I confess that I used to defend the possibility of Bobong Marcos winning the electoral protest against Vice President Leni Loud G. Robredo. I may not like Leni Loud but kudos to her for actually showing up to Jessica Soho's interview along with the others such as Isko Moreno Domagoso, Panfilo "Ping" Lacson, and Manny Pacquiao. It's really something that people were jeering at Bobong (and he deserves to be jeered) while it seems a good population of them who did are against the shift to parliamentary system.
I remembered writing about the "blah-blah-blahs" against shifting to parliamentary. I'm actually really stressed out having to repeat for the nth time that the Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary! Ninoy Aquino already said it in his Boston Speech why the Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary. Again, that's the hero of the Pinklawans talking some time before he met his death at the Manila International Airport which was renamed in his honor! The late Lee Kuan Yew called Cesar Virata as a SITTING DUCK. In a real parliament, the president is the symbolic head of state while the prime minister is the head of government. It would like what if the late Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco-Aquino were symbolic while Fidel V. Ramos called the shots as the prime minister. Cory herself would be a symbolic national of unity while Ramos ran the country. Sadly, letting Cory run the country with no experience was dumb. Cory was better off being Queen Elizabeth II than she would be the late Margaret Thatcher. Some just oppose the parliamentary system all because of feelings over facts.
It had me thinking about the dumb reasons can be even absurd. For example, somebody can say that it won't fit because of culture and politics. This reminds me of Benign0 of Get Real Philippines as to why he opposes opening up the Philippines to foreign investments ASAP. For Benign0, he thinks that Filipinos should first learn to be business-savvy before doing so. Rigoberto Tiglao still shares the same old problem. Some of the biggest, STUPIDEST, reasons to even oppose the Philippines to shift to parliamentary can be like that Filipino politicians are incompetent, Filipino politicians are not good in debates. The end "solution" for incompetent politicians is to stick to presidential because they'll never do better (daw) under a parliamentary system. Unfortunately, this is a very wrong misunderstanding of how people and systems work. To say noting is wrong with the current constitution and that it's just a politicians is a SELF-DEFEATING ARGUMENT. What do you think allowed know-nothings to sit in the seats of government if not a bad constitution? It's like how a good company gets both GOOD CARS and GOOD DRIVERS. However, you'll never know who the bad driver is if all the cars are ruined. A bad driver can be exposed by a good car. A good driver will point out that something's wrong with the car.
The mandatory weekly question hour will change things
The parliamentary system doesn't make debates optional. Instead, they're made mandatory. It's just like university students will NEVER join the intramurals if the professors don't require it. I remembered how my college professor made joining the intramurals MANDATORY. The result was that students ended up joining the intramurals to support the practicum activities of the college of commerce. If debates were made mandatory - do you think slacking will be there? Instead, because it's mandatory, you need to work your hardest to be a better formal debater. It's like how mathematics is a mandatory subject - you can't use your not being good in math as an excuse. True, some people are weaker in mathematics but it can be resolved by studying. Just because a person may not do good with engineering math or higher math that they can't do basic computations like arithmetic, algebra, statistics, and some basic calculus. Making it mandatory will coerce people to practice and do better if they want to qualify.
Weekly question hour is a must. So, let's think of a current setup where Bobong and Leni Loud are the prime minister and opposition leader, respectively. Bobong, if ever he becomes prime minister, can't avoid the topic and he's mandated to attend debates. Leni Loud is in no different position as the opposition leader. Here, Leni Loud can be a legitimate opposition leader because the parliamentary form of government requires one. Leni Loud must have her own set of appointees to mirror against Bobong's set of appointees. If Bobong keeps avoiding the debates - a vote of no confidence can be called upon him. If Bobong wants ot keep avoiding the topic during the weekly question hour - Leni Loud can call a vote of no confidence against him.
Besides, one of the biggest weaknesses of the presidential system is LACKING in mandatory debates. Right now, how often are the Yellows (now Pinklawans) directly holding the Duterte Government accountable? For example, Francisco Duque as the health minister can be held accountable by a shadow health minister (such as Willie Ong) only in Parliament. Michael G. Aguinaldo himself should've functioned as a shadow minister of audit to scrutinize the government audit weekly. The lack of the mandatory debates is one reason why our politicians suck. It's just like people will eventually suck in mathematics if the subject were not a requirement to pass. Let people study math and they will do better in math to a certain extent. Let politicians debate and they'll either get better or be shipped out of the Parliament.
Comments
Post a Comment