Is the Philippines ready for success?

Recently former Mayor Lito Atienza was interviewed in Sentro ng Katotohanan. (This is an hour long no holds barred chat show with politicians, journalists and other newsmakers on DWBL from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It is open to questions and comments from the public. Former CJ Puno is the guest on Tuesday). In the interview Atienza said the crime situation in the country is serious. 

It is not just about carjackings but a whole slew of crimes that are being ignored and criminals go unpunished. “Do you know why Mafia cannot come in here? Or Triad? Or Yakuza?” No. “Because we already have the PNP. The macabre joke is on us. The situation is so bad that the police have become the problem.

He agrees that restrictive economic provisions should be the first to be amended in the 1987 Constitution to bring in investments to provide jobs and alleviate the poverty of our masses. But why should investors put their money in a place where crime proliferates without effective enforcement of the law? He does not think it is enough to remove constitutional barriers against foreign investments into the country while peace and order is ignored. It is a chicken and egg problem. Poverty like greed drives individuals into crime. 

Drastic measures are necessary to combat crime that has become widespread and endemic.

Atienza thinks local police should be returned to the supervision of local authorities. The national system of police that we now have is out of touch with local matters. “As it is now if there is police abuse like false raids, where can citizens go to complain about armed police bullies? Who is in charge? Redress for police abuse needs to be addressed immediately but it sometimes takes months for the proper authority  the PNP  to act. Suspects in the Lozano-Evangelista cases may have been identified quickly but that is only one case and it was widely publicized. What we need is a more efficient and accountable police system.

“The centralization of police under the PNP,” Atienza adds was a vestige of Marcos’ martial law. Marcos wanted the police under his control but we no longer have martial law. Why did we keep the same police structure in the 1987 Constitution?

*      *      *

Secretary Carandang’s statement that “the only thing they’re saying right now, the only discussion right now is let us change the Constitution” is surprising. He is asking for specifics. What!?! Where has he been all these years? The issues and the information on the provisions that need to be changed have been on the board and disseminated continuously by advocates with their limited means. (Constitutionalist Jose Abueva and I were Carandang’s guests in ANC where reforms envisioned were discussed).

Whether the proposals are significant or not to the Filipino nation is not up to Carandang or anybody else. It must be debated, that is what is being asked and then voted upon. It is the people who will decide in a plebiscite.

So what is the position of the Palace? I think that most advocates would like to see even a small step to correct defects in the 1987 Constitution. Any movement at all  even if it were to be limited to the economic provisions  would be progress.

Is the spokesman speaking for the Palace? Is it for or against correcting the “antiquated” economic provisions? The headline said it was okay as long as it was done by piecemeal legislation. Carandang seems unsure so he adds “politicians might only extend their terms specified in the Constitution once given the chance to tinker with it.” Which is which?

*      *      *

The chicken and egg dilemma on which comes first economic progress or peace and order was also present in the talks between President Hu Jintao and President Obama in Washington.

Beneath the veneer of diplomatic language, US President Obama, as expected, made a pitch for human rights and deplored its lack of it in China but this was less important than American concern about economic issues. A bone of contention has been the undervalued yuan.

Mr. Obama reportedly drove this point more than once in their conversations. Obama addressed concerns about trade between the two countries and specified for a level playing field. But President Hu Jintao stuck to generalities and followed the dictum of the inscrutable Chinese.

Nevertheless, the two leaders shook hands on their common interests and differences. President Hu emphasized that dialogue was the way through its differences but remained adamant that “others not interfere in China’s internal affairs.”

I attended Ambassador Liu Jianchao’s lunch for media last Friday. Attendance was impressive. It was packed full. How could one resist the Chinese food? But joking aside, the Chinese ambassador is on to a good thing with his policy to be open to as many members of media as he could.

That openness I am told comes from his background as a media person himself and his experience as the spokesperson for the Chinese government before his assignment to Manila.

*      *      *

I have just finished reading Kishore Mahbubani’s “Can Asians Think?” He says that Asia is on the march but it has to abide by certain key principles if it is to succeed as the Next Century.

“To avoid losing the next century, Asians must resume the learning process that they had aborted for centuries. They have to ruthlessly analyze their past. They have to understand, for example, why so many Asians allowed themselves to be colonized by so few Europeans. What went wrong? But more importantly, Asians must determine what went right in the West.

He points to three key principles that he calls the software of success. The first is meritocracy.

“If each Asian society allows its best minds to emerge, flourish and provide leadership Asia could well take off. But conservative elements and political forces resist change. And a great deal of Asian talent is wasted.”

The second principle is peace. “It is an essential ingredient for growth and prosperity in the modern world. Asians should learn from the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping when he said that future generations should be asked to solve today’s territorial problems.”

The third principle is honesty. “Successful societies have functional elites. They add more value to their societies than they take from it. Unsuccessful societies have corrupt elites. As a result of feudal attitudes, they become easily entrenched, even though they survive as parasites.”

Asians have held Asia back in the past 500 years he says. “The first lesson Asian societies must learn is how to develop, implement and maintain the right software: meritocracy, peace and honesty (MPH - a good acronym to remember in times of rapid change).”

Is the Philippines ready for success?