Where Rina erred on Turkey
This refers to the column of Rina Jimenez David titled “A ‘yes’ vote in Turkey” (Opinion, 4/19/17).
Firstly, Fethullah Gülen is not a “global businessman.” By profession, he is supposedly a Muslim cleric, an imam, known to his supporters as the “Imam of the Universe” and “Mehdi” (Messiah). That being said, one should wonder and question his net worth of institutions/companies ($20-50 billion), as reported in the column. Indeed, from the very beginning Gülen has been a shadowy figure who has established sinister structures in Turkey and in various other countries, including the Philippines.
The secretive structure he has built, Fetö, is a sui generis criminal/terrorist organization. The uniqueness of Fetö as terrorist group comes from its use of legal means and institutions, along with illegal methods (wiretapping, distorted investigations, fabricated evidence, bribes and blackmail), as a cover to achieve illegitimate objectives. Since its establishment, the main agenda of Fetö has been to infiltrate critical state institutions and patiently wait until its members are in full control. While doing so, its main tactic has been concealment and dissimulation.
The failed coup attempt of July 15, 2016, was not the first attempt of Fetö on the state and legitimate government of Turkey, but the last and most daring. As a result, more than 240 people lost their lives and over 2,000 were wounded. It caused severe material damage on government and private property. Thus, this is a national security matter being dealt with accordingly.
In this respect, the judicial/administrative process put in place following this heinous act of treason cannot and should not be described as a “crackdown.” The perpetrators of such a violent criminal act, and the Fetö-affiliated persons who have been collaborating with them to overthrow the democratically-elected government in defiance of the legitimate state order, must be identified and held accountable through legal means, in compliance with the rule of law.
The Turkish authorities have concrete evidence that the coup attempt was planned and executed by Fetö members. It was an unprecedented and most traumatic experience in our republican history, Therefore, denying this fact and glorifying Gülen and his so-called “Service Movement” is not only a major travesty of justice but also an offense to the Turkish people.
On the Turkish constitutional vote, the referendum on April 16 was about constitutional changes pertaining mainly to the form of government—that is, whether to continue with the current parliamentary system or adopt a presidential system. As is known, a similar referendum on federal system is expected to take place in the Philippines in the coming years.
At a high turnout rate of 85 percent, over 51 percent of the voters endorsed the amendment of the constitution. Thus, at the end of a long and enthusiastically contested democratic race, the Turkish people, similar to several other countries, including the Philippines, opted for a presidential system. The outcome of the referendum reflects the will of our people which must be respected by all, since acceptance of people’s will is a sine qua non of democracy.
This, indeed, is a historic decision and change for our country. However, as historic as it is, it does not change Turkey’s constitutional regime. I would like to underline that the fundamental pillars of the Republic of Turkey remain the same. The outcome of the referendum will neither change the democratic, secular and social nature of the state governed by the rule of law, nor alter Turkey’s multidimensional dynamic foreign policy and globally integrated free market economy.
I hope that the foregoing information will be useful in realizing the true nature of Fetö, as well as in understanding the referendum process and its outcome.
MELEK DILSEN SEYMENOGLU, counsellor, Turkish Embassy in Manila
