 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Pragmatism vs Horse Manure
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Dec. 12, 2006 For the Standard Today, December 14 issue President Arroyo did the right thing in telling Speaker de Venecia and his trapos to back off from Con-Ass. Presumably the same message will be sent to the Sigaw ng Langaw to desist from doing another People�s Initiative, which it is threatening to do, even after its first edition had been junked by the Supreme Court as a �gigantic fraud,� or words to that effect. Con-Ass is dead, and so is the People�s Initiative. If anybody still wants to amend or revise the Constitution � and that includes me - let it be through a constitutional convention or Con-Con, whose members are elected by the general public, not chosen by the trapos themselves from among their own relatives. Or let it be by referenda, issue by issue, in future elections, as the Americans do This is the least expensive way to make changes in the Basic Law, and it allows for ample discussion by the electorate, instead of phony signature campaigns where signatories sign up without knowing what they are signing for, and see only the P100 or P200 that are being dangled before them. There is no valid reason to rush ChaCha through subterfuge, fueled as it is only by the personal agendas of individual trapos who are so eager to cling to power or to rise to the next rung in the power ladder that they are practically defecating in their pants in their mad rush to attain it before time runs out on their personal ambitions. Perhaps because Philippine society, unique in this part of the world, is so dominated by lawyers, all of the discussion on ChaCha has been focused on the legality and constitutionality of almost every aspect of it. There have been endless discussions and debates on so many legal and constitutional questions that this non-lawyer has lost count as well as interest in all the learned and verbose hair-splitting. If pragmatism and practicality had been the dominant thrust in the discussions, they would have all boiled down to a few central issues. Unfortunately, even the media has been so caught up in the legal and constitutional hair-splitting, it has not bothered to ask some pragmatic and practical questions, with the exception of this space. Such as: which country or countries on Planet Earth has/have voluntarily and with due deliberation shifted from presidential to parliamentary � or from parliamentary to presidential � in the decades since the end of World War II in 1945, and, as a direct result of this shift, has/have raised its/their per capita income/s, reduced the percentage of their people living below the poverty line, wiped out or reduced government corruption significantly, and immunized their governments against the threats of coups d�etat and revolutions? This question is central to the discussion because the chief advocates of ChaCha � from President Arroyo to Speaker de Venecia to the Sigaw ng Langaw to the Umaasang Laging naka-Angkla sa Poder or ULAP � all fatuously claim that this will happen kuno once the Philippines abandons the presidential system and goes parliamentary. What horse manure! Even President Arroyo has made the preposterous claim that the Philippines can become a First World country by the year 2020 if we would only go parliamentary with her. As a trained economist, she knows that the Philippines would need a GDP growth rate of at least 15% per annum for the next 14 years to reach that economic level, which, she also knows, is physically impossible. Even China and Vietnam , the two fastest growing economies in the world, have been averaging between 8 and 10% per annum for the past ten years. (See my article First World by 2020? of Nov. 01.) But if you were to press them on this point, they would not be able to name even ONE pragmatic and practical example, for the simple reason that no one country has ever undergone such economic-social-political transformation through the mere act of shifting from presidential to parliamentary, or from parliamentary to presidential. Since 1945, many countries have undergone involuntary shifts in forms of government, usually because of revolutions, invasions or military coups d�etat. . In 1945-48, about a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe , having been overrun by the Soviet Army, were forced to shift from their pre-World War II (mostly) parliamentary systems to the communist mode. When their communist regimes collapsed in 1989, these countries merely shifted back to their old parliamentary systems, with some modifications, especially in economic policies. Similarly, China under Mao Zedung adopted the communist system after the defeat of Chiang Kaishek�s strongman Kuomintang regime in 1949. So did Cuba under Fidel Castro in 1959, after his successful revolution against the Batista gangster regime, as did Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh and his successors after the defeat of the Americans and their South Vietnamese quislings in 1973-75. China �s and Vietnam �s very palpable economic successes in the past 20-25 years were achieved, not because they adopted the parliamentary (or presidential) system of government, but because they re-embraced capitalism and the profit motive. The 12 (15 less the three Baltic states) republics in the Soviet Union went their separate ways in 1991 after the collapse of Communism; most of them adopted strongman rule, not parliamentary or presidential systems in the Western sense. Russia , the most important entity in the USSR , went presidential and remains so to this day, with the apparent approval of most Russians, who have a history of strongman rule going back to the 15th century under the tsars. Iran had a quasi-parliamentary system and an absolute monarch in place until both were overthrown by the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Iran has been a theocracy ever since. Pakistan adopted a Westminster-type parliament after the partition of British India in 1948. But since then, Pakistan �s government has been hijacked by the military three times, including by the present regime under Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Thailand has had a parliament since the 1930s, but it has also had 19 to 27 (depending on who�s counting) military coups d�etat since. No, Virginia, a parliament does not immunize a government against military coups d�etat. So, to go back to the central pragmatic challenge that media and others should hurl at President Arroyo, Speaker De Venecia, the Sigaw ng Langaw, and ULAP: name one country since 1945 that doubled its GDP, drastically reduced government corruption, raised most of its people above the poverty line, and achieved economic prosperity political stability and social mobility�.by shifting from presidential to parliamentary, or from parliamentary to presidential. The answer is Not One, Zero, Zilch. Pragmatism requires that every serious proposition, especially one that affects the lives of tens of millions of people, must be backed by empirical evidence, but the ChaCha advocates cannot present any such evidence. All they have is horse manure. On the other hand, the empirical evidence is that countries tend to stay with the system that they started out with, unless and until it is disrupted by revolution, invasion or coup d�etat. In the 1980s, there was a move in the Indian parliament to shift to the presidential system. That would have been a shining example of a voluntary and deliberate shift to another system of government that ends in a major plus, since India is a successful country. But that move did not prosper. And I am not aware of any other such shift anywhere else that could be a pragmatic role model for ChaCha advocates. The empirical evidence also shows that economic prosperity, political stability and dynamic social mobility are achievable and have been achieved under different political systems. In our part of the world, that can be said of South Korea and Taiwan (under presidential systems), Singapore and Malaysia (under parliamentary systems), and China and Vietnam (under nominally communist systems). (In a recent TV interview with Ricky Carandang, JdV unloaded another bucket of horse manure when he claimed that China has a parliamentary system. In case JdV hasn�t heard, China has a communist system in which the (unelected) secretary-general of the ruling communist party is the most powerful political figure. Just because the sec-gen is sometimes also named president or premier does not make the system presidential or parliamentary.) The argument that the presidential systems of Taiwan and South Korea succeeded only because their earlier governments under military generals were authoritarian, can also be said of China and Vietnam , whose governments remain authoritarian to this day, with the ruling communist parties enjoying total monopoly of power. The same can also be said of Malaysia and Singapore , whose (parliamentary) governments also remain authoritarian to this day, with strict government control of media and the specific exclusion of communists from their political life, under pain of lengthy detention in jail without trial. However, it must be added that authoritarianism, alone and by itself, does not bring about economic prosperity, political stability and social mobility. Myanmar (nee Burma ) has been under a military dictatorship since 1962, and North Korea has been under a communist family dynasty since 1948. Yet both are much bigger failures � economically, politically, socially - than the Philippines. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Pragmatism vs Horse Manure� I agree with your column on what can make the country turn into a first world country and that is economic growth better than what the Chinese and Vietnamese are achieving these times. It is not the form of government, from Presidential to Parliamentary or vice versa. What the Philippines sorely needs is family planning on all levels of society to reduce its current population growth of 2.7%, the highest in Asia , to say 1.0%. I read in one article written by an economist and a former NEDA director that the Philippines generated more than 700k jobs in the past year but added more than 900k in the labor force in the same period. This is 200k more workers added to the existing jobless workers. If this happens every year, you have swarms of unemployed and potential mischief makers. The Philippines can probably generate more than the 700k jobs per year but labor force growth would always overtake the number of jobs at the present population growth rate. Eduardo C. Luang, [email protected], San Leandro, CA, Dec. 14, 2006 Financial Services Specialist, Emergency Medical Services wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I always like reading you, but this is one of your best articles yet. I like your discourse on how shifts in forms of government in various countries from 1945 to the present either had no impact or was even detrimental to the economic, political and social situation of the country concerned. This is a very valid point against rushing constitutional reform, especially taking the power to select a country's leader from the people at large and putting into the hands of self-serving politicians. I also agree with you that we should change the Constitution, but after a well-informed public has had time to ponder and intelligently discuss all the issues attendant to the proposed changes. Politicians should not underestimate the capacity of the masa to appreciate issues affecting them. I take the taxi often to go to meetings within Makati so I won't have to bother with parking. Most of the taxi drivers I talk to are well informed and know what they want and what they don't want. They should be heard on the particular provisions of the Constitution that are up for amendment. Anyway, kudos to you! Inky Reyes Rodolfo O. Reyes, [email protected], Dec. 15, 2006 Managing Director, Knowledge Institute, Makati City wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Great article I agree with you 110%. The recent actions of the House are the best reasons why we should not shift toi a parliamentary and unicameral form of government. Mano Alcuaz, [email protected], Dec. 15, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Greetings! Even if we have not met yet, I have been reading the emails you sent to me. Thanks for them. I really appreciate it. May you have a joyous Christmas this year and a prosperous New Year. My prayers are with you. Cheers, Henrylito D. Tacio, [email protected], Dec. 15, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Your comments are going in a right direction. When everything democratic has been exhausted, what will be next? After all the Political elite has rejected so many processes, this finally paved the way for something else, and all these were registered to the minds of political psychopaths, if not now, for sure later. The way you presented things that happen elsewhere, a more advanced and politicized group must lead changes in a country. This group has indisputable power in their hands. They have tired to link with politicians but they failed. Sweeping changes to outrace fellow Asians become dimmer and dimmer. The problem is not poltics but the politicians. In all sense, politics is one good essence of democracy, a democracy that tends to move on, and face the challenge of the modern times, not to stagnate and live in comfort zones. I believe if this can not be achieved with the many, why not try with the few! Even despot Kings which had absolute powers share later on with legislature their inheeted powers to effectively govern people. Even you or me elected as President or Prime Minister can not rule like paradise our fellow Filipinos. If you can please tell me how, I want to learn from you! We need a Philosopher-Dictator! One who punishes the bad guys and rewards the good ones instantly. This may sound insane, but we know there's just a thin line that separates between being genius and insane. In the eyes of the psychopaths, you and I are fools! We should discover an antidote to all of this sickness of the society, otherwise your analysis is not complete. Forget the old ways and tactics, they simply don�t work, they know it even before you planned it. I like your idea of the "dirty bomb" I think that will work if you personally carry it to the lower house of representatives and I to the upper house. Joke only, but why not? Rodolfo Cada, [email protected], Dec. 15, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Yes, indeed, people still don�t get it! It is the quality and morality of governance that makes for success or failure, and not the system per se, as the Housemanures would want us to believe..... Jose Luis Yulo, Jr., [email protected], Dec. 17, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I just thought you might want to read this article on the same topic: A CALL TO THE NATION As the Makati Business Club has stated, Charter Changes should be done �only with intelligent and well-informed analyses and debates and the genuine participation of our people.� But many of our political leaders, led by the President and the Speaker of the House, would like to ram down our throats changes they themselves crafted that will mostly benefit only themselves. Speaker de Venecia argues that a plebiscite on their proposed amendments can give the people a chance to make the ultimate judgment. The Speaker is right within the concept of ideal democracy where elections and plebiscites are exercised freely. But everyone knows that our system of suffrage has been reduced by our politicians to nothing but a commercial exercise where the candidates who have the control of funds�meaning our taxes�have a deciding but undue advantage, what with a COMELEC that counts according to the President�s biddings. In fact our politicians have made our whole system of democracy a big political gimmickry. Rightly characterized by many as transactional democracy it is useful only in deceiving the nation into believing that the people rule and the politicians are their servants who are working for their interests. Look at where our politicians have brought our country: From being number one in Southeast Asia in economic performance, we are now at the bottom of the list. At over 40%, we have the highest percentage of families living below abject poverty level. Over 17% of our people continually go hungry as they often miss a meal or two on some days for lack of money. Our total debt has now reached an amount we can never hope to pay unless our leaders change their corrupt ways. The nation�s annual amortization for this debt is now computed at over 90% of our country�s gross revenue. It is only through the great sacrifice of our workers abroad that we manage to survive. Actually, we are not only failing in economic performance but we are also doing extremely badly in practically all other aspects of governance. There is no longer a government institution we can trust. Even the Supreme Court, for good reasons, has now been widely perceived to have been corrupted by power and money. Our whole set of values have been badly damaged. Surely, if we allow our present political leaders to continue to deceive us they will bring us to the gutters. That is if we are not yet there. Clearly, our present system has miserably failed our people. A new Constitution is badly needed but if we allow our present politicians to rewrite it for us they will not offer essential reforms that will reduce their capacity to abuse our people. In fact they will propose to be given the opportunity to grab much more. It is unfortunate that the present Constitution has not provided us any option that will free us from our predicament. Every measure of revising the Constitution, including the constitutional convention, is �moneycratic�, where our taxes which have gone to the hands of those in power dictate its outcome. The nation has been imprisoned within deathly walls of a corrupt system from which we have to break out. The Supreme Court has shown us an alternative�actually the only one left�when, in its decision on the legitimacy of the Cory government, it ruled: �It is an inherent right of the people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institution by force or a general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be available.� It is only through a direct exercise of our sovereign right as a people that we can break out from this oppressive political prison. A new Constitution must be written outside of those prison walls. If we don�t take our remaining option, we will perish. Col. (Ret.) Guillermo G. Cunanan, [email protected], Dec. 17, 2006 Originally published in The Daily Tribune, Dec. 12, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww MAIN ISSUE ON CHA-CHA IS LEADERSHIP UNDER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM Even a perfect parliamentary system, if governed by the DEVIL, will be bad for the people. Of course, those who will lead the country under parliamentary system are not devils, and so we should take a look at them. Who are they, or what are they? Can they be trusted? Do their track record in government show that they are statesmen who serve public interests even at the sacrifice of their own private interests? Cha-cha, as proposed in the People�s Initiative, is not just about Charter Changes but also about subtle "REELECTION" and PERPETUATION IN OFFICE of CONGRESSMEN who will automatically convert themselves into MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. Thereafter, they can easily change the rules and forego election for as long as the parliament is not dissolved. Such dissolution is wishful thinking because those who can do it are the same people who stay in power precisely because they do not do it. One of the sad ECONOMIC LESSONS of MARTIAL LAW is that under government officials who stay in power indefinitely WITHOUT TERM LIMITS, if their ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE WRONG--and these were apparently wrong during martial law--the ERROR WILL BE PERPETUATED and, even if discovered many years later, it is difficult to correct it. Martial law was characterized by the undeclared economic policy of crony capitalism that a lacked level playing field, thereby discouraging legitimate local and foreign investors. Instead of going into new business ventures that could have expanded the economy and propelled it to growth, cronies merely gobbled up existing attractive businesses, resulting in economic stagnancy. The gains under the PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM in the past when our economy was next only to that of Japan were squandered under martial law, after which we just woke up to the reality that our Asian neighbors have overtaken us and it is difficult to catch up with them. Today, Cha-cha proponents want the nation to return to practically the same martial law set-up of government officials with TOO MUCH POWER and UNLIMITED TERMS--except for a difference in form but not in substance: one-man dictatorship under martial law, as against collective �dictatorship� under the parliamentary system as maybe deduced from the general actuations so far of our government officials concerned. For haven't many of them shown that they DID NOT CARE about what is RIGHT, they just go by their superior NUMBERS as exercise of democratic process? They would have none of the arguments for the impeachment complaints filed before them, they would have none of the arguments against the House doing it alone on Con-ass, they just go by naked power of majority in their flawed decision-making that has far reaching implications. Among other things, did they care to resolve the Garci tapes, did they care to resolve the Mayuga report, did they care to resolve reported election cheatings, did they care to resolve corruption as exemplified by Jocjoc Bolante's case, and did they care to stop the waste and misuse in public funds on pork barrel--used by those who have the power to dispense it to subvert the principles of those who are chosen to benefit from it? To begin with, isn't the pork barrel system a worse and larger form of corruption or poor governance perpetrated by our government officials who will also rule under the parliamentary system? Many of our present congressmen might not win reelection in their respective districts, but had either of the People's Initiative or Con-ass prospered, they could have put something over on their DISTRICT constituents through having themselves indirectly "reelected" by the entire NATION--by way of their automatic sitting as Members of Parliament, as provided in their package of Charter amendments. Thus, though not said in so many words, Cha-cha might have been a neat way of solving the lack of ability to win reelection by some of our congressmen, who could have simply ridden on the peddled need for Charter Change. Now, if Cha-cha believers trust even our kind of non-performing government officials who subscribe to number but not to reason--which is what else if not tyrannical?--if Cha-cha advocates even among media opinion writers, who influence the thinking of the nation, would want to be governed by the very same officials who would stay indefinitely in power under the parliamentary system, that is up to them, but it appears many Filipinos know better. Had Con-Ass been pursued, their collective outrage might have sparked another people power revolution. Marcelo L. Tecson, [email protected], San Miguel, Bulacan, Dec. 17, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir, I really enjoyed this article. God bless and More Power! Vonne Villanueva, [email protected], Dec. 18, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, As you well know, the political elite in this country only have their personal interests in mind. I've not really believed this until I've served in the 8th Congress and seen it for myself. Patriots in our political institutions are extremely rare. They may soon be extinct because out political culture is increasingly becoming more adversarial to the sincere and competent politician. Politicians are exceptionally gifted in coming up with "good" reasons to advance their narrow interests. But I've to admit that the arguments for cha-cha are classic. I give it to your schoolmate JDV, ULAP, and GMA, the "Three Stooges" of our time, to make a really outrageous slapstick of reason and decency. Regards, Gico Dayanghirang, [email protected], Davao City , Dec. 19, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww So what else is new? The turnaround of that immoral and ileigitmate occupant of Malacanang never came as a surprise, knowing that Gloria Arroyo is 100% certified master of deceit and hypocrisy. A liar will always be a liar and no amount of prayers and prodding can make GMA a just and upright person. It is high time for the Filipino people to unite and join hands in restoring the presidency to the true and legitimate one, which is no other than Pres. Joseph Estrada who until now has never been proven to have committed those allegations of plunder against him. Narciso Ner, [email protected], Dec. 21, 2006 PS The call for release made by the two congressmen allies of GMA, Jaraula and Cagas was obviously made to appease the supporters of Pres. Estrada to be able to get their votes this coming May election. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The Hidden Cost of the Filipino Diaspora Consider this. In the early 1980�s, the Philippines and Thailand had the same population sizes (about 55 million each). Today, 26 years later, Thailand �s population is about 65 million, whereas the Philippine population has grown to 89 million in 2006 (according to the most recent estimates). In other words, there are 24 million more mouths to feed in the Philippines , compared to Thailand . Would the Philippines have this gargantuan problem of high unemployment if population growth was moderated? Also, take into consideration that Thailand �s economy (and most East Asian countries) entered the take-off stage in the 1980�s. Not only do our neighbors enjoy prosperity (high employment / low unemployment rates), they also successfully built broader manufacturing-industrial bases that generate high-paying jobs (compared to the Philippines ). Just look at Malaysia , we have many OFWs working there as maids ( Malaysia has a population of less than 25 million). Still, we have people in the Philippines who argue that there is no correlation between mass poverty and high population growth. Misael C. Balayan, [email protected], Dec. 18, 2006 Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=59666 Hidden costs EDITORIAL The Philippine Star Remittances from Filipinos working overseas rose 16.6 percent from a year earlier in the first 10 months of 2006, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas reported the other day. That�s $10.3 billion � money that economists say is fueling consumer spending and being invested particularly in small enterprises. The remittances have also helped make the peso one of the best performing currencies this year. But there are hidden costs to this rosy economic story. About a tenth of the Philippine population is now overseas. The phenomenon is not unique to the Philippines; in the age of globalization, more and more people are leaving the countries of their birth to work or build new lives overseas. But the exodus is particularly heavy in the Philippines, breaking up families and leading to a brain drain that is taking its toll on education, public health care and several other sectors. The remittances from overseas Filipino workers are increasing not only because the number of OFWs continues to rise but also because the quality of the diaspora is changing. Maids and blue-collar workers used to be the country�s biggest labor exports. In recent years teachers, health professionals, and even pilots and engineers have also started leaving in droves. Already the shortage of nurses and doctors has forced many private hospitals across the country to shut down. Health experts are warning that the problem is bound to get worse, threatening the public health care system. Christmas is usually a time when OFWs take a break and come home for family reunions. A recent report by the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration indicates that this may no longer be the case in the near future. Entire families are joining OFWs abroad, the OWWA reported. Whether or not they will return to their own country later remains to be seen. Since the Asian financial crisis in 1997, OFW earnings have helped stabilize the peso and fuel steady economic growth. But the hidden costs cannot be ignored. Everyone must work harder to create enough decent opportunities in this country that will keep Filipinos home. It is a tragedy when the national dream is to leave one�s own country. The nation cannot continue losing its most valuable resource. [Since 2000, the Philippine economy has been averaging a respectable 5% GDP growth rate annually. The sustained economic growth is encouraging. However, this economic expansion can barely absorb new entrants into the labor force (a consequence of the country's high population growth). Still the Catholic Church hierarchy insists in maintaining the status quo with regard to population (artificial methods of birth control is "evil", according to the bishops), and they will waste no time to denounce those who advocate for a stronger population management policy. I wonder if the bishops will dare to refer to China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, as "evil" for adopting strong population management policies that help bring prosperity and higher standards of living to their people.] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |