 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Pagbabago, Ngayon Na! (or Kami Naman!) By Antonio C. Abaya May 1, 2002 The motley group of oppositionists from the Left and the Right who gathered at the Club Filipino last April 29, supposedly to discuss ways of changing this country�s system, met under the rubric of �Pagbabago, Ngayon Na!� (Change, Now!) and had at the top of their agenda the removal from office of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the revocation of Joseph Estrada�s �leave of absence.� They claim that they want no violence and the changes they propose are supposedly to take place in the year 2004. If that is really what they want, then they should have called their gathering �Pagbabago sa 2004!� But, of course, they want those changes �ngayon na�, which is really the timeframe they have in mind when they talk about the ouster of President Arroyo. But for that to happen would require the application of violence, if they could only enlist enough mercenaries from the military and the police. What hypocrites! If you were to examine the backgrounds of the speakers, it would be obvious that their real clamor is Kami Naman! Or variations thereof. And yet what are the credentials of these self-styled reformers who are so eager to get their hands on the levers of power that they are stumbling over each other in their mad rush to Malacanang? According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the meeting was held under the auspices of the Philippine Consultative Assembly of Two (made up Linda Montayre and Salvador Enriquez Jr), and the speakers were Sen. Gregorio Honasan, former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, Sanlakas leader Wilson Fortaleza, Moro National Liberation Front panel member Mashur Jundam, and Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) spokesman Jesus Crispin Remulla. Would you buy a used car from any of these bozos? I wouldn�t. ***** Sanlakas is a communist organization that, under the leadership of the late Popoy Lagman, split from the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) of Joma Sison in the early 1990s over the issue of how best to wage the socialist revolution that will bring about the allegedly inevitable triumph of Communism. Joma�s CPP reaffirmed their commitment to the Maoist strategy of waging the revolution in the countryside and from there strangulating the cities, and hence were called the �reaffirmists�. Lagman and his faction, on the other hand, rejected this Maoist strategy (and hence were called the �rejectionists�) and favored instead an urban insurrection based on the Sandinista (Nicaraguan) model, using trade union activists and politicized urban squatters to wage the socialist revolution in the cities. Lagman cited the failure of Joma�s CPP-NDF-NPA to hijack the burgis �revolution� known as EDSA 1 and blamed it on Joma�s concentration in the countryside. In splitting from Joma�s CPP, Lagman took with him the activists of Sanlakas, the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) and the Alex Boncayao Brigade, who made up most of the Metro Manila and Rizal cadres of the communist movement. He concentrated on politicizing urban squatters and trade unionists and promised his followers that should there be an EDSA 2, he would grab its leadership and turn the burgis uprising into the long-awaited socialist revolution that will lead to the allegedly inevitable triumph of Communism. Well, EDSA 2 did materialize in January 2001, but Lagman failed to grab its leadership as he had promised. Instead he allied himself with the quintessential trapo and haciendero Peping Cojuangco and the perennial burgis political meddler Boy Saycon, both of the Council of Philippine Affairs (COPA) and now of the Freedom Force. The three were united by a common demand of �Resign, All!� and the ouster of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Lagman in pursuit of his socialist revolution and the triumph of Communism, Cojuangco and Saycon out of spite for not having been appointed into the GMA Cabinet. (It is possible that Lagman was assassinated by his own followers for reneging on his promise and for betraying their revolution. Alternately, he may have been assassinated by some of Joma�s reaffirmists, from whom he parted with much rancor and bitterness). Any burgis Filipino politician or political operator who allies himself with the communist movement, out of some unhappiness with President Arroyo, as did Cojuangco and Saycon, and as now do Montayre and Enriquez, must be either insurmountably ignorant or incredibly stupid. ***** The other weird bedfellows of Montayre and Enriquez in their �Pagbabago, Ngayon Na!� do not possess any credible credentials as social reformers. Their real motivation is �Kami Naman!� or variations thereof. Gringo Honasan wrecked the Philippine economy with his (second) failed coup attempt in December 1989, pushing the GDP into decline, from six percent in 1989 to three percent in 1990, to a big fat zero in 1991, costing the economy billions of pesos worth of lost production and foregone investments, and tens of thousands of people their jobs and their future. �Pagbabago, Ngayon Na?� More like �Ako Naman! Ako ang Nagsaing, Iba ang Kumain!� Juan Ponce Enrile has been trying to be president of this country since at least November 1985 when his prot�g� Honasan and the RAM plotted the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos. Their mutiny was meant to install JPE as head of junta, and later as elected president. But the mutiny was almost crushed by Marcos and was saved only by People Power of EDSA 1. JPE�s presidential ambitions, moreover, were side-tracked by the unexpected rise to power of Cory Aquino, against whom Honasan and the RAM consequently attempted several coups, none of which, mercifully, succeeded. �Pagbabago, Ngayon Na?� More like �Ako Naman Bago Ako Mamatay!� ***** As for the Partido ng Masang Tanga, it is no mystery what its motivation is: Kami Naman Uli! Or Hindi Pa Kami Busog! What else can possibly motivate a bunch of opportunists who fed at the trough of a criminally inclined ignoramus who chose to surround himself with swindlers, high-stakes gamblers, stock price manipulators, big-time smugglers, jueteng lords and fugitives from American justice? As for the Philippine Consultative Assembly of Two, they claim that all they want to see is a shift to the parliamentary system and the federal form of government. Many other analysts and observers, including this writer, share that opinion. But it is only Montayre and Enriquez who accompany that advocacy with such vicious and acrimonious tirades against the incumbent president that it is apparent that their agenda goes beyond this proposed shift and actually includes GMA�s overthrow before the 2004 election, which GMA is likely to win and which therefore must be pre-empted long before it is held. Pagbabago, Ngayon Na! More like Kami Naman! ***** The bulk of this article appeared in the May 20 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic Weekly. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Pagbabago, Ngayon Na!� May 30, 2002 Dear Mr. Abaya. This Pagbabago forum is only one of many below-the-surface movements who all want the same thing. I�m convinced that it is this mentality of being in power by all means, getting into power and staying there, that keeps us from crawling out of the black pit. None of these people are really interested in anything else but power. The long range plan is, get into power (KAMI NAMAN) and then staying there (KAMI PA RIN). As to the change to a parliamentary system, how can we do it in one big step without plunging the country into disarray? The change must be gradual, it requires the development of a strong political party system, and the re-education of an electorate that will isolate issues from personalities, consider where and how the parties stand on key issues, discuss the pros and cons and then vote to change or retain the party in power, knowing that the party will place their people in the ruling Cabinet. We are, sadly, light years away from this electoral level. If we change to Parliamentary now, what�s to stop a party backed by, say, gambling or drug money and/or a church lobby group like Iglesia or that other (Catholic) group to which sinister connections are sometimes attributed. Yes, a change to a parliamentary and federal system might be the way in the long term. My limited political science background notwithstanding, it would seem that a Federal system is well suited to the Pinoy regional mentality. Let the local people determine their leadership. If they elect the wrong ones, these people will be most likely not be re-elected, and the process of a more direct accountability will develop. On the other hand, one may argue that dynasties can get even more deeply entrenched by employing sheer terrorism. But can one warlord terrorize an entire region indefinitely? Will not direct accountability come into focus eventually, allowing the emergence of new leaders? As to regional trade and progress, could not the �states� trade among themselves, as in maybe Region IV buying their rice from the Mindanao or Central Plains and �exporting� their livestock to, say, Central Luzon? I�m using top-off-the-head examples. Is that a simplistic approach? Is it a topic you may want to explore from an economist�s point of view in one of your columns? Best regards. Rica Cortes Rentzing. [email protected] ***** MY REPLY: I believe the parliamentary system is more suitable for an underdeveloped country than the presidential system inherited from the Americans. In it, a good prime minister can remain in office indefinitely or, at least, longer than the six years in a presidential system, while his/her party retains majority in parliament. Conversely, a lousy prime minister can be booted out of power next week, without any need for disruptive people power demos. A parliamentary system also removes the deadlock often encountered in the presidential when cabinet ministers are bypassed by the commission on appointments. In a parliamentary system, all cabinet ministers are drawn from the members of parliament, both from the majority party and from parties allied in coalition with the majority. In a parliamentary system, there is no senate or upper house. Or, if there, is it does not have the same weight as the lower house. Thus senators who have ambitions to become PM do not have as much leeway to use their positions to demolish the sitting PM as senators in the presidential use theirs to demolish the sitting president. The Philippines is a case in point. Also, in a parliamentary system, the cost of running for office as MP is much less than running for president, vice-president and senator in a presidential system, since such candidates campaign only in their electoral district (such as, for example, the first district of Cebu), not in the entire country. The party that wins the most seats in parliament chooses the prime minister. In my opinion, it is best to make the change immediately rather than gradually as gradual change allows opponents to dilute or water down the new system in order to protect their vested interests: the trapos, the political dynasties, etc. And to prevent the new parliament from degenerating into what the present Congress is, there should stringent educational and moral qualifications for candidates, they must be required to pass an exam on public administration, they must be required to submit not only their statements of assets and liabilities but also their income tax returns for the previous three years. There must also be disincentives against political turn-coatism by, for example, disqualifying from the next election anyone who changes party affiliation in midstream. As for trading between regions, that is already happening. It is not necessary to formally regulate it. Entrepreneurs will always market their goods and services where they think they will make the biggest profits. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |