Rights

How quickly media attention to the plight of Filipinos in Sabah waned as the frequency of skirmishes diminished the past two weeks.

Malaysia’s Bernama news agency reports that eight Filipinos, aged 17 to 66, were charged with terrorism and waging war against the Kuala Lumpur government. The eight were brought before the court at Lahad Datu where they entered no plea. The charges they face carry penalties of death and life imprisonment.

The Sultan of Sulu claims he does not know the eight men. They do not belong to his “royal army.” We know very little about what evidence the Malaysian government holds against the men charged. Information does not flow as freely in Malaysia as they do elsewhere.

In addition to the eight, over 400 other Filipinos are estimated to have been arbitrarily detained throughout Sabah. We know very little about their fate. Nor do we have confirmation of reports that Filipinos were summarily executed during the height of the crackdown around Lahad Datu.

A DFA team was supposed to have been allowed into Sabah to check on the condition of Filipinos in the area. There is an estimated 800,000 Filipinos in Sabah. A great number of them are there without documentation, following the sea routes taken by their ancestors for many centuries. The DFA team sent into the area has yet to issue a report.

All we have are testimonies from many Filipinos who fled Sabah in fear and trickled back into Tawi-tawi. They speak of brutalities inflicted on Filipinos across the contested territory. They would not have fled with such haste and with so much fear if their stories were not true.

In Malaysia, those perceived to be threats to the country’s security may be arbitrarily arrested and detained indefinitely under the horror that is the Internal Security Act (ISA). The draconian ISA was put in force many years ago, when the country faced a communist insurgency. Although the law falls way below modern human rights standards, it was never rescinded even after the collapse of the insurgency mainly because it helped prop up authoritarian governments.

Sultan Jamalul Kiram committed to help provide the arrested Filipinos — although this was before he declared that the eight formally charged were not his men. At any rate, it is doubtful if the sultan of a faded empire has the means to extend the assistance required.

Fortunately, Manila announced that legal assistance will be extended, notwithstanding government’s strong condemnation of the Sultanate’s decision to send armed men across the border. President Aquino admitted that our government is obligated to extend legal assistance to all Filipinos regardless of whether their actions abroad conformed with standing policy.

Both the DFA and the DoJ received instructions from the President to extend assistance to the Filipinos charged in Sabah in relation to the Lahad Datu affair. If our consular offices send lawyers to assist Filipinos charged with crimes everywhere else, there is no reason Filipinos in Sabah be denied assistance.

The brutality characterizing Malaysia’s response to the Lahad Datu affair, however, attracted the attention of international agencies concerned about the poor observance of human rights in this country. Human Rights Watch, for instance, called attention to “abuses against migrants and refugees, and for continuing use of preventive detention.”

 It will not harm our bilateral relations too greatly if, in addition to extending legal assistance to our nationals, Manila adds its voice to the growing global chorus regarding the poor quality of human rights observance in Malaysia.

Four years

Those who wrote the 1987 Constitution decided it was best to have a single presidential term of six years. Whatever the wisdom of that, it caused dramatic changes in the country’s electoral culture.

The 6-year presidential term dictated a three-year electoral cycle for all elective posts. Congressmen, governors, mayors and councilors are all elected for only three years. The short electoral cycle put our politics on permanent campaign footing.

We have been on this permanent campaign footing for a quarter of a decade. The evidence suggests this has not been healthy for improving our governance, ensuring continuity in management, creating long-term planning capacity, discouraging corruption, eliminating political dynasties and reducing intense partisanships that prevent policy dialogue.

Some senatorial candidates are now suggesting we return to the old, pre-martial law electoral cycle. Elective officials before held their posts for four years. They worked hard for three years and began thinking of reelection on the fourth. It was a schedule that now seems less hectic and more practical.

Surely, our politics then was not as hyperventilating as it is now. Electoral contingencies did not overwhelm policy debate. There was enough time for elected officials to see their projects through.

It does not seem possible, however, to adjust the terms of office of all other officials without adjusting the presidential term of office. Everything is keyed to this 6-year single term, the medium term plans and all.

The old cycle, which prescribed a 4-year term for the president with one reelection, worked well with us. The present single 6-year term is too long for a non-performing president and too short for an over-performing one.

Changing the terms of office, and possibly getting rid of the unwise term limits on local executives, will require constitutional amendments. The present dispensation is not inclined to tinker with constitutional reforms, necessary as that might seem to be.

In which case, the discussion about altering the election cycle to allow better breathing space for policy to mature and projects to evolve sounds entirely academic at this point.