Wednesday, May 03, 2006

a question of persons

If the truth must be said, the many objections coming from many sectors of society for many reasons against the proposed charter change all have but one fundamental underlying rationale.

It is not the really against the charter change itself. The present Constitution is not a perfect document. It can be thus improved somehow. It is neither really the proposed transit from the presidential to the parliamentary form of government. Both have their respective merits and deficiencies, depending on how those governing therewith think and act. Nor is it really the process hurriedly being done for a fast and immediate charter change, it would not be hard to correct the flawed process.

The true and over-all reason against the proposed charter change is the objection to the persons—their known motives and interests—behind for change, orchestrating the change and funding the change with money which is certainly not theirs. This is sad but true; it is the persons themselves wanting the change who precisely make the change unwanted by many.

It is not secret that there is a principal in the now fervent and insistent move for the constitutional change—a key figure that is prepared to change even the fundamental law of the land but apparently decided to have unchanged power and influence, in fact even resolved to have more of them and for also a longer time frame.

Thus stands the underlying rationale behind the over-all objections to Cha-Cha. And it is definitely not the proposed change but the principal and accessory proponents thereof. In the event that the blessed time will come when the national leadership become trusted and respected—neither suspected nor disdained as it is presently—charter change will be something that will command due attention, serene deliberation and firm decision.

This is certainly not to say that any change in the present fundamental law of the land would be acceptable. It is merely meant to state that the proposal to change certain provisions in the charter might have a better chance if the proponents are beyond suspicion in their interest and concern.

3 May 2006