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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Jaywalking is a huge cause of traffic disruptions and accidents. A jaywalking fee is nothing compared to fees associated with traffic accidents.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
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.
The problems (and weaknesses) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines can be rectified with a massive overhaul from presidential to parliamentary
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.
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.
.jpg) |
| No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates, liars are slapped in the parliamentary system! |
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.