Speaker Jose de Venecia & Co.’s recent visit to Cambodia underlined his herculean efforts to slowly but surely create an Asian Parliament. He said that much in his speech at a formal dinner tendered by Prince Ranariddh and other membeers of the National Assembly. "We have the opportunity of a lifetime to dedicate our mutual energies and experiences to mobilize our legislatures and the other parliaments in Asia, through the AIPO system and interparliamentary diplomacy, to fight the poverty of our peoples, to modernize our agriculture and our economies and to join the age of information technology."
He called on both Premier Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to play key roles in the effort "to create an Asean Parliament, an Asian Monetary Fund, an Asian currency, and other modalities of political and economic integration in Asia." He talked of an Asian Community or an Asian Union by the first quarter of the 21st century. This would match the European Union on the other side of the world. And to demonstrate the seriousness of those behind the vision of a politically and economically united Asia.
De Venecia announced in the same forum that nominees of the AIPO system will visit Brussels and Strasbourg soon to undertake a feasibility study on the history, structure, evolution and operating cost of the European Parliament. This study will then be submitted in the next AIPO meeting in Hanoi come September.
This is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but why can’t we have the same will and determination to shift from our moribund presidential system to the more economical, more effective parliamentary system that almost all other countries in the region, no, in the world have adopted? Here we are, leading other countries to form a collective parliament in Asia and we can’t even make a peep on how much time and resources we have wasted keeping on with a presidential system that is just not working well for us. Indeed we could be spared of the debilitating threat of yet another EDSA had we had a Parliament in place where the question of tPresident Arroyo’s governance can be put into a more representative vote of confidence rather than saber rattling and headline making from dubious personalities?
. "Political instiutions are critical in strengthening governmental effectiveness particularly in developing countries like the Philippines. For this reason political institutional reforms cannot be, and should not be taken for granted. But must be made part and parcel of a comprehensive set of social, economic and political reform program.
A strong case can be made that a parliamentary form of government is a more supportive evolutionary framework for developing effectiveness in governance and for consolidating democracy." So wrote Florencio Abad, representative of Batanes and ironically the arch-rival of Joe de V in the contest for Speakership. Abad wrote this in 1997 for the AteneoCenter for Social Policy & Public Affairs under the heading "Should the Phlippines turn parliamentary: The Challenge of Democratic Consolidation and Institutional Reform."
Within the small group that accompanied Speaker Jose de Venecia to Cambodia, the overwhelming vote among both businessmen and congressmen was for a shift to parliamentary government with one batting for federalism. There was at least one or two who were non-committal as can be expected. These are the same type of individuals, the fencesitters who would let others do the fighting and then give their support to the winning side. They have no convictions one way or the other, only to the opportunity to be on the winning side. I think it is this group more than anything else which will be the stumbling block to a real push for a shift to parliament. They will be the willing accomplices of charlatans. They often are seemingly harmless but their very non-committal at the time of struggle is the biggest stumbling block to the progress of this country.
During the elegant breakfast among the ruins of Banteay Srei, the idea of what the Philippines might do to reciprocate Cambodian hospitality already came up. What about breakfast in the Ifugao Rice Terraces?exclaimed Joe de V. After all, if Prince Ranariddh will visit the fishponds in Pangasinan, breakfast in the rice terraces would be just a short hop away. The Ifugao Rice Terraces is a natural when looking for something ancient and an outstanding human achievement with the imprimatur of UNESCO that we can be proud of. More important, floating the idea now of ‘a royal breakfast in the Ifugao Rice Terraces’ might just be the impetus to move those concerned to get on with saving this much admired and unique achievement of Filipinos. We hear it is now slowly being destroyed by neglect. If only for this, that we save the rice terraces from neglect, breakfast in Banteay Srei will have already paid off said the ever pragmatic Joe de V.
The Responsibility to Protect: I caught the tailend of the morning press conference in which former President Fidel V. Ramos presented the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report to the Secretary General of the United Nations dated December 2001. The thrust of the report is to institutionalize the capacity of responsible sectors to intervene in situations like mass killings, ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass rape, forcible migration etc. around the world.
While the ICISS Report recognizes that sovereign states have the responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophes, it sometimes happens that they are unable or unwilling to do so. It is during such times that the responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.
The ICISS is an independent commission established by the Government of Canada in September 2000 in response to a challenge issued by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. It asked the international community to forge a consensus on the questions and principles involved in exercising ‘the right of humanitarian intervention. Former President Fidel Ramos is a member of commission together with eminent personalities like Former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans of Australia and Ambassador Mohamed Almoun of Algeria.
Update on September ll. The fallout from the events of September 11 continues. We have not seen the end of it. We should watch carefully how this fallout develops. Certainly one sensitive area that ought to be watched is the reaction from moderate Muslims who have been America’s allies but are now put under increasing pressure by more radical groups. I refer for example to an article from Arab News which reported statements from the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah criticizing Western arrogance. Sheikh Saleh ibn Humaid said in a recent sermon televised around the world "there is a huge gap between theory and practice of the Western principles of democracy, freedom and human rights. He made the remarks after sections of US media attacked Saudi Arabia and its educational system. American newspapers blamed Saudi schools for its religious orientated education system adding it was what bred extremism and needed to be changed.
Newspapers in a democratic country like America are, of course, free to say what they want but it does not help the American cause if they put the problem in the form of a threat. In reply to such criticisms, Sheikh Saleh said "Muslims do not reject innovations when they are useful, but the problem is that others insist theirs is the only system that must prevail." What we need is to create structures that promote tolerance for there will always be differences between peoples and civilizations.
My e-mail address:
cpedrosa@edsamail.com or
c.pedrosa@qinet.net.