Without System Change, There Won't Be Any Character Change That Anti-Reforms Desperately Insist On

I've grown tired of watching television. It has drawn some flak, especially with the framers (and apologists) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It's not a surprise either that many of those who comment on Facebook, "It's not the constitution, it's the people running it that's the problem!" are boomers. Yes, that reminds me of several people born between 1946 and 1964 who tend to be stereotyped as resistant to change. Sure, not all boomers are resistant to change, but some people have been like that. 

An article from Linkedin writes this sad fact:

Why do some baby boomers refuse to learn or change?

There are several reasons why some baby boomers may resist learning or changing:

• Cognitive rigidity: As people age, their cognitive abilities may decline, making it more difficult for them to learn new information or adapt to change.
• Fear of the unknown: Baby boomers may feel uncomfortable with new technologies or social norms that challenge their worldview and way of life.
• Resistance to criticism: Baby boomers may feel that they have already achieved a certain level of success and do not want to be criticized or challenged by others.
• Cultural and social influences: Baby boomers may have been raised in a culture that values conformity and stability, which can make it difficult for them to embrace new ideas or behaviors.

Going back to the topic, I wrote an article about how a good system makes a successful business. Either it's person-oriented or systems-oriented. One can say that the Constitution isn't a business. Let's take a look at the meaning of the word constitution. The word constitution is taken from the Latin word constitutus which means "set up, established". The Constitution of a country in itself is a system. If people say it can't be compared to a car--I'd compare a constitution to a school. It's pretty much a school of thought by which the nation goes. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary writes the following:

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it.

Whether we want to admit it or not, a constitution is the very system that runs the nation. Why do you think it was necessary to remove the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines from the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines? If nothing was wrong with the system, why not just go and stick to the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines? Unfortunately, they have decided to treat the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as some "infallible document" when Article XVII exists. The whole constitution was written in less than a year. If the purpose was to prevent another Marcos from rising up to power, the "congratulations", the constitution that was built to do so, failed miserably. It's because the current Philippine President, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., is a Marcos and the son of the late dictator, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.!

Singapore shows how a good system creates good behavior

Yes, I love pointing out Singapore because it'll make groups like Migrante International cry. Reading the book From Third World to First, I read about how the great "dictator" Lee Kuan Yew created it into a fine city. I was looking at the very disciplined population as a 13-year-old. I went back to Cebu City and found out I was back into what can be called sewage. Some people were still mourning for the death of Flor Contemplacion, who they believed was rightfully executed. Fortunately, the late Fidel V. Ramos didn't cut ties with Singapore like he intended to. I don't care how ridiculous I look. I often tell people to go tell it to Singapore. It's because LKY's book also had his talks with two great Communist leaders namely the late Deng Xiaoping and the late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Do Muoi.

Singapore is a city with so many fines. It's often a pun to say that Singapore is a fine city. Yes, it's a fine city because people get fined whenever they do something that can ruin the environment. Sure, no one goes to jail for throwing garbage but they do pay a fine for throwing garbage. I always felt, "If Filipinos were as disciplined as Singaporeans, the Philippines can improve." I try to talk about it with people and they come up with a long range of stupid excuses from "Never forget Flor Contemplacion!" to labeling me as a Fascist, Nazi, or Communist. 

I could remember certain rules in a mall. For example, no food was allowed in a clothing store because it could ruin the inventory. There was a sign that said, "These things are beautiful to behold. Once broken, consider it sold." It's because somebody's livelihood was affected by a damaged item. Damaged inventory has to be paid. In the case of Singapore, it's scary to think (but also reassuring at the same time) about how these rules work. I'd like to do an evaluation of why I believe in making people pay fines for the offenses above:

1. Smoking in no-smoking areas carries a lot of risk. Passive smoking is deadlier than active smoking. Smoking near flammable substances is a root cause of major disasters. A single cigarette recklessly thrown can set a whole big structure on fire whether it's a building or a forest. 
2. Chewing gum can be a big cause of gum trash. I remember how I complained that someone just placed their chewed gum on the chair instead of the trash can. Also, chewing gum in class serves such a distraction.
3. Littering can cause a lot of problems such as invitation to pests and clogging of drainage. How would you like to sleep near garbage? Where do you think pests like to gather? Clean places or dirty places? Clogging of drainage is a very serious problem as it can lead to floods. Flood water is also a carrier of deadly diseases.
4. Feeding birds is something that baffled me for a long time. After doing some Google research, I believe it has something to do with the mess caused by bird feeding. Not to mention, it may also disrupt the balance of ecology. 
5. Jaywalking is a huge cause of traffic disruptions and accidents. A jaywalking fee is nothing compared to fees associated with traffic accidents. 
6. Spitting anywhere means one is spitting out their own germs in public. This rule would be very helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Saliva is a very well-known carrier of germs. COVID-19's Delta Variant was a very huge killer as well.
7. Urinating (and may I add defecating) in public means letting the public smell one's stinky waste. Why do you think there are public restrooms? One's body waste is full of pathogens. Doctors and nurses have to handle them with proper equipment for that reason. Why even turn the public into a toilet? 
8. Eating and drinking in public transportation can also cause serious mess. It's not very easy to clean them. It can also attract ants and pests, that will make the trips of others more uncomfortable if allowed. 
9. Not flushing the toilet isn't just being considerate to the next user. Unflushed toilets are very stinky and have more germs than flushed toilets. 

LKY described how Singapore went from a city of hooligans and uncontrolled crime to a very well-controlled city. It's because systems shape behavior. It was shaped in such a way that even without LKY, Singapore still is more or less, a very fine city. Having those fines against common public offenses made it a very fine city. I could be able to enjoy my day off and not worry about stepping on somebody's garbage. 

I've noticed some people on Facebook, blame capitalism, for the decline of San Francisco. However, the real problem is rooted in defunding the cops as well as the rebellious youth. It's because San Francisco got rid of proper law enforcement, hence leading to the decline in it. Sure, there are bad policemen but there are also good policemen. A bad law enforcement system destroyed San Francisco, making even the police, an almost helpless force. This is a far cry from "everybody's favorite tyranny" called Singapore. LKY's proper law enforcement system made it a fine city. San Francisco's decline has something to do with a lack of fines. 

It's because, in psychology, behavior is shaped and maintained by consequences. Singaporeans have their behavior shaped and maintained by consequences. It's hard-coded in the Singaporean laws and the constitution. To say that Singaporeans have accountability in their DNAs and Filipinos don't is stupid. Why are some Filipinos successful and others aren't? Why did Amos Yee leave Singapore seeking asylum in the overly-free USA? Why do you think that Filipino nurse known in social media as Edz Ello got kicked out of Singapore? Why do you think some Filipinos are doing better and learning to do better in Singapore? It's because the consequences are shaped and maintained by the consequences!

Did LKY wait for Singaporeans to straighten their act before he did what he did? On the contrary, LKY established the system to straighten up the wayward Singaporeans. I would be stupid to wait for people to stop smoking before I set a no-smoking sign. The rules enforce what people can and can't do. The rules also teach people how to behave. The rules also teach authorities how to carry out their job. 

In short, for the Philippines to achieve a real Singapore-like status, there has to be a drastic makeover 

The problems (and weaknesses) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines can be rectified with a massive overhaul from presidential to parliamentary 

It's very easy to say that it's just the people, not the system. However, one person that I admire, the late Jesse Robredo, gave a quote that's often shared and he's not the first one to say it. Hopefully, his widow, Atty. Maria Leonor S. Gerona-Robredo will be more supportive of urgent charter change. I like to raise that under a parliamentary system, Mrs. Robredo and her fellow Liberal Party members would be the Opposition now. It's so sad that the Liberal Party of the Philippines is opposing charter change. I mean, they should've seen that a parliamentary system would've set them up as the Opposition. The Liberal Party of the Philippines would be engaging the Uniteam government every week. Mrs. Robredo would be questioning Marcos Jr. if he were the Philippines' prime minister. 

The 1987 Constitution works with this framework of the presidential government (where popularity-based elections prevail), a unitary system (where everything is focused on what's dubbed as Imperial Manila), and the protectionist Filipino First Policy. The problem in the Philippines is that the current Constitution, as a school of thought, has its weaknesses. Sure, it's not blatantly pro-corrupt but there are more loopholes to exploit. Let me remind people that no one should associate constitutional reform with just brand Duterte, brand Marcos, brand Dilawan, etc. For one, I would love to mention how the Dilawans could still have a voice if the Philippines were under a parliamentary system. 

Their favorite source is none other than Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr.? That's why I fire the question if he was so good, why are people more impressed with Kishore Mahbubani? Mahbubani is the founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). Mahbubani shows how systems shape behavior. Has Davide Jr. even founded any outstanding school of public policy? If I were a world leader, I would go to Mahbubani, not Davide Jr., for that advice I badly need! Sure, Mrs. Robredo has been invited here and there but that's not enough. Mrs. Robredo knows economics but we also need to learn public policy making and geopolitics from a better expert, like Mahbubani. 

Economist Andrew James Masigan, a critic of Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte and supporter of Mrs. Robredo also presented this case: 

FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.

A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.

A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.

There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.

Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.

Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.

The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.

A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.

In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.

Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.

The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.

No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates,
liars are slapped in the parliamentary system!

Under a parliamentary system, there's going to be face-to-face. It's not just Marcos Jr. and Mrs. Robredo. Instead, it's them and their parties in a face-to-face debate. For every minister, there's a shadow minister. Marcos Jr. picks from his party and Mrs. Robredo picks from her party. I did discuss this with a political scientist on Facebook but the guy still insists on the myth of the Marcos Parliament as a fact. However, it's been long disproven that the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary form of government (read why here). A good question to ask is on the formatting of the Batasang Pambansa (National Assembly) vs. a real parliament. The "best" that the political scientist did to me on Facebook was to simply call me names. Insult me all he wants but facts remain as facts. As Socrates says, insults are the losers' way to try and win a debate. 

There would be more checks and balances. How often do we hear that we must listen to the voice of the minority? Ironically, the same people who want it still insist on the presidential system, and then they complain they don't have a voice. I'd like to stress that the Liberal Party of the Philippines isn't an official opposition, just another noisemaker, under the presidential government. That same idiot of a political scientist just gave a "HaHa" reaction on Facebook, when I told him that they could've been the official opposition. I guess he's still convinced by the myth of the Marcos Parliament. It's because it's very comfortable to stay in the narrative that you're used to, right? They still feel presidential has better checks and balances without seeing how a real parliamentary system works. Are the statistics of better standards of living in a parliamentary system all just coincidence?

It may not be automatic but it provides the foundations to be better. I'm not here to advertise a panacea. What I'm endorsing here is a better system. Why reject a better system because it doesn't automatically solve the woes of the country, then go back to that ailing system? It's like rejecting a laser cataract surgery because of the complications and then insisting on getting the cataract removed by a witch doctor. The parliamentary system has its own disadvantages. However, isn't it better to take a look at which system has fewer disadvantages and more advantages? 

Why do you think politicians in parliamentary countries tend to have more accountability? Again, the answer's not in the DNA of the politicians or just being good leaders. Just think that a guy like former Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, is destined to lose if he ever ran for election. Alex Magno of The Philippine Star also gave this insight last 2006:

One keen observer of the sometimes bizarre conduct of our national affairs is former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Although retired from government, Mahathir keeps tabs with unfolding events in the region. Revered by his countrymen for the great economic achievements of his period of rule, he keeps office at the penthouse of the Petronas Towers – the highest edifice in the region and probably the world. From there, he observes his bustling capital and contemplates regional developments.

Last week, House Speaker Jose de Venecia called on Mahathir in the course of a five-day visit to Malaysia, swinging across from Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak and Sabah. The visit was primarily intended to conduct consultations with Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar on the future of the envisioned ASEAN Community and on de Venecia’s proposal to create an ASEAN Parliamentary Council.

Always forthright in his views, Mahathir was not shy about his opinions on the Philippines, even as he qualified those views with a polite disclaimer about non-interference in our internal affairs.

He bluntly told de Venecia that the "Filipino people need a break."

In the context of their conversation, that "break" is understood as a respite from the hyper-politicking that has plagued our country of late. That hyper-politicking has gotten in the way of our efforts to improve our economy, raise productivity and build a better future for our people.

Hyper-politicking has produced gridlock, endless bickering and neglect of urgent policy actions. It has undermined investor confidence in our economy and prevented willful leadership from being exercised – the same sort of leadership that Mahathir himself deployed in bringing Malaysia up from backwater economy status to that of an "Asian tiger."

Mahathir agreed with de Venecia that a parliamentary system of government could work better in the Philippines because it ensures "continuity in policy and the faster pace of approvals of development programs."

A major factor explaining Malaysia’s success story under Mahathir’s leadership is a responsive government enabled by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in a parliamentary system of government. The dominant role played by the major party UMNO ensured continuity of policy perspectives independent of the fates of individual power-wielders.

When Mahathir retired from politics, there was no uncertainty about the policy architecture that brought Malaysia to tiger-economy status. That policy architecture is not a personal legacy of Mahathir. It is the fighting faith of his party, UMNO, which continues to command the support of the Malaysian people.

If Malaysia had a presidential system of government, Mahathir might have never become its leader. Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive, this man could not win a popularity contest.

Even if, hypothetically, Mahathir was elected president of a Malaysia under a presidential system, the man might not have accomplished what he did in a parliamentary setting. The legislature would have obstructed his most dramatic innovations. His team might have spent precious time and energy attending endless congressional investigations. Other aspirants to the top-post might have constantly conspired to cause his failure or smear him in the public eye as a means to undercut his base of public support.

The phenomenon of a Mahathir – or a Lee Kuan Yew, for that matter – would be difficult to imagine outside the framework of a parliamentary system of government. That system of government encouraged the full development of political parties that, in turn, built public support for innovative policies. The parliamentary form, along with the strong party system it fosters, ensure the cultivation of an ample supply of prospective leaders ready to take over and provide a consistent and reliable quality of leadership,

After all, the emergence of strong nations and strong economies is a process that requires generations of leaders. It is a process that takes longer than a single political lifetime.

It is, likewise, a process that requires the reliable institutionalization of political commitment to a strategy for progress. A national project of achieving a modern economy is, after all, a task that is too large even for the greatest of leaders to undertake singularly. It is a task that requires the sustained effort that only a committed party can ensure.

Without diminishing the personal qualities of great Asian leaders such as Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew, it remains that their feats of statesmanship could not have been done without the strong network that only a stable political party could provide. The parliamentary form of government ensures superior conditions for evolving that stable network.

When Lee Kuan Yew, and later, Mahathir Mohamad, reached the point when it was best to withdraw from their leadership roles, the transition was never traumatic. The process was never uncertain. The continuity of the policy architecture was never in doubt.

When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.

Great leaders do not fall from the heavens and perform overnight miracles of national development without a stable governmental platform.

At the risk of sounding tautological: great leaders can only emerge from political and institutional conditions that make great leadership possible. The most important characteristic of those conditions is that they do not rely on the mysticism of leadership and do not fall prey to the destructive tide of personal ambitions as well as personal jealousies – both of which are in abundance in our politics today.

To think about it, no parliamentary system, and no leaders like Mohamad or LKY (read why here). I used to fear charter change especially when FVR made his announcement. TV ads that showed how frightening would be to have a president who'll rule for more than six years kept popping up. However, LKY ruled Singapore well for 31 years. Do I need to keep highlighting the real problem of the first Marcos Administration wasn't the 20-year length but how Marcos Sr. ruled? It was a severely protectionist regime, making any thoughts of it as a "golden age" a myth. Hopefully, Jan Carlos Punongbayan, along with other University of the Philippines staff, will support badly needed constitutional reform. 

Sure, people can call me crazy for insisting on the parliamentary system. Some even go as far as to insult others who refuse to believe in the myth of the Marcos "parliament". However, insults, as Socrates says, are the losers' tools in a debate. Insults will never change the fact that systems do influence people in power. Insults will only prove that the person hurling them has a fragile ego. I won't insult them back to make them know I feel about it. Instead, I'll let them hurl it over and over until they're down.