Governing a country with diverse cultural roots is not merely managing companies that need to be uprooted from financial strain, nor re-orienting their priorities to deserve being labeled as reformist. For two months, the present dispensation believes reforms are taking shape. In which government front such reforms do commence is not clear enough for a watchful citizen like me. Our President should utilize and tap the experience, knowledge and skill of the career service or of special disciplines that will provide continuity in government that does its job for its true boss: the Filipino people.
Previous administrations took over the reins of government without disturbing public service. Notwithstanding the imperative of changing guards in the various agencies under the executive department or in the legislature as an aftermath of elections, government should impress or make its citizens feel that everything is alright, that services for public good are not disrupted, and that further, the bureauracy as well as command responsibilities are observed. We barely felt the gap or gaps in the exercise of Presidential prerogative in appointing officials who must readily assume responsibilities to continue the services needed by the public, and in the most important requirement of addressing the issue of "who is in-charge?" We need not ask this question, did we? Past leaderships simply knew what to do in the onset.
I can sense the obvious from the series of events that unfolded before our very own eyes. Going into its second month of running the Philippine Government by P-Noy and company unintentionally
exposed a rather incomplete, unprepared and less firm direction of the organization (or political party?) that should be the force behind the performance of a very big job of governing the Philippine Republic. Some positions that are imperative in government to perform its job are not filled up to this day probably due to "lesser" or non-interest at all from prospective appointees or the lack of decisiveness as to who will be given the responsibility(ies) from the perspective of the appointing power.
Are we experiencing a dearth of managers/public servants? Is our country losing a lot of "brainy" and competent Filipinos to gainful employment in foreign countries? Is this brain drain actual and real? Does our leadership recognize that this is a problem that it must immediately address as the best asset of an organization, of an administration is the availability of manpower that is nothing less but the best and the most efficient if it has to reform government? Effective leadership requires excellent performance(s) of people under its leadership.
Before going any further on this lopsided situation in the civil service, we zero in on the seat of our government by asking this question: is it working? Has this engine steered the wheels of complete turn-over of government by its acceptance of the mandate given by the electorate in July 1, 2010? If the engine of the new administration's vehicle has been ignited(started) in July, 2010, has the driver switched to full gear?
The events that occurred within the two months that PNoy and company assumed the job to govern clearly indicated a trip that makes stop-overs more than it should have. Fact is, there should be no stop-overs at all. I cannot comprehend why a cabinet secretary is appointed in an "acting" capacity at the start of the term of the one who governs. And there are three not one presidential alter egos in the cabinet who hang in the balance. I do not see it as an exercise of presidential discretion, rather, it is presidential indecision.
How do we accept the situation where police leadership cannot get their acts together during the HK tourist hostage-taking by a disgruntled Filipino policeman, to be aggravated further by their admission that they considered the matter local, and not national concern? Who should have taken the lead to make some sense of order in the rescue operation? I surmise that there was this issue of the DILG Secretary being sidelined in police matters despite the clear responsibility of being on top of everybody in his department that has supervision over the Philippine National Police. How can there be decisiveness when the landscape of leadership was altered to fit what the President desired of the line of communication/function in the department?
The President has the mandate to appoint his alter ego in the various departments under him and that basically requires confidence on the person he appoints. I believe, however, that the functions and the flow of work as defined by administrative law does not give way to the President's own idea of how it must work.
If Sec. Robredo was appointed mainly because of accommodation in accordance with arrangements made during the campaign, or if PNoy himself had expressed differences of style of work with the Secretary, why did he appoint Sec. Robredo in the first place? And why leave to the dictates of political party accommodation/.arrangements the fate of P-Noy's leadership over DILG?
The prime reason why our laws require that presidential candidates should at least reach the age of forty is essentially the need for mental and social maturity in the person of the candidate. Matured and well thought decisions are extremely required during challenging situations such as the HK tourist hostage tragedy. Leaders of countries opt to maintain a group of advisers or council of advisers with elders to act as their sources of unqualified wisdom in dealing with difficult situations that touch on the national security and pride/reputation of the their respective countries. Did P-Noy see the relevance of such a council or group immediately after his inauguration?
As I go on, the list of questions/issues may lengthen. I will stop right here, the same way that PNoy declared that the bucks stops with him when he admitted publicly that he was responsible for the hostage fiasco.
I simply do not like or want to accept that my President, and of my beloved country, has carried the burden alone. He does not govern by his lone some; he governs by leadership, and by effective leadership he must do now.
