The Late Lee Kuan Yew Didn't Transform Singapore Into A Vicious Tiger Economy In Just Six Years

I admit, I used to be once a Dilawan and then a DDS and now I'm neither. Both Dilawans and DDS are just as stupid as each other - they don't see that it's the SYSTEM itself that will really lead the people. Now, it's time to think about the late Lee Kuan Yew aka Grandpa Harry on how long it took to make Singapore a great country. Besides, there was not one but TWO administrations in the Philippines that were once rising tigers but failed to become grown tigers - one under Fidel V. Ramos and the other under the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. For whatever lapses the Noynoying Years had - it also had some economic achievements. Then I thought critics of Noynoy failed to see the fact that SIX YEARS are TOO SHORT to make a huge difference.

One of the big reasons why the Filipino people opposed the parliamentary system is because of the abolition of term limits. The 1987 Constitution placed the six years, no more no less, for presidents. One must think of several projects that Noynoy started but are INCOMPLETE. Do I want to blame Noynoy entirely? No, the real problem is that many of Noynoy's projects would require more than six years. The presidential system term limits are ridiculous. The reason behind the term limits is because of their fear of another Marcos-style dictatorship. Yet, Grandpa Harry ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990 which is a total of 31 years. The problem with Marcos' rule is NOT because he ruled for 20 years - it was the bad quality of his rule. Marcos' rule was not a real parliamentary either as revealed by Ninoy Aquino in Boston sometime before the infamous assassination. At that point, Noynoy also shot himself at the foot opposing the parliamentary system - a system that could've greatly benefited him too because he had many ambitious projects!

We must think of the mess that Singapore once was and used to be. Did you know Grandpa Harry inherited a Singapore with a much bigger mess than it is now or than it was after the Marcos Years? Just imagine it if Grandpa Harry started his office in 1959 and it ended in 1985 and he had NO TERM RENEWAL. Do you think six years would be enough for Grandpa Harry to create a first-world country? No, it was really a huge mistake to start with. The contrast between Grandpa Harry and the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. is not just one is a good leader and the other is bad - it was also the system. Cesar Virata was a prime minister in NAME ONLY. Marcos was a prime minister in NAME ONLY. As Ninoy described it, the Marcos constitution had no real direction and was pretty much 80 Days Around the World type of constitution. Meanwhile, Grandpa Harry provided a real system that changed Singapore for the better. It took Lee 31 years to make Singapore into an even greater nation. Lee had a huge mess to clean up and six years isn't enough. Duterte's promise to clean up the Philippines in three to six months is NOT realistic either yet people bought it. 

The big issue with Daang Matuwid is not with the Yellows themselves. Rather, it's all about the Yellows trying to achieve Daang Matuwid in SIX YEARS. The big issue with Change Has Come isn't with PDP-Laban either. It's PDP-Laban trying to achieve Change Has Come in also SIX YEARS. I mean, how can you clean up the country in three to six months? NOBODY COULD DO THAT! Noynoy had some projects left undone and the law didn't even give him another term to finish them. Duterte now will have some projects left undone too and we can't be sure if Sara Duterte-Carpio will ever finish them if she becomes president. The issue with both the Liberal Party and PDP-Laban is the SYSTEM that manages politics. Both Daang Matuwid and Change Has Come could've been realized under a parliamentary system.

A parliamentary system's lack of term limits is actually a good thing. It's because prime ministers don't have as much powers as presidents. Instead, presidents in the parliamentary system are all symbolic unifying figures. The prime minister doesn't wield absolute power because he or she is frequently subjected to the opposition that forms a shadow cabinet against his or her cabinet. Removal of term limits is just a band-aid solution. The real problem isn't the number of years - it's the powers that politicians are allowed to have. It's not a bad thing for a prime minister to rule for 31 years if he or she is frequently under the scrutiny of the opposition and SURVIVING IT. That means one more term for the late Noynoy wouldn't be an issue either. The Dilawan-led Government won't be a problem if they have a formal opposition keeping an eye on them. Duterte having another term isn't a problem either if his government is frequently under the scrutiny of a competent opposition. 

This should be a big wake-up call. Presidential systems are best addressed as Speech Only Nothing Achieved in the long run. The presidential system is nothing more than a game of roulette. Like roulette, a presidential system will have VERY LOW CHANCES of getting a good leader. Worse, when you get a good leader, six years isn't enough. That's why the real issue is now shifting to parliamentary if you want to have not just a rising tiger but a VICIOUS TIGER.