System overhauls are no doubt expensive. Sometimes, you've got to increase your expenses. It's almost like the napkin commercial of Angel Locsin Colmenares who mentioned about, "Nagtipid ka ba sa napkin mo o ikaw ba ang tinipid ng napkin mo?" or "Are you economizing on your napkin or is your napkin economizing on you?" -- which refers to cheap napkins that don't grant women the protection they need in contrast to a higher priced napkin that's guaranteed to give them better protection. Then you have people who claim that it's better to simply make minor amendments in the 1987 Constitution than to have a complete overhaul.
Here's another illustration that you can use. Can you think about the situation where you have an old, obsolete PC that can only handle Windows 95 or lower? It would certainly cost a lot of money to get a new PC to handle better Windows than the momentary repair of your old PC. But your old PC keeps breaking down which in turn will increase your expenses in the long run. Can you imagine having to send your PC to the repair shop EVERY MONTH or even EVERY WEEK because it keeps breaking down? The contrary is when you get a newer, better PC that can handle higher operating systems then imagine how much the Return on Investment will be. You won't be going too much back and forth to the repair shop. You get your operating system and necessary software installed with the newer PC then you are good to go -- you have better efficiency and effectiveness than just sticking to the old PC that will continue to break down, hang up and give you too many obstacles at once. You have obstacles not just to overcome but to demolish if necessary!
The Philippine Constitution today is just like an obsolete operating system or obsolete hardware. Do you even realize why your phone suddenly hangs up a lot of it's an old model? It's because it can't handle the software and application updates. The current Philippine Constitution isn't fit to handle the challenges the Philippines must face in this day and age because of its political-economic provisions. Don't believe the lie that economic protectionism is the new thing -- it was what led to the first World War in the first place! It was economic liberalization that allowed Modern Japan to rise up from the ashes of the destroyed Imperial Japan, that allowed China to progress during the reign of Deng Xiaoping and that made Singapore progress from its slum-like state. It's economic protectionism on the other hand that caused the Philippines to continue to suffer the after-effects of the Marcos Years (which was crony capitalism), that makes North Korea not ideal in contrast to South Korea, that made China rot during the time of Mao Zedong and why Venezuela is such an impoverished country. The presidential system is nothing more than personality-based politics. How often is there a real accountable check and how effective are they under a presidential system? A parliamentary system whether unicameral or bicameral has been more effective for reasons such as the watchful eye of the Opposition and the Weekly Question Hour which grills stupid people in power.
Will it cost more to replace the defective Philippine Constitution? I would not deny that the spending will go high for it and the answer is a yes. There will be the need for funding source and expenses may go higher. But you can't deny that like getting money fort a major surgery in contrast to just using band-aids on a deep wound -- it will pay better in the long run. Replacing the current defective presidential system with the parliamentary system will greatly change things. Can you imagine if everyone had to compete at the Weekly Question Hour? You can imagine how many politicians will be forced to prepare or be ousted by a vote of no confidence? Opening up the economy may sound expensive because it may mean kicking out stupid people like Neri Colmenares and Teddy Casino (which may involve giving separation pay) but you are getting yourself some money in later. It's like borrowing a reasonable sum of money for extra capital in one's business in order to help increase its productivity -- then paying it back afterwards. So why even complain how expensive it is to replace the defective 1987 Constitution while not hesitating to support welfare state programs that have no real Return on Investments?
Comments
Post a Comment