Holding back the Asian Century; a National Transition Council

There is another perspective to the South China conflict that is not present in current discussions and debates. That has to do with the long predicted Asian Century. The heart of this broad prediction is about a future power shift from West to East. Western civilization has dominated the world for centuries through colonization and debilitating wars of independence but the Eastern side led by China is catching up. It was expected sooner than later with Western authors writing books to show the Western decline especially in the United States as a portent of things to come.

As a Filipino and an Asian, I am loyal to the region and would defend and cheer for the Asian Century. That loyalty is committed to help make the shift possible peacefully. It is already happening in trade and finance with China using its strengths to bring up other countries in the region.

It also has a sentimental side. I remember when President Richard Nixon visited China and my family crowded around the television to see an American President shaking hands with Chairman Mao. It was a proud moment. After all, Filipinos were Asians and shared the limelight of being recognized finally by an American leader who came as a state guest, an equal, not as a conqueror. The mutual respect between two world powers was palpable. At the time China was not yet as economically powerful as it is now. Ironically neither did the US owe China trillions of dollars. Today that friendly gesture of the Nixon visit is growing fainter. A more hostile strategy is in place with the so-called US pivot to Asia.

Therefore the resolution of the South China Sea conflict must include the vision of an Asian Century. Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean writer once said, “If you want to see the past, go to Europe. If you want to see the future, come to Asia.”

*      *      *

There is a rumor, a false one, I am afraid, that President Aquino is really for constitutional amendment but it is too early to show his cards. The story goes, like it has always gone during other incumbent presidencies that a sitting president will use constitutional reform to extend their terms. That is how to stop advocates of constitutional reform. This is not only wrong, it is also stupid.

There are two questions here. One, is do we need constitutional reform? If the answer is yes, then thinking Filipinos must close up and gather strength by supporting different organizations that are reviving the issue.  Is the extension of the term of the President essential to the reforms? The answer is no. Indeed what is true is that the suspicion that the incumbent president, ie President Aquino may use constitutional reform can be quickly dispensed with by the creation of a National Transformational Council. This is the preferred term rather than a transitional council that is usually created when a new administration or government but with the same system takes over.

That is not what is envisioned by the constitutional reform advocates of today. An entirely new system of government is envisioned without recourse to the old politicians of the presidential system.

A parliamentary with an evolving federalist government will be formed through a new Constitution. That means the removal of the President, the House and the Senate and I suppose ultimately, also the Supreme Court as all relics of the old system. So the rumor that President Aquino will use constitutional reform as his stepping stone to extending his term is a non sequitor. What is true is there will be no constitutional reform if President Aquino’s type of governance or his successors continues under the old system.  So the first step is to organize a National Transformation Council to ensure that true reforms could be enforced.

*      *      *

I asked some friends from the PCGG whether the story that the Supreme Court had recently laid down that the Marcos children had no participation in the Marcos accumulation of wealth.

They answered that the story was intended to mislead. The decision on the Marcos children was an SC decision in 2012 and not as claimed that “it was not released to the press.” Every broadsheet published the story. Here is email from the PCGG:

“The 2012 SC decision may have affirmed the 2005 Sandiganbayan decision citing the Republic’s failure to prove that the Marcos children had participated in the first couple’s accumulation of ill-gotten wealth (insofar as the allegations in this particular case were concerned) but it maintained the Marcos children as respondents because the action is one that survives death and they are the compulsory heirs of Ferdinand Marcos. The case is still ongoing in the Sandiganbayan.”

Moreover, while it is true that CJ Sereno (Associate Justice then), as ponente of the 2012 decision, observed that the Office of the President ought to look into the circumstances of the case and see if the failure of the prosecution (i.e., the OSG and the PCGG) to adhere to the best evidence rule should be investigated, it bears noting that this “failure” pertains to actions or shortcomings in presenting the evidence before the Sandiganbayan — all of which occurred pre-2002 (more than 10 years ago. )

The story may have been to deflect attention from the fact that the Supreme Court, in a March 2014 resolution penned by CJ Sereno as well, dismissed — with finality — the Marcoses’ motions for reconsideration over the Arelma assets. This has been forfeited in favor of the Republic.”

*      *      *

My second daughter, London architect Marta, sent me a small note to ask if Flora Solomon who used to invite us to dinners at her Mayfair flat was the same Flora Solomon who is back in the news with a biography by Ben Macintyre. Yes, she was a dear friend when we were exiles in London.

 In the book, he tells the story of why she is his hero. He thinks she changed the course of British history when she exposed Kim Philby as a Soviet spy. But I know her more as a co-founder of M & S and had once “an affair-at-first-sight with Alexander Kerensky in New York.