Saving face

 

 

The Filipinos’ knack to poke fun at themselves is beyond belief. Self-ridicule seems almost a justification for all and everything, whether it’s for misery or bliss.

 

We indict ourselves for our inability to follow the “rule of law” as the rationale for where we are now as a society or a nation, perpetually struggling to move up as others have already left us in the dust. As one blogger wrote: “Filipinos cannot progress if they cannot follow even simple guidelines.”

 

Where is the truism in this?

 

Yet, traditional Filipino culture reflects an enduring and time-honoured reverence for family values such as respect for elders and people in authority, in the spirit of bayanihan (cooperation), and the fruits of hard work. The Christian faith has also taught Filipinos to be eternally hopeful and to show their faith not only in the observation of church rituals but also in helping and serving others in need.

Manila compared to "gates of hell" by American author, Dan Brown.

With respect to laws, Filipinos have always lived under a regime of a law of rules since time immemorial, whether in the larger and narrower sense of the law as it relates to limits and sanctions on social and individual behaviour. Whatever violations or aberrations exist either as often or once in a while, these are common occurrences that are not solely endemic to Filipinos. After all, the crime rate in the Philippines is still lower than in Chicago or Detroit, for example. Or the chances of getting killed by guns are higher in Iraq or Afghanistan or even in the U.S. than in the Philippines.

 

Filipinos, in general, are slow to anger and not too easy to be aroused to rebel against their government to seek redress for grievances even if these would be sufficient to stir a civil war or widespread rioting in other societies. That despite corruption in government and dishonesty of its elected officials, Filipinos have kept their trust in their political system and continued to go through the periodic rituals of national and local elections even though these have not benefited them directly through greater access to social services such as education and health or to opportunities for a better life.

 

Where else in the whole world could we find people who are as easygoing as Filipinos, as if their social problems don’t really matter? Or where the capital city is described by a foreign writer like the gates of hell and yet would accept it as a matter of fact, not pure fiction, and even make fun of it? Or where the incompetence of their politicians is vividly displayed on television in competition with regular soaps but even this would not raise hackles enough to jolt the entire country?

 

Or where could you find various forums or discussion groups, whether on Facebook and other forms of social media, which provide an enlightened free-wheeling exchange of opinions on what ails the nation – from lack of sanitation and sewage system to urban planning? Or where else could you find so many pundits and newspaper columnists who never run out of ideas on how to run the government or change society in general?

 

Our society as a whole seems to have been infected by the virus of intellectualism that every hub where people gather or chat can boast of a discussion group bursting with good ideas.

 

Our country is an oddity in itself, an abnormal exception to the rule. It is not because Filipinos cannot follow guidelines or subject themselves to the grand imperial reign of the rule of law. But perhaps, because we have so much of these rules already, that we have been paralyzed to suffer in silence and acquiescence. Or is it simply, we are just a people who love to talk, talk, talk.

 

Because we love to talk, we also love to denigrate ourselves. We enjoy exposing our frailties and shortcomings; we don’t mind if foreigners like the writer Dan Brown would paint an ugly picture of our capital city, or Hollywood actors such as Claire Danes could dismiss Manila as “just f--king smelled of cockroaches,” or in more graphic terms, “There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. People with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth.... Rats were everywhere.”

 

Our martyr complex numbs us to embrace these condescending remarks as the harsh reality of our fair city and forget that such horrible characterizations could also apply to other cities of the world, not just to us. But while other societies are apt to revolt, Filipinos would just shrug their shoulders and accept their travails as ordinary humdrum occurrences. If Manila were the gates to hell, then everyone passes through its gates before entering the afterlife.

 

Kidding aside, our country has progressed since we deposed that dictator Ferdinand Marcos. That’s a fact, not fiction. But not very much, though. The martial law years put our country back in the throes of the dark ages and we have not fully recovered from our false attraction for a strong leader. Little did we know that a leader could only be as strong as the people like them to be.

 

In 1987, the country ratified an important piece of document, a body of rules we ought to follow as a nation, which we call our Constitution. In this document, safeguards against a dictatorship or a return to an oppressive system of government were installed which are popularly known as the democratic provisions of the Constitution.

 

If we want change, we don’t have to start big, in the hopes that if we are successful, the many little things that we nitpick and grumble about daily will disappear. Neither do we have to be too ambitious.

 

Let’s just start with the basics. With what we have right now. Yes, with these so-called democratic provisions and see how far we could go. After all, it’s been 26 years since the 1987 Constitution was ratified and none of these so-called democratic provisions ever saw the light of day in the form of practical pieces of legislation.

 

What are these democratic provisions of the 1987 Constitution?

 

The Constitution speaks of prohibition against political dynasties in Section 26, Article II. There has been no successful initiative in Congress to define and implement this prohibition against political dynasties so far but it has been a hot political topic every election year.

 

Article 5 of Article VI provides for a party-list representation, a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from marginalized or underrepresented sectors of society. Although this provision has been implemented as early as the May 14, 2001 elections, the party-list law is so murky and unclear that its implementation by Comelec is far from being adequate and effective or questionable if it truly serves the mandate under the Constitution.

 

A system of initiative and referendum is provided under Section 32, Article VI whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law passed by Congress. This provision apparently recognizes the effectiveness of referendum in advanced democracies, but so far, this remains untouched and has not been translated into law.

 

Another popular innovation in advanced democracies—a mechanism of recall—found its way in the 1987 Constitution, Section 3, Article X, but is only applicable to local government-elected officials. It is a positive step towards democratization of local politics but Congress has remained silent or simply uninterested in enacting an enabling law.

 

Lastly, and this has been controversial and has raised several questions before the Supreme Court, the 1987 Constitution in Section 2, Article XVII has allowed for amendments of the Constitution through a people’s initiative, in addition to calling a constitutional convention or holding a constituent assembly.

 

All these provisions are in the Constitution. They are there to recognize and uphold the bedrock democratic principle of government that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, as declared under Section 1, Article II of the Constitution.

 

If President Noynoy Aquino is r-e-a-l-l-y serious about his presidency and historical legacy, he could direct his attention to these democratic provisions in the Constitution for the remainder of his term. The demand and public clamour already exists, but our leaders in Congress have remained deaf or intentionally playing dumb to listen.

Philippine President Noynoy Aquino ponders about the legacy
of his presidency.

It was during President Cory Aquino’s tenure that the 1987 Constitution was ratified, an important milestone in the country’s history. The country had just been liberated and was rising from the ashes of repression during the martial law years. President Noynoy Aquino, the son, could now complete the country’s ultimate return to democracy, if only he has the political will to do so. Completing his mother’s greatest legacy could be a crowning achievement of his presidency rather than the vacuous “daang matuwid” philosophy of government he’s been selling from day one.

 

If nothing of this sort happens, then the Filipino people should put President Aquino on notice, that they are seceding from the republic and forming a new government. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is about to form their own Bangsamoro nation, thanks to President Aquino, so why can’t the people do just the same? If nothing happens, we might as well all head to the hills and join the rebels.

 

President Noynoy Aquino can still save his derrière by acting as a true leader now—meaning, TODAY.

A weakling’s response

 

 

It was an apology that wasn’t an apology. Worse yet, a weakling’s show of remorse after wilting to pressure from a foreign government that has no diplomatic relations with the Philippines.

 

The Taiwan government rejected as insincere the apology issued by Philippine President Benigno Aquino III for the shooting death of a Taiwanese fisherman last May 9 on Philippine waters just north of the island of Batanes. Taiwan’s premier Ma Ying-jeou rallied his countrymen to “prepare for a prolonged war” as he announced a slew of sanctions to be imposed against the Philippine government, which included an immediate ban on the recruitment of Filipino workers, the recall of the Taiwanese representative in Manila and an order to the Philippine envoy in Taipei to return home.

 

Taiwanese fishermen burn Philippine flag as they  protest inTaipei last May 13
against the killing of a local fisherman by the Philippine Coast Guard. Click link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G0T0d_AbUk to view Taiwan vs. Philippines
(The Fishing War) - Golden Retriever vs. Chihuaha.

More sanctions from the Taiwan government could be expected such as the suspension of economic and trade relations between the two nations and a ban on tourism travel to the Philippines. All sanctions considered, both countries will be hard-pressed, although the Philippines will be hit hard most.

 

Taiwan is behaving like a great power that looks down on little countries in Asia like the Philippines. One foreign observer noted that even India is a small country in Taiwan’s eyes.

 

Taiwan doesn’t want just an apology but also to conduct its own investigation of the shooting incident. President Noynoy Aquino has blinked first, exposing his obvious lack of preparedness to face a diplomatic row similar to his handling of the Rizal Park hostage-taking incident in 2010 involving Chinese citizens from Hong Kong.

 

Foreign policy appears to be the weakest chink in President Aquino’s armour. After being rattled by Chinese bullying in the South China Sea, Aquino had to run to America, his former colonial master, for help. Spurned by the ASEAN for his proposal for a united stand against China in the South China Sea conflict, President Aquino went alone for an international arbitration of the dispute which would most likely prolong the impasse instead of solving it. To date, China continues its aggressive behaviour in intruding in Philippine territory in the South China Sea and President Aquino could do nothing but issue empty reassurances that the Philippines has the capability to repel any foreign intervention.

 

When the ragtag army of the self-proclaimed Sultan of Sulu attempted to recover Sabah which it claims has been the sultanate’s property all along last March, President Aquino again could not do anything but watch in horror as Filipino Muslims were massacred by the Malaysian military. This just proves President Aquino’s weakest suit as Taiwan now takes its turn in bullying the Philippines.

 

The Philippine government has acquiesced to Taiwan’s demand that it conduct its own investigation of the shooting incident in the Bashi Channel where the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of both countries overlap. In agreeing to a parallel probe, the Philippines has waved the white flag although it has also allowed Hong Kong the same right to jointly investigate the hostage-taking incident in 2010. At least, Hong Kong is part of China which has diplomatic relations with the Philippines. But one wonders why the Philippine government didn’t demand that Malaysia similarly accede to a joint investigation of the Sultan of Sulu’s failed foray on Malaysian land?

 

There are reports that Filipino workers in Taiwan are being subjected to physical assaults and harassment as Taiwan’s nationalistic jingoism heats up. The interests and protection of Filipino workers must have weighed heavily on President Aquino’s mind in giving in to Taiwan’s demand for a joint investigation rather than defending the country’s territorial integrity. This kind of father-figure was sorely lacking in the President Aquino’s diplomatic stance during the massacre of Filipino Muslims in Malaysia last March.

 

Besides an official apology and a joint investigation by Taiwan and the Philippines, the Taiwanese government is also demanding compensation for the fisherman’s family, punishment for the guilty and bilateral talks over a fisheries agreement to avoid similar incidents. In other words, Taiwan is dictating the terms of an acceptable resolution, leaving the Philippine government with nothing to do but comply. But these are not preconditions in promoting diplomatic peace and harmony. Instead, these are terms coming from a position of arrogance.

 

If international relations would be carried out unilaterally, then such relations should be called by another name. Taiwan is behaving badly and its reaction to the shooting incident is way out of proportion, especially for a country which has not been officially recognized by its neighbours in the region.

 

In allowing its citizens to turn their nationalistic anger toward Filipino workers who are fully blameless, Taiwan is committing xenophobia and racial intolerance. Is Taiwan actually gearing up for war? It’s ludicrous to think so.

 

Should the safety and security of Filipino workers in Taiwan be the Philippines’ primary concern, the government should prepare a plan to repatriate these workers and not simply caution them about limiting their visibility that could further enrage the citizens of Taiwan. Just like in previous wars such as those in Iraq and Libya, the Philippine government immediately took steps to repatriate Filipino overseas workers caught in danger’s way. The government should not vacillate and worry about the loss of jobs and dollar remittances. Nothing is more important than the safety of Filipino workers, especially when Taiwan is ratcheting up its threat of a “prolonged war” with the Philippines.

 

Never mind that Taiwan is the Philippines’ fourth largest source of remittances from Asia. Or Taiwan was the fifth largest source of foreign tourists (216,511) last year. Or Taiwan was the Philippines’ ninth biggest trading partner and eighth largest source of foreign investments.

 

The Philippine government does not deserve to be treated in an arrogant and high-handed manner by Taiwan. It has continued to treat Taiwan as a friend by maintaining economic and trade relations despite of the One-China Policy. Is there any more room left to allow diplomacy to work?

Amid row with China, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III announces
$1.8 billion military upgrade vs. "bullies."

Allowing Taiwan to conduct a parallel probe of the shooting incident is demoralizing to the Philippine Coast Guard in particular, but also establishes a wrong precedent. From now on, we could expect foreign governments to demand that they conduct their own investigation of any shenanigans committed by their nationals on Philippine soil or waters. When Filipino citizens are victims of crimes or suspects of criminal wrongdoing abroad, never has the Philippine government demanded that its National Bureau of Investigation be allowed to conduct its own probe. Our NBI does not act in the same way as the US Federal Bureau of Investigation or the CIA when American interests are at jeopardy abroad. We just don’t have the ability and resources, and we are only a small nation and our timidity is only natural and to be expected.

 

But at least the Philippine government can use diplomacy by requesting the safe repatriation of Filipino workers when they are unnecessarily placed in harm’s way. There is no substitute for the safety and lives of our overseas workers, and this should be the single and most important factor that the president must consider.

 

If it would mean a significant drop in foreign remittances by overseas Filipino workers, then that it is the price we must pay. Maybe this a wake-up call for the government to concentrate its efforts in generating jobs instead of prostituting our skilled workers overseas. It’s about time for our government economic planners to realize that overreliance on foreign remittances is not the best way to strengthen the economy. In addition to promoting job growth, the government should redirect its economic priorities in developing local industry which is necessary to arrest the foreign drain of talents because this is the most effective way of achieving full employment.

 

The real test of an effective national leader is not solely his ability to win elections for his party. If this is so, then President Aquino must be a good and strong leader and he has passed the test.

 

But when his countrymen are being slaughtered in a foreign land or when a foreign government tells him his apology is not enough, that he should accept the foreign state’s demands or else face more sanctions, then that president must be lacking of courage and will to stand up for his country. In any estimation, that president is a weakling.