knows for certain, just as in 1986 Cory and her group also did not know for certain and offered no guarantees that her broad-based provisional government, which represented a wide spectrum of opinions, from military rightist to pro-communist, would work at all or be stable, etc. 11.. You do not seem to be aware or seem to have forgotten that Cory's provisional government, set up in February-March 1986, was hit by a coup d'etat in July or only four months later by Marcos loyalists, the leaders of which were "punished" with 30 push-ups. In December of the same year, its leading rightist, Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile, was fired for allegedly plotting another coup. On August 28 1987, her government was hit by a second coup, this time led by Gringo Honasan and the RAM. The next month, in response to a looming military revolt, the ENTIRE Cabinet was fired by President Aquino, and the perceived pro-communists were not re-appointed, thus giving her government a more coherent character: burgis, pro-capitalist and anti-communist. So just about everything that you warned could happen to my proposed PG did happen to the Cory PG, which you admit you did not pose any objections to in 1986. 12.. The obverse side of the above is this: if in 1986 the future of the republic had depended on the seal of approval from naysayers, nitpickers and fault-finders like you, there would have been no Cory provisional government, and this country would likely still be ruled by the Marcos kleptocracy, represented by Imelda or Danding. 13.. I will admit that as of today, February 9, 2004, there is no need or clamor for any of the proposed extra-constitutional processes proposed by Lichauco, Abat, Honasan, Saycon, Montayre or myself. But it would be na�ve to think that it will always be business as usual. We are beset by so many intractable problems which, in the light of recent events, may include a default on our foreign debt and/or the continued slide of the peso, a political assassination and/or a revolt of the masses, an escalation of the Maoist insurgency and/or the Muslim secessionist war to take advantage of a deteriorating social and economic climate. The mere departure of 3,500 Filipinos everyday for jobs abroad - about 343,000 between Feb. 1 and May 10, almost one million by Dec. 31 - points to a disturbing future. We have been and still are losing some of our best teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, accountants, mechanics, electricians, IT technicians, managers, entrepreneurs etc. This cannot but impact negatively on our future quality of life and our ability to compete with the rest of the world. 14.. I stand corrected on the details of De Gaulle's return to power in 1958, but my position remains the same: that in an extreme crisis situation, nations can, should and do take extra-constitutional steps to find a solution, and the most eloquent proof of that is our own EDSA 1 which gave birth to the Cory provisional government, which you did not object to in 1986. But even if we debate this until hell freezes over, nothing (repeat, nothing) that we write in this space is going to decide if and when, if ever, that extreme crisis situation will occur again. That will be determined solely by events on the ground when they happen, if they happen. The most we can do is speculate or state our preferences on the parameters of that extra-constitutional step, if and when it happens. If you believe, as you obviously do, that under no circumstances should the present constitutional set-up be disturbed, fine. That's your opinion and I respect you for that. But I happen to believe that that extreme crisis situation MAY arise in or about this May, and in anticipation of that possibility, I have proposed a provisional government not much different from Cory's provisional government in 1986. 15.. Point of information. One of you mockingly referred to the tapatt.org website as "masquerading as a discussion forum." This was never meant to be a discussion forum, but was designed solely as an archive website to hold my articles from 2001 on, together with the reactions of my readers, both positive and negative. 16.. Even my writing style is pilloried, for chrissakes. One of you haughtily referred to my writing as "long winded and totally lacking in depth" and proceeded to quote a paragraph of mine that contained three sentences in 11 � email lines. That is your opinion and I do not intend or desire to convince you otherwise. But let me throw the compliment back at you, that if you have difficulty in following a train of thought through four commas, your IQ might not be much higher than FPJ's, in which case you do not belong in this (self-described) high-powered group of Immortals. And don't try learning the German language. The long-winded Germans leave out their main verb until the very end of a sentence, no matter how many commas precede it and no matter if the sentence has depth or not. You would get lost after the second comma. . I have made my points, you have made yours. You may have the last word. I have better use for my time. Antonio C. Abaya, [email protected] February 12, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |