Linggo, Nobyembre 10, 2019
Democracy or democrazy?
Some people tend to call me a dictator because I propose for a disciplinarian government along with the fact that I applaud Singapore as one model for progress. Aside from my posts on having a well-balanced economy - I would also propose it's time for the Philippines to really learn discipline. I would like to address the fact that the Philippines cannot really expect progress unless people first learn to follow guidelines. If you observe day by day, a lot of Filipinos do not practice any discipline. Do observe how many of them just throw their garbage anywhere in contrast to those who throw their garbage in the right places. You can see how reckless driving is very rampant no thanks to loose traffic enforcement. Go to the government office and you can see people who refuse to line up properly and workers who refuse to do them properly. In short, it's all a result of not following guidelines.
If the government starts implementing policies that make the Philippines a real fine country like making civil offenses like those misdeeds mentioned above, just think how much progress will happen. Just think what if people got also fined for littering, vandalism, wasting water, public smoking and the like? I would really think that it discourages bad behavior as it should be discouraged. I am not saying that the current constitution should criminalize everything like lock people up for littering garbage anywhere or spitting in public but rather, fining them would at least be a reminder. Jailing should be done for habitual civil offenses but not to be locked up with people who did criminal offenses. I could care less what idiots like Etta Rosales will have to say about discipline because they are a bunch of idiots who don't uphold human rights but only a culture of impunity. Learning to follow simple guidelines is indeed a real straight road to progress and not the stupid Pwede Na Yan system.
Do I say democracy is really evil and that the Philippines should become a dictatorial state? Not really, I don't support a despotic reign either. The problem of the Philippines is not a democracy but a kind of democracy that ruins the country. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. In the Philippines, the problem is that the majority of the people are stupid people who think they are smart and the smart ones who are frequently put down by stupid people. I have experienced it that whenever I try to post an intellectual post and quote intellectual people, they say I am stupid and that the people I quote are stupid. It's incredibly funny how people who call me stupid may turn out to be high school dropouts and losers in life.
The Philippine version of democracy as of late is best called a government by stupid people, for stupid people, and of stupid people. So it turns out Lee Kwan Yew didn't say it or did he? Even if Lee didn't say it but it can't be denied Filipinos themselves can see the problem isn't democracy but a democracy without restraint. Granted, I'm just a nobody so I was probably misled by that statement! The result is you get a government that buys the people, poor the people and offs the people. Because whoever is voted is the winner no matter how stupid he or she is - that person gets the seat in power. When you think about it majority of the Filipino people are to blame for bad politics. But what's the root cause then?
Any good authority figure will do what is right for the country even if the whole country will turn against him. The problem with the Philippines is that most of the politicians are bootlickers and crowd-pleasers. When people continue to want economic overprotectionism the government is most likely to give it instead of weighing the consequences for the long run, such people only think of the economics for the short run. The same goes for why squatters are getting their rights to squat - it's no thanks to that most people in the Philippines choose to be squatter-brained and that they support squatters as merely "informal settlers" when in fact they are a serious problem. When a good leader does not obey the voice of a majority decision that makes a country go bad - it's not that he is a dictator. He's a leader who truly cares about accountability and responsibility.
A parliamentary system can instill better discipline than a presidential form of government
What I would suggest is now to shift to the parliamentary form of government. One can argue that China is presidential and it puts away its corrupt officials. One can argue that South Korea has transparency when it's presidential. Sometimes, some people just think, "Let's just remove 60/40 and let foreign investors in! Never mind parliamentary and federalism!" However, China is still very much plagued with corruption. Sadly, China has been more focused on treating symptoms than addressing the root cause.
Why would a parliamentary democracy be more effective if you ask me? One can consider the success of the Westminster system. One can consider the success of the Philippines vs. the success of Malaysia. Just think that the Marcos Regime was a presidential regime for 20 years. Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kwan Yew gave their respective countries decades-quality rule under a parliamentary system. A parliamentary system would greatly change things. One could consider how the Westminster system has the two-way system which would introduce the Government and Opposition (majority and minority) with very defined roles.
There are many mistakes that could've been avoided by both Noynoy Aquino in his quest for Daang Matuwid and President Rodrigo R. Duterte in his quest for change. Both of them however have made similar mistakes. President Duterte should've immediately removed Nicanor Faeldon and Noynoy should've immediately removed Joseph Pabaya and Alan Purisima. Also, President Duterte tends to be reckless and Noynoy tends to be too lenient at times. If you think about it that you can't blame everything wrong on them either. I think blaming Noynoy for the MRT is stupid since the fault should be that of Pabaya. The current fiascos by Faeldon should be blamed on Faeldon - not President Duterte.
Now how would these two guys actually fare as prime ministers? Maybe, Prime Minister Noynoy would either be more careful because he would have the Opposition after him. Maybe, Prime Minister Duterte would have to watch his language too because of the Weekly Question Hour. Prime Minister Noynoy would have another term to complete his projects. If he wanted to cancel anything out of spite or not - he would have to explain why he's canceling something. President Duterte would have to be lectured about budget constraints by the Opposition. Both of them have their pros and cons. I mean, Noynoy did improve the economy though he tends to be overly lenient. President Duterte is continuing some reforms but needs to be lectured on budgeting.
The Westminster Parliamentary system would eventually set very rigged rules during a legislative hearing. The executive is just right there getting ready to be grilled! You can consider how a parliamentary system would instill discipline better. One of the biggest problems of the parliamentary system is that it allows politicians to Talk Ng Talk without ceasing. Take for example Antonio Trillanes IV just talks and talks a lot. However, a parliamentary system would really give everyone a fairer chance to talk for both the Government (Majority) and Opposition (Minority). Everyone gets only 7.5 minutes to talk. That means privilege speeches are given to all participants in the weekly debate.
You can imagine the scenario where the Government Bloc (let's say PDP-Laban and Liberal Party) and the Opposition Bloc (Nacionalista and LAKAS). You have Prime Minister Duterte, Deputy Prime Minister Leni Robredo, Opposition Leader Trillanes, and Deputy Opposition Leader Grace Poe-Llamanzares in this imagined scenario. This would be a 7.5 minutes only per person debate. Everyone has to wrap it up as soon as possible to give everyone a chance. That means both Leni and Trillanes will have to get to the point and be very well prepared. They have to show everyone how they are capable and to boost confidence in the Filipino people. An orderly debate process is strictly enforced. It will be aired live and walkouts will mean the people losing confidence in that legislator.
Under a parliamentary system, butterflies are also not allowed. Some people say parliamentary won't work because of too many balimbings. From what I heard, the parliamentary system discourages balimbings. People get their merits deducted for shifting from one party to another. I find it annoying at how candidates in the Philippines are like chameleons - they change colors so fast. I heard that the late Ninoy Aquino himself was once part of the Nacionalista Party before being part of Liberal and LABAN. I also noticed that Alan Peter Cayetano was part of Nacionalista before becoming President Duterte's running mate. Also, wasn't President Duterte (if I'm not wrong) once a member of the Liberal Party since he did help both Noynoy and Mar Roxas in their campaign back in 2010?
Maybe, a moderate form of caning or paddling can be used for certain, selected offenses
I also suggest it's time the Philippines should really practice caning by different degrees depending on the punishment. Having been spanked whenever I am naughty as a child has helped me become a more decent person in the future. The stupid DepEd officers should really consider why discipline is so bad in the DepEd schools and in so many public schools where school fights are becoming the norm. The statement is, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." and that's what a lot of Filipinos are lacking now, the rod of correction to be whacked at the seat of education. The constitution should really stop its softie behavior, oh I'm the poor victim view and instead cater to what most Filipinos lack and that is discipline. I don't care about the United Nations, European Union or any of those sissy international meddlers say that caning is wrong. I can agree with that statement if caning is being used indiscriminately.
There are guidelines towards how to cane and how not to cane. Caning in the Middle East is wrong because of how it doesn't regard human welfare. On the other hand, Singapore still has strict rules such as the use of padding or there's a caning room. Also, people to be caned should be physically fit or that there's some padding to protect the prisoner. I really think Michael Fay had it coming when he did massive vandalism. It would be a message vandalizing other people's property carries a hefty price. Though the offenses related to caning should be defined. Minor vandalism or minor theft shouldn't warrant a caning. However, offenses like massive vandalism or causing a riot can be a ground for caning. I think those members of activist groups seriously need to be caned for all their vandalism. Singapore and Malaysia are very orderly also because of caning.
The alternative can be paddling. I think using a paddle for minor vandalism or theft over caning is reasonable. The purpose behind being spanked is just like a parent spanking a child. This spanking is meant to be painful enough to teach a lesson but not to bruise the child. Though I'd like to combine the two depending on the situation. Minor offenses call for paddling and the cane shouldn't be in the school. Caning itself should be reserved for civil offenses outside the schools.
I would also suggest corrupt public officials themselves can get a caning. Private citizens may get the privilege of a private caning (no need to shame them). I think public officials should be publicly caned. I think caning public officials for charges of graft and corruption can be a good measure to discourage graft and corruption. Even better, Filipinos can be invited to watch these politicians whacked at the buttocks. Just imagine if those lousy officials past to present were all spanked in public. This would probably discourage people from thinking that being a public official means you can do what you want.
Updated: November 10, 2019