What are these three reforms that Filipinos have fought against because of the fear of the unknown? These are the need for economic liberalization, the need for a parliamentary Philippines, and federalism. For decades, Filipinos have chosen to remain in the comfort zone of the hundred years argument (or appeal to tradition) fallacy - which they foolishly say isn't a fallacy. It's always the argument of "Diyan naman tayo nasanay!" or "That's what we're used to." in order to avoid embracing change. They have been so used to the protectionist environment that has pampered the local businesses. The result of the decades of "Filipino first" has only made Filipino businesses more complacent. They have been so used to the presidential system's formula of electing officials based on popularity than credibility. They oppose the idea of decentralization yet they complain why it's so traffic in EDSA for some time.
Why did many Filipinos keeping opposing economic liberalization or free-market which could've given them jobs in their HOME COUNTRY?
The reasons behind opposing economic liberalization are results of Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First Policy". Better yet, it should be called "Failipino First" because Filipinos are becoming failures as a result of that stupid rule of thumb. The whole idea of economic protectionism sounds good on paper but not in reality. The very notion of building the national industry by protecting local businesses is obsolete. The Philippines has done for decades since Garcia, Marcos, and up to present. Just where is the national industry that Heneral Lunatic (Carlos Zarate in reality) has promised? The result is that there have been more OFWs ever since. Marcos' time started popularizing the OFW program. That's why it doesn't make sense to hate Marcos if you love economic protectionism.
There's also the fear where you say that only foreign investors will get rich if you let them invest in the Philippines. It's sad to say but Benign0 of Get Real Philippines is still thinking it's a concept embraced by losers. As much as I still read his page but his economic ignorance is baffling. The concept was soon backed up with being unable to differentiate colonial mentality from buying imported products. All the while, economic protectionism is promoted with the use of imported products. The lie that only foreign investors will get rich is told by the leftist naysayers like Neri Colmenares and Toady Casino. Casino even dared to lie in his CRappler article (and a refute can be read here) that "It will give a license to foreign powers and their corporations to dominate and control our economy and plunder our resources, at the expense of our citizens and communities." Huh? Does he think we're still living in the time of the conquistadors? This fear has resulted in fewer jobs for Filipinos and killing competition. How many Filipinos are businessmen and how many Filipinos need jobs? The gap is extremely jarring. A lack of competition leads to a lack of competitiveness. No competition equals no competitiveness.
The bigger reason has to be because of their lack of knowledge in basic economics. If they started to do research then they will see nations, where OFWs are sent to, are a result of being friendly to foreign investors? Then again what do you expect from a population where more people only know how to spend money but not to save and invest it? If they did some research (rather than watch all the stupid teleseryes that ABiaS-CBN and GMA-7 keep airing) then they will see that first world countries where they dream of going to benefit from it. There's also that hypocrisy of loving imported luxury products while hating foreign investors. They would rather spend and have a good time without thinking about how to legitimately earn money that they can enjoy. If only they started to learn how to make money then they can have a good time without facing too many problems after the feast is over.
Why did so many Filipinos oppose the parliamentary system?
I'm just reminded of some of the scary hearsays that were given when the parliamentary system was proposed for the Philippines. Fidel V. Ramos and later Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo both proposed to go from presidential to parliamentary. The next thing that happened was that naysayers started to say that Arroyo's plan for charter change was so she can stay in power forever. They don't realize what it meant to remove term limits. A person can run as many times as possible. It's like a prime minister may not win the next term but he can still run again. A parliamentary system however only grants one the right to having no term limits if the person is still fit for office. Chances are people like Joseph Estrada would be kicked out of the parliament and their privilege to no term limits is removed. Having no term limits is a privilege and not a right.
I can understand that they feared another Marcos dictatorship. Do they think that a dictator is determined by the number of years he's ruled rather than the quality of his rule? They just fail to see that the great Lee Kuan Yew himself ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990 meaning he ruled for 31 years. Marcos' 20 years didn't suck because he ruled for more than six years. Rather, he SUCKED because of the quality of Marcos' reign. Lee ruled Singapore with an open economy, open ideas (such as why he went for the Westminister Parliamentary system), and focused on democratic ideals. Marcos, on the other hand, ruled the Philippines with an iron hand, crony capitalism, silenced his critics, and went for a presidential system that gave him no term limit. Marcos didn't become a tyrant because there were no term limits. Rather, there was really no opposition in Marcos' mock parliamentary. Even Ninoy Aquino a blabbermouth was right about Marcos' mock parliamentary.
Maybe, they also fear the parliamentary system because the prime minister isn't elected by the people. What they don't see is that the people elect the party that will win. They don't see that in some parliamentary countries is that people elect their Head of State. They really fail to see that not all elections require everyone. For Filipino Catholics, they need to ask themselves if the Catholic faithful or the members of the College of Cardinals elect the Pope. In a corporation, the Chairman is elected and regulated by the Board of Directors. To appeal to ABiaS-CBN supporters' still ONGOING failure of mind - did the supporters of the network vote for the chairman or did the directors vote for their chairman? What makes it undemocratic if the leader of the nation is elected by the Parliament rather than by the people? I guess they don't want parliamentary system because they think everyone should have their suffrage. Unfortunately, suffrage should be a privilege and not a right. There should be qualifications before anybody should be a voter. Everyone has a right to political views but not everyone has a right to suffrage. People who are disqualified from voting (ex. flying voters, pretending to already DEAD voters, registered voters with a recent criminal record) still have their right to political views but their privilege to vote is revoked.
What Filipinos didn't see is that the presidential system is a vicious cycle. They demand the vicious cycle to end but they don't want to change to parliamentary because of the naysayers. They don't see the vicious cycle goes like this. The cycle goes where people vote for a popular leader who makes an impossible promise (such as Duterte's promise to end crime in three to six months or Noynoy's no corruption campaign), said leader doesn't deliver the impossible promise, they plan a revolution (such as what happened during the Estrada presidency), and then vote somebody else hoping that the person would be better. Instead, the same vicious cycle of stupidity continues as long as popularity-based stupidity is the basis for democracy in the Philippines.
Why did Filipinos keep opposing federalism?
Mistaken concepts of federalism are already there. You have Winnie Monsod who thinks federalism will empower dynasties and warlords. Is Monsod spending too much time watching TV series and movies set in the feudal times? Antonio Trillanes IV is even buying the warlordism lie. Neri Colmenares and Casino even dare to lie that federalism will empower Duterte. Mar Roxas even dared to say federalism will supposedly increase the height of taxes. I wonder if these guys can see that feudalism and federalism are two different stories? These lies are reasons why Filipinos kept fighting against federalism thinking it will empower warlords and dynasties. Watching too much movies that are set in the feudal times, anyone?
Federalism, on the other hand, is giving more autonomy. In reality, it will help spread out development across underdeveloped areas. People from Mindanao don't need to go to different places just to get their high school or college done. There will be decentralization to help spread it evenly. What's the use of hating China's badly done unitary system if you support the Imperial Manila system? Neither Manila nor Beijing should centralize all powers in their respective countries. The asymmetric federalism is all about the sharing of powers. There is one constitution that unites them. All local government units make their own policies based on that constitution. Just where did that stupid 4Ps-obsessed old man get the idea that a federal government has many constitutions? He's been in Australia for that long and yet he thinks like that? I guess he's just trying to justify every reason why he left the Philippines and only trolls because he's bored in his ivory tower.
______
Right now, the time to change that attitude is LONG OVERDUE. The Philippines shouldn't be held back from evolving. All these constitutional reforms would be needed in order to have a better Philippines. In fact, it's through these constitutional reforms that the Philippines could defeat China's bullying. Think about that!
Comments
Post a Comment