My candidate is Mr. Constitutional Reform

I have said it many times in my columns that I have only one candidate — constitutional reform. I have not deviated from that position. I fought as hard as I could for the opportunity to reform government before we had another wasteful, debilitating presidential elections.

But it was not to be. Those who are for the status quo are so intransigent they would not even allow the debate to continue and yet they claim that they are for democracy and freedom of the press. The oligarchs with powerful media in their hands can’t see beyond their interests.

They pound their brand of reporting and commentary day and night to a mostly uneducated electorate. That is why we have showbiz personalities as candidates for president, senators and congressmen/women. If I have been more against Noynoy than other candidates it is because he is the candidate who would foreclose any attempt for constitutional reform. He has already said so. What that will mean is business as usual, keep the status quo while politicians mouth “change”.

The sequence of my position has been constitutional reform first before elections. This was contradicted by former US Ambassador Kristie Kenney by going on opposition TV ANC calling for “clean, honest” elections. Her appearances on television as well as advertorials of “Ako ang Simula” reinforced the position for elections. And so here we are — facing intractable problems of another presidential election when we could have been doing more productive things like generating more jobs, health care and housing.

* * *

That does not mean that I cannot judge who among the candidates are electable as far as I am concerned. I would limit myself to the frontrunners. Two candidates do not pass my standards for leadership, Noynoy and Erap.

The others have their individual merits: Sen. Manny Villar has a story from rags to riches and a track record of turning around his businesses from bankruptcy. Former Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro is a bright young man with great potential for leadership. I’ve seen him in debates and presentations and can say he is articulate on a wide range of subjects. Richard Gordon has proved himself capable in whatever challenge was put to him, among them Subic and tourism.

My position that this election should not be taking place leads me no alternative but to have no candidate to endorse. It would be contradictory if I did. If I am against presidential elections then I should have no candidate. I will vote because it is a citizen’s duty. But who I will vote for is a private matter.

* * *

I recently watched Charlie Rose’s interview with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Bloomberg. We have much to learn from Singapore so I am excerpting parts of the interview that may be relevant to us.

Charlie Rose: How do you measure your commitment to democracy?

Lee Hsien Loong: I think we measure it by the legitimacy of the government and by the results, how Singapore works and whether Singaporeans are able to have a better life.

Charlie Rose: Is it Jeffersonian democracy?

Lee Hsien Loong: I don’t — we don’t measure ourselves by an American model to how — to what extent we approximate you. The countries which approximate you most closely in Asia, probably the Philippines, operates very differently from American democracy. So we’re not trying to approximate you. We are trying to find a formula which works for Singapore.

That is a good answer to those who insist that we hew closely to the American model for democracy even when our experience has shown that it does not work for us. If there is a difference of opinion of what can work for us then we should settle the difference and decide which way to go. It was wrong to stop the debate on constitutional reform. We have been debating constitutional reform for decades and generations only to be continually frustrated.

The presidential elections we have are a hindrance to our progress. That is the gist of my position. Again let us learn from what the Singaporean Prime Minister said in Bloomberg when he was asked what he thought was behind Singapore’s success.

“Lee Hsien Loong: What did we do? We invested in education. We invested in public housing so that people would have a home to own and to defend. We built up our armed forces so we could be secure in an uncertain world.

We built up our institutions so that you have a government which people can trust and is competent and can protect our interests in the international community. And the people supported the government and worked with the government. And that reservoir of trust is one of our most valuable and sustainable competitive advantages.

Charlie Rose: Your father said to me you have to stay relevant. You have to stay relevant to the world.

Lee Hsien Loong: If we want to make a living for ourselves, we’ve got to be extraordinary. There are any number of cities with a million, two million people in them, hundreds in Asia, hundreds more worldwide. Why is Singapore different? It’s because the people make it so, and the people, meaning our own people and the talent we have within Singapore and the talent we can attract to Singapore and make members of our extended family who can help us to prosper.

He also cited programs for creating jobs. The Philippines also has such projects but we are immobilized by constant bickering and carping dedicated to presidential elections for the sake of the oligarchy and not the people. He talked about “the casinos and integrated resort from which they hope to create some 20,000, 30,000 jobs for us”.

* * *

It should be easy to resolve the issue on Noynoy’s mental health: he should agree to have a psychiatric test. The results should then be made public so the electorate can decide whether he is fit to be president. That’s one.

The other as I had said in my column yesterday is to collate all the “gossip stories” on his “aberrant behavior”. His record in both the House and the Senate confirms his father’s concern as expressed to the psychiatrist, “walang ka drive-drive.”