pRiMo's noOk
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Do we need to dance the CHA-CHA?
The net, i-phone, psp’s and the like. Long gone are the snail mails and the conventional ways of courtship. Youngsters use their cell phones and e-cards instead. Most if not all of this generation have their places somewhere in the net. Others use their blogs to express themselves in whatever there is to express under the sun.
This is the new picture. This is the new world.
It is right to say that there is nothing constant in this world but change. Though, we need to move with time and shift towards better options for the common good, there are “certain things” that need to be carefully viewed and scrutinized before any change be done.
The issue on charter change in the Philippine scene stirred the entire country and even divided its people on whether or not it is apt to amend the 1987 Constitution. This issue even earned various comments, views and opinions from political analysts around the globe.
Though there were claims that the constitution has its flaws and need to be revised the question on the “timing” and the “method/process” (Constitutional Convention or Constituent Assembly as the mode of revising the Constitution) of doing it remains dubious and questionable.
Under the Arroyo administration there were a number of attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. Among the first moves and it was very well remembered that Mrs. Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 453 which created a Consultative Commission tasked to propose the “necessary” revisions on the constitution. True to its purpose the Consultative Commission then came up with proposals that included a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
There were claims that changing the constitution will afford more venues for economic stability, job offers, price deregulation and even usher wage increases. Surely, a hungry Juan dela Cruz upon hearing these claims would be given hope amidst the economic crisis in his “Lupang Sinilangan”. But wait; does Juan dela Cruz really need cha-cha just to savor these claims of hope?
What the supporters brag about unicameralism is the idea that urban areas with large populations will have more influence than sparsely populated rural ones. It is said that in many cases the only way to get sparsely populated regions on board a unified government is to implement a bicameral system such as the early United States. Supporters say that this is a great advantage since unicameralism will provide better apportionment and benefits along with it. On the contrary, and even a little kid will understand that in scenarios like this urban areas or rural regions for that matter will also be given more power as a result.
“Unicameralism” also claims to control government spending and the elimination of the redundancy of work done by both chambers. On the other hand, unicameralism points out the double checks and balances that a bicameral system affords, forcing a greater level of consensus on legislative issues.
This is the new picture. This is the new world.
It is right to say that there is nothing constant in this world but change. Though, we need to move with time and shift towards better options for the common good, there are “certain things” that need to be carefully viewed and scrutinized before any change be done.
The issue on charter change in the Philippine scene stirred the entire country and even divided its people on whether or not it is apt to amend the 1987 Constitution. This issue even earned various comments, views and opinions from political analysts around the globe.
Though there were claims that the constitution has its flaws and need to be revised the question on the “timing” and the “method/process” (Constitutional Convention or Constituent Assembly as the mode of revising the Constitution) of doing it remains dubious and questionable.
Under the Arroyo administration there were a number of attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. Among the first moves and it was very well remembered that Mrs. Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 453 which created a Consultative Commission tasked to propose the “necessary” revisions on the constitution. True to its purpose the Consultative Commission then came up with proposals that included a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
There were claims that changing the constitution will afford more venues for economic stability, job offers, price deregulation and even usher wage increases. Surely, a hungry Juan dela Cruz upon hearing these claims would be given hope amidst the economic crisis in his “Lupang Sinilangan”. But wait; does Juan dela Cruz really need cha-cha just to savor these claims of hope?
What the supporters brag about unicameralism is the idea that urban areas with large populations will have more influence than sparsely populated rural ones. It is said that in many cases the only way to get sparsely populated regions on board a unified government is to implement a bicameral system such as the early United States. Supporters say that this is a great advantage since unicameralism will provide better apportionment and benefits along with it. On the contrary, and even a little kid will understand that in scenarios like this urban areas or rural regions for that matter will also be given more power as a result.
“Unicameralism” also claims to control government spending and the elimination of the redundancy of work done by both chambers. On the other hand, unicameralism points out the double checks and balances that a bicameral system affords, forcing a greater level of consensus on legislative issues.
It is also one of the concerns of some the move of abolishing the Senate. As we all know, it is has been a necessary component in our democracy. Where it checks and balances the systems and procedures especially on legislative issues and functions of branches of government including the Executive as well.
If Federalism is the solution to all these tribulations, we can have so at same time having bicameral legislatures like Canada, Australia and Japan. Most countries with federalism form of government have bicameral legislatures as well. So why abolish such?
Things are said straight from the horse's mouth and we got the idea… cha-cha aims to provide better living and better service for the Filipino people. But are the horses sure that changing the constitution is the answer and the savior of all the ills in this society?
It is said that the presidential form of government is a source of corruption among other things. As Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo of the CBCP said and I quote “We should ask a different question: Is it the presidential form that is the source of corruption, or the people in authority who corrupt and abuse the system? Any form of government will have its positive and negative characteristics; but the people who run the government are very crucial; they can either corrupt it or make it serve the common good. Any system or form of government in the hands of honest, just and incorruptible people will be a source of good for the governed. Will the parliamentary- unicameral form of government not be corrupted by the people who will create it?”
Bluntly saying it… “CHA CHA: Is it for the benefit of the common good or just simply an act to extend the terms of those who will benefit from it?” Fine, we cannot judge them (they know who they are) and we cannot question their intentions as well, but if such change is geared for their own personal gains rather than to do away with this seemingly endless cycle of poverty then the issue of charter change is passé.
So much for the cha-cha… here’s hoping that you will have a Happy New Year. Well, you can always do the cha-cha-cha and the boggie this holiday season. Have fun!
3rd U.S. Presidential debate
I should say that presidential debates are usually exciting. Aside from considering these debates as venues for presidential candidates to boast off their governmental reforms, they also have the chance to show off their stance on different issues that may directly or indirectly affect the country’s/state’s economy, political scenario and administration as a whole.
While it is true that a candidate’s personal stature, reputation and charisma makes him the “man for the position”, it is also a fact that his views and discernment on certain issues can “make or break” him.
The 3rd Presidential debate between Senators John Mc Cain and Barack Obama was indeed a show to catch and watch. With all the media hype people around the globe stood still, listened and watched their performance as they both tackled every issue with spontaneity and great candor.
Both Mc Cain and Barack delivered their pieces evidently and with confidence. Both were able to convey their message clearly. Their straight to the point statements coupled with their body gestures made good physical contact with their audiences. You can really feel the sincerity in their words.
It is always inspiring to hear “proposed” political programs and economic reforms from these men. It is as always elevating to hear programs like tax cuts and tax reforms in order that families have much to spend than having big chunks of their earnings going to government taxes. Plus the desire to strengthen and reinforce the programs on education and health care. Of course, there is also the promise to create more job opportunities for the middle class and rebuild broken job policies.
Both candidates expressed their desires to augment their present political and economical situations. Both did their job well in sharing what is there to expect when they (of course there can only be one) will be in the white house.
To top it all, both really used that debate to project the best presidential profile America will and can choose from.
It can be pure media mileage. However, since the populace now listens and scrutinizes every word and action a political candidate makes, that debate was still apt for Uncle Joe to think whether or not McCain or Barack after all did “make or break” it.
While it is true that a candidate’s personal stature, reputation and charisma makes him the “man for the position”, it is also a fact that his views and discernment on certain issues can “make or break” him.
The 3rd Presidential debate between Senators John Mc Cain and Barack Obama was indeed a show to catch and watch. With all the media hype people around the globe stood still, listened and watched their performance as they both tackled every issue with spontaneity and great candor.
Both Mc Cain and Barack delivered their pieces evidently and with confidence. Both were able to convey their message clearly. Their straight to the point statements coupled with their body gestures made good physical contact with their audiences. You can really feel the sincerity in their words.
It is always inspiring to hear “proposed” political programs and economic reforms from these men. It is as always elevating to hear programs like tax cuts and tax reforms in order that families have much to spend than having big chunks of their earnings going to government taxes. Plus the desire to strengthen and reinforce the programs on education and health care. Of course, there is also the promise to create more job opportunities for the middle class and rebuild broken job policies.
Both candidates expressed their desires to augment their present political and economical situations. Both did their job well in sharing what is there to expect when they (of course there can only be one) will be in the white house.
To top it all, both really used that debate to project the best presidential profile America will and can choose from.
It can be pure media mileage. However, since the populace now listens and scrutinizes every word and action a political candidate makes, that debate was still apt for Uncle Joe to think whether or not McCain or Barack after all did “make or break” it.
