Do Martial Law Crybabies Have A Bigger Scope As To Why The Lee Kuan Yew Years Are BETTER Than That Of The Marcos Years?

It's very easy to talk about how the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was a dictator. It's very easy to talk about the WELL-DOCUMENTED Marcos Years atrocities. It's very easy to talk about (and bitch about) how the Philippines is still poor because of the Marcos Years. This is NOT an attempt to exonerate the Marcos ill-gotten wealth. Instead, I just love to address the fact that waiting for the Marcos wealth to be returned is like Juan Tamad waiting for the guava to fall into his mouth. For one, Frank Baraan IV or better yet Baklaan even dares to still post the question about the wealth. Then you've got people who tend to tak about the late Lee Kuan Yew. Yes, I'm talking about the great parliamentarian that turned Singapore as his book describes - From Third World to First. 

The big difference of the FAKE parliament and a real parliament

Many argue that shifting to parliamentary systems would mean removing term limits or term extensions. Some say that the parliamentary system will never work because of the Marcos Years. However, Lee Kuan Yew calledCesar Virata as a sitting duck from his book From Third World to First. The late Ninoy Aquino even revealed the one big truth - the Marcos Years were NOT under a genuine parliamentary system.It was a mock parliamentary. Some may say it's still parliamentary. Well, what about mock meat? Is it really meat then or is it "meat" made from vegetable proteins such as soy and gluten? Real meat is derived from livestock and not from vegetable proteins. 

Want proof that the Marcos years weren't a real parliament? Do some research and you'll find Halimah Yacob of Singapore is a symbolic president. Parliamentary systems with a president has the office as a UNIFYING FIGURE for the citizens of the country. Yacob herself acts as the chief representative while Lee Hsien Loong acts as the chief executive. Virata was APPOINTED by Marcos as a prime minister instead of having been selected by his own party. Presidential systems with a prime minister has a president pick his or her prime minister. Meanwhile, a parliamentary system has people pick their chief representative and the party which they wish will govern the nation. It's like how, for example, if Leni Loud Robredo becomes the people's chief representative while Rodrigo R. Duterte is the people's chief executive. 

Did you know Lee Kuan Yew ruled Singapore for 31 years? Singapore wasn't transformed into a vicious tiger economy in just six years. Instead, Singapore labored from several terms with Lee after the next until he was no longer capable. Unlike Marcos, Lee was able to rule Singapore well for 31 years for this reason - parliamentary systems don't give absolute powers to prime ministers. The parliamentary system has a better-defined separation of powers. The Government has its own set of appointees. The Opposition has its own set of appointees. The Government and the Opposition are competing head on in the role of legislation. The prime minister is far more directly answerable to the whole legislative and may be removed from office if he or she proves incapable to lead.

The Marcos "parliament" wasn't even well-defined. How can we have a parliament where the president has powers or where the president is also the prime minister? Ninoy even compared the changes to the constitution as 80 Days Around the World. A real parliament would've had an opposition ready to face off against Marcos. The parliament could've easily dissolved Marcos or even voted him out. There would be no need for EDSA. Instead, Marcos' parliament was comparable to the Imperial Senate in Star Wars - a legislative that can't remove Emperor Palpatine from his seat for his abuse of power. Palpatine could dissolve the Imperial Senate but the Imperial Senate couldn't dissolve him. How can it be a parliament if Marcos can dissolve it but not parliament can dissolve him?

Saying Lee Kuan Yew is a tyrant is an overstatement. Lee Kuan Yew was openly criticized every week during the time that he was the prime minister. Lee Kuan Yew couldn't easily arrest anyone for just criticizing him - it had to fall under Singapore's libel or sedition laws first. Meanwhile, Marcos had absolute power to where he silenced ANYONE. Marcos shut down ABiaS-CBN after it decided to stop supporting him. Marcos had many journalists arrested. Marcos ended up mixing those who deserved to be arrested with those who didn't  Not so with Lee Kuan Yew! Lee Kuan Yew practiced safe justice which was nowhere near like the Marcos Years. 

So how did Lee Kuan Yew create a REAL tiger economy and how did Marcos DESTROY the economy

Again, it's very easy to keep talking about how Marcos stole and that's why the Philippines became poor. Yet, another important aspect to think about is that Marcos' crony capitalism is impossible would he have been FDI-friendly. The Marcos' regime was characterized also by rampant protectionism. It was indeed true to Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First" policy which ended up becoming oligarch first policy. It's not just because Marcos stole billions of pesos from the Philippines - it's also because he was a protectionist freak. The protectionist policies made it really hard to pay back the Marcos debts. With so little businesses - how can the debts be paid back?

Meanwhile, Lee Kuan Yew himself accepted FDIs. The very notion that only FDIs will get rich is nothing more than an age old lie. Lee Kuan Yew even praised the late Deng Xiao Ping (who died late in Ramos' term) to be a great man even if the latter was a communist. Deng decided to learn not only from the United States of America but also from Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew invited multinational corporations by not having ridiculous limits like the 60-40 set by the Filipino First Policy. More and more Singaporeans started to have jobs as a result. 

Singapore isn't just rich because Lee Kuan Yew didn't steal from its coffers. Singapore is rich because it accepts FDI. I bet Lee Kuan Yew borrowed some money and PAID IT BACK. Lee Kuan Yew's acceptance of FDI produced more jobs, forced Singaporean businesses to develop for the better, and produced more revenues for Singapore. Besides, can Lee Kuan Yew even steal for a long time if he was under the watchful eye of the Opposition and his own team members for 31 years when he ruled? Marcos had more impunity because he wasn't in a real parliament. Lee Kuan Yew couldn't because he was in a real parliament. 

Besides, it wouldn't matter how clean Lee Kuan Yew is if he didn't accept FDI. Just think about it - India was a parliament for several years but it only awakened in the 1990s. The solution was that India learned from Singapore's ECONOMIC model. India became more open to FDI and look at it as a major economic power. Lee knew honesty wasn't the only thing that makes a country great - it would be to provide honest jobs by any honest means necessary. FDI was accepted forcing more healthy competition in the local business environment. Accepting FDI meant more employment meaning more spending power, more opportunities for local businesses to expand, more taxes, more income, and better credit rating too.

So what's the excuse AGAIN for not adopting Singapore's system?

It's getting tiresome to hear, "BUT NOT THIS TIME!" The reasons can be very stupid. I really must laugh (or cringe) at the whole idea of not getting the chicken or the egg with the problem. I was laughing (and cringing at the same time) that some Filipino COMMIE groups and other idiots (such as Bantay Nakaw) now even use Singapore in their outrage. Wait, weren't these same groups butthurt over the execution of Flor Contemplacion? Also, what's even weirder is that these crowds may have wanted to turn the Philippines into "another Singapore" but they REFUSE to accept the SYSTEM that made Singapore rise from Third World to First.

What excuses are there NOT to change the constitution now? For the Yellowtards - they would say that, "As long as there's a Duterte or Marcos in power." For the others, it's "As long as there's an Aquino in power." Does it really EVEN MATTER if there's an Aquino, a Duterte or a Marcos in power? I'm amazed at how Toni Gonzaga is now even subjected to that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Yellowtards are having a petition to ABiaS-CBN to fire Toni from her job. Others talk about term extension or that the bad thing about parliaments is the lack of term limits. What parliaments don't have is a FIXED term limit. The parliamentary system limits the terms of politicians BY PERFORMANCE. That means a politician who got shamed by bad performance isn't likely to occupy office. Meanwhile, a politician who does well can get another term. I mean, if they really wanted another term for the late Noynoy Aquino then why didn't they shift to parliamentary? Is politics always going to revolve around family names than performances? I mean, would it matter in parliament if Bam Aquino became the prime minister and Bongbong Marcos became the opposition leader? 

Saying that a parliament wouldn't work because of corrupt officials is another. Well, the truth is the presidential system is the bigger culprit for the blunders in BOTH the Noynoy Administration and the current administration. Both administrations have their terrible appointees like the late Stinky Soliman, Joseph Emilio Pabaya, Janet Garin, Vitaliano Aguirre II, Francisco Duque, and many more. The recent issue right now is like Richard Gordon tries to call for scrutiny against Duterte. However, there's no real formal opposition. Is Gordon even a formal opposition leader right now debating with Duterte every week? I mean, Gordon could've tried to call a vote of no confidence against Duterte if ever the charges were true. Instead, the lack of scrutiny caused the corruption to multiply. However, a parliamentary system will force people to behave because both the Government and the Opposition are answerable to each other. The winner doesn't take all as the minority parties will serve as the Opposition to question the majority to hold it accountable.

The lies against foreign investments can go ON AND ON. To say that FDIs didn't play a role in Singapore's progress is a big lie. Lee Kuan Yew invited FDIs to do business in Singapore. In fact, FDIs are NOT against the development of sariling kakayahan. Instead, it made Singapore rich and it inspired other BIGGER countries such as China, Vietnam, and India to follow. It's because FDI in reality works like tenants. A lessor invites tenants to invest in one's area provided that they PAY him or her rent. FDIs can do business in the Philippines as long as, like tenants, agree to the terms of lease such as paying income taxes, following labor laws, and the like. To say that only FDIs will get rich when you let them invest here is like having a brand new mall without tenants. Can you imagine opening a mall and not let it be rent out because you fear only your tenants will get rich? Then opening a mall was a futile exercise then if you can't get your Return On Investment (ROI) because you decided not to rent it out. The only way that a mall can get a good ROI is to have good tenants and a justifiable price to do so. It doesn't matter if the tenant is foreigner or Filipino - all it matters is that they abide by the rules.The same goes for investors - foreigner or Filipino shouldn't be an issue. All that matters is that the investor is someone who is trustworthy even without having to have a Filipino partner. All they need is a Filipino landlord, pay rent properly, pay taxes properly, and treat their employees properly if they want to enrich themselves. 

I would say ENOUGH of the excuses if you want the Philippines to become another Singapore. The Philippines can be made better. Filipinos, like every nationality, can evolve. China evolved away from the Maoist Years and became a strong people. Singaporeans evolved from their lower ranks thanks to Lee Kuan Yew's reforms. The Philippines has so much potential wasted by years of the so-called "Filipino First" policy. It's time to to adopt Singapore's and Malaysia's policies. It's time to move on from the Marcos Narrative and focus on constitutional reform. Those invalid excuses can go to where they belong - the garbage can!