FVR should come forward as a statesman

With President Aquino putting his foot down on any attempts for constitutional reform while some lawmakers are pushing for it, one wonders how the government can continue running the country with debilitating stalemate.  I remember Senate and House leaders promised the lifting of economic restrictions against foreign investment by the end of 2013.

I wonder if it will happen at all with President Aquino against it. Will the country’s welfare be held hostage by one man even if he is the president?

The amendment being proposed is to remove  barriers to foreign investments in the 1987 Constitution. By all means regulate foreign investments through law, but not in the fundamental document of the country. It makes us an unfriendly destination for investments and the barriers prone to corruption. There are more hospitable countries in the region. And yet if there is any country where  direct investments are needed it is the Philippines to generate jobs and bring in technology. It is dumbfounding how the President can say ”prove the amendments are good first.” He says the country cannot afford to be distracted from its goals at this time. I wonder what those goals are.

*       *       *

More than ever past leaders who have become statesmen should come forward and help get it done. For this task, the most qualified is former President Fidel V. Ramos. He expressed it aptly in his speech on the 51st anniversary of the PHILCONSA (The Philippine Constitution Association) entitled “Empowering the Filipino People.”

He says quite rightly that the Constitution is the law that creates and regulates government itself. If we are in such a mess today it is that lack of respect for the Constitution.

And while it is right to warn again “capricious tinkering with the Constitution he also warns that a Constitution is not engraved in stone.”

“If leaders are not to tinker with our fundamental law, neither should they allow the Charter to become a legal strait-jacket — preventing our people from progressing in the 21st century.

“Our 1987 Charter is now 25 years old and certainly mature enough to withstand reexamination and reform.”

He says emphatically, “Yes” to Charter change but insists we be clear and specific about changes to be made.

“We should reform our Charter to enable our people to move competitively in the 21st century.

“The pace of change in today’s world has speeded considerably. Globalization is recasting social, economic, political and cultural relationships among individuals, countries and regions. Emerging are new concepts of the ‘good society’ — about which we must immediately innovate.

“We need structural changes that will consolidate our democracy, modernize our economy, and redefine our citizenry’s obligations in building the nation. Philippine democracy must work for all our people.”

He is well on the mark when he says “we Filipinos are dividing into two nations: one, a nation of the few who are rich — the other, a nation of the many who are poor.”

That is a problem we cannot ignore because it may be on top of us already with all the violence and disruption it can bring even to those who think they are protected in gated neighborhoods.

In Ramos’ term he began the work to open up our economy and generated many industries including putting young Filipinos into the Internet, Facebook, Twitter and Google.

As a statesman he must see to it that what he had begun ought to be continued. And this is none better than today with more and more segments of Filipino society seeking for radical change. Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno has thrown in his hat too in the ring for the battle of returning sovereignty to the people. With the two of them we have a formidable leadership. There are others and all must be invited for the great task of nation building that will begin by crowdsourcing for a new constitution for a new Philippines in a few days. Abangan.

*       *       *

It is unfortunate that President Aquino compared China with Hitler using the example of its invasion of “Sudetenland” as the same as China’s claim to the South China Sea. It was a bad comparison. If the point was to show that Aquino knows more history than he is thought to have, he fell flat on his face.

A facebook friend posted that President Aquino could have been tempted to show off his “wide knowledge of history” but that became his undoing. He made a mistake by adding “Sudetenland” in his remark to compare China’s behavior in the South China. With the comparison he called on the nations of the world to act more forcefully. He convinces no one because the comparison was a faux pas.

My FB friend thinks that Aquino might have read Douglas Paul’s article in The Diplomat where he says exactly the opposite, “Why the South China Sea is not a “Sudetenland Moment.”

The article heeds the US not to take sides but instead to encourage peaceful negotiation. So if as my FB friend thinks Aquino got the word from the article he used it without thinking. “The United States must not take direct sides – and instead encourage peaceful negotiation – lest it make matters worse,” the author said.

The remarks of President Aquino has not helped in what Paul said should be the US strategic objective — “to manage China’s rise — which appears inevitable — in ways that do not diminish vital American interests in the region. “