I was thinking about writing this post for Singapore Day. However, Singapore tends to be associated with the BOO F***ING HOO sentiments regarding the late Flor Contemplacion. It was something that the silver anniversary of Flor's execution hit during COVID-19 ECQ. There are still people (UNTIL NOW) who still believe Flor was the "poor innocent victim" all because of the movie The Flor Contemplacion Story never mind that a twisted movie incriminated the INNOCENT Hubert Webb of a crime that he didn't commit. Now, it's time to celebrate "Flor Contemplacion Day" yet again with another stinging post. This time it's on lessons from the classic book From Third World to First to pour more salt into the wounds of idiots who still use Singapore as an excuse to reject badly needed reforms.
The Marcos Years were NOT a real parliamentary
It was mentioned by the late Ninoy Aquino that the Marcos Years weren't a real parliament. Just thinking of how Ninoy described the Marcos "parliament" proved that it wasn't a real parliament. Many misconceptions of the parliamentary system were based on the Marcos "parliament" which was just for show. It would be interesting to see what the late Lee Kuan Yew said regarding Cesar Virata.
Pages 301-302 said this of Virata as a "prime minister" in a MOCK parliament:
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him (Marcos, emphasis mine) any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$ 8 billion of the US$ 25 billion owing. The hard fact was that they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered it that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped that the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a NON-STARTER, A FIRST CLASS ADMINISTRATOR, BUT NO POLITICAL LEADER, further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Enrile, was out of favor. Marcos was silent, hen he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find such a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, "You are a true friend." I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that would be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to be with "flow of money"; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people's feelings. He said that the economy was going down with no political stability.
The Marcos Years have proven themselves not to be the golden years. Plus, it wasn't a real parliament. I just love to compare the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. to Emperor Palpatine and his "Parliament" to the Imperial Senate in the Star Wars franchise. In the case of Virata, Lee Kuan Yew was right to call him a "sitting duck" - a first-class administrator but no political leader. A real parliament would have a prime minister as the political leader, and a president is a ceremonial figure of unity. That wasn't the case - Marcos Sr. himself was still holding absolute power as a PRESIDENT. That's not a real parliamentary. South Korea has a president that holds a one-term only limit for five years with no reelection. South Korea is presidential with parliamentary features. Japan is a full parliamentary form of government.
In short, how many times does it need to be stated that the Marcos Years weren't a real parliament huh?
The Cory years weren't so good either proving it's NOT enough for a "God-fearing ruler" to show up
I think some of the charges done against the late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino are exaggerated. For one, Cory RETURNED businesses that were confiscated and put under state control the Marcos Administration. I still want to compare the Marcos Years to a near-communist state. Amazingly, there's no school of communism named after Marcos. Nutribun is just one example. People lining up for rice during the Marcos Years can be comparable to the situation of people lining up for basic needs in North Korea and Venezuela. Marcos' government was an extremely protectionist government.
The following can be read from pages 302-304 about the Cory Years which really revealed it wasn't enough for a God-fearing leader to show up:
Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had high hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who WANTED TO DO THE BEST FOR HER COUNTRY by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Munoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, "We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution." Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems for the presidents before Marcos? Apparently none.
ENDLESS ATTEMPTED COUPS added to Mrs. Aquino's problems. The army and the constabulary had been POLITICIZED. Before the ASEAN summit in December 1987, a coup was threatened. Without President Suharto's firm support, the summit would have been postponed and confidence in Aquino's government undermined. The Philippine government agreed that the responsibility for security should be shared between them and the other ASEAN governments, in particular the Indonesian government. General Benny Moerdani, President Suharto's trusted aide, took charge. He positioned an Indonesian warship in the middle of Manila Bay with helicopters and a commando team ready to rescue the ASEAN heads of government if there should e a coup attempt during the summit. I was included in their rescue plans. I wondered if such a rescue could work but decided to go with the arrangements, hoping that the show of force would scare off the coup leaders. We were all confined to the Philippine Plaza Hotel by the seafront facing Manila Bay where we could see the Indonesian warship at anchor. The hotel was completely sealed off and guarded. The summit went off without any mishap. We all hoped that this show of united support for Mrs. Aquino's government at that time when there were many attempts to destabilize it would calm the situation.
It made NO DIFFERENCE. There were MORE COUP ATTEMPTS, discouraging investments BADLY NEEDED TO CREATE JOBS. This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the most successful of the ASEAN countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed, because AMERICA HAD BEEN GENEROUS IN REHABILITATING THE COUNTRY after the war. Something was missing, A GEL TO HOLD SOCIETY TOGETHER. The people at the top, the elite mestizos, had the same detached attitude to the native peasants as the mestizos in their haciendas in Latin America had towards their peons. They were two different societies: Those at the top lived a life of EXTREME LUXURY AND COMFORT while the peasants scraped a living, and in the Philippines, it was a hard living. They had no land but worked on sugar, and coconut plantations. They had many children because the CHURCH (CBCP, emphasis mine) discouraged birth control. THE RESULT WAS INCREASING POVERTY.
Regarding Fidel V. Ramos as a president
I just love to state how Ramos himself can get unfairly maligned by Marcos loyalists (such as Get Real Philippines which its founder, the ever clueless Benign0 needs to stop being clueless). Cory herself was more fit to represent the Filipino people than to be their leader. If anyone should've led the Philippines after 1986's revolutionary reaction - it's Ramos. Cory was a national symbol of unity all throughout like Queen Elizabeth II of England or Halima Yacob of Singapore.
Pages 304-305 give us these details about Ramos himself which are rather short but meaningful:
Mrs. Aquino's successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she backed, was MORE PRACTICAL and ESTABLISHED GREATER STABILITY. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, "I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY-TYPE constitutions worked better because the MAJORITY PARTY in the legislature was also the government. Publicy, Ramos HAD TO DIFFER.
He knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The SENATE had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a RAMBUNCTIOUS PRESS but did not check on corruption. Individual press reporters COULD BE BOUGHT AS COULD MANY JUDGES. Something had gone seriously wrong. MILLIONS of Filipino men and women HAD TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY FOR JOBS ABROAD beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited t work in Singapore AREAS GOOD AS THEIR OWN. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has NOT BEEN MADE EASIER BY THE WORKINGS OF A PHILIPPINE VERSION OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.
This was something I remembered back in the 1990s - the fear of CHARTER CHANGE. I could remember how Ramos desired to change the constitution and it spread panic. Learning about the Marcos Years dictatorship made me panic Ramos might become a tyrant like Marcos. It was opposition based on IGNORANCE. If people just knew what a real parliament was then the Marcos "Parliament" is something to think about as a MOCKERY. Marcos' "parliament" should've been taught to be a FAKE ALL ALONG. Yet, some people still say a parliament won't work in the Philippines because of Marcos. I guess that's why Ramos had to differ publicly. Cory's original intention to retain the American bases was defeated by the SENATE. I guess this is why any proposed changes that the late Noynoy Aquino and President Rodrigo R. Duterte have been slowed down. I think Noynoy gets unfairly maligned because of the fault of the Senate. I think the same can go as to why some of Noynoy's purchases for infrastructure weren't pushed through until his term was coming to an end. Duterte only ended up signing the badly needed investment law only when his term is coming to an end.
I'm amazed that Lee Kuan Yew dared to say that the Philippines has produced greater artists than theirs. I could agree with that but many of them tend to succeed better ABROAD. I think the Philippines has had a good supply of good artists. For example, Regine Velasquez-Alcasid had her famous duet with Jacky Cheung. Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan had her famous duet with Andy Lau. Leandro Locsin is notable for his contributions in Brunei. Yet, it's a shame such talent tends to be mocked by the anti-intellectualism of Filipino society. The big problem comes when these Filipinos succeed and the same who mock them now want a free ride.
So, it turns out Lee Kuan Yew said discipline is more needed than democracy. The statement was most likely paraphrased according to the fact-checking done by Rappler and Vera Files. I could remember the post that gained me notoriety and caused a war zone in this blog. It's all about how the Philippines needs more discipline than democracy. Lee Kuan Yew practically said it to the faces of Filipinos that discipline is needed more than democracy. It tends to get stated differently. However, one thing doesn't change is that the Philippines really needs more discipline than democracy.
The OVERLY soft forgiving culture of Filipinos
Before anything else, I'd like to say how I'm so amazed pages like Change Scamming, Silent No More, and Bantay Nakaw Coalition have the tendency to mention Lee Kuan Yew's famous phrase about the Marcoses. Yet, they hypocritically (and apparently) go against constitutional reform. This is really a matter of cherry-picking like how the Marcos loyalists talk about the good Marcos did but ignore the list of WELL-DOCUMENTED abuses during the Marcos Years. True, Winnie Monsod was right about the Marcoses but she would be in Lee Kuan Yew's list of pasaway economists too. I don't think Lee Hsien Loong, the current Singaporean prime minister, would agree with Winnie too about economics.
It's really something to think about how the Marcoses are documented as crooks. Yet, there's a shallow understanding of why the Marcos Years were bad. I think it's disgusting how often Marcos is stated to be a dictator but the reasons are very lame. For example, one can say Marcos was a dictator because he ruled for 20 years. However, Pol Pot had a short regime but he was a dictator too. Lee Kuan Yew ruled Singapore for 31 years and Lee Hsien Loong ruled Singapore from the time of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and may even sit as prime minister (still) regardless if Vice President Leni Loud Robredo or Bobong Marcos will win. Both father and son ruled Singapore rather wisely proving political dynasties need not to be an issue. If Leni Loud's daughters who are all girls (joke intended) can all serve well - I don't see any reason why only one daughter should sit in office! If Mar Roxas' son Paolo Roxas can prove himself then I don't see any reason why he can't sit either. It's only a problem if you've got situations like grieving widows and grieving siblings. Then again, think of the root cause is in the soft forgiving culture, right?
The soft forgiving culture (which is too soft) has made check and balance near useless. For example, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is meant to protect the human rights of Filipinos. However, it can be easily swayed or bought even if it's a necessary function. Its primary function is to investigate ALL FORMS of human rights violations. Yet, it really showed how it failed because of people like Liela Dilemma, Etta Rosales, and the late Chito Gascon. Gascon even went as far to defend one of his staunchest allies Antonio Trillanes IV. Trillanes' Oakwood mutiny placed the public in danger. Trillanes was a state agent when it happened. Gascon was beating around the bush to defend one of his closest allies. Right now, my stance is NOT to abolish the CHR but to reform it. CHR is a needed function though it can go wrong if it's too soft and forgiving. True, prison cells need to meet humane standards but the rights of law-abiding citizens come first.
What the Philippines needs is to be tougher on corruption. The better way is through the parliamentary system. Some say Noynoy's corruption fight is a global model. However, I'd go for Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew any day. I don't even think Duterte's model works either. Maybe, it would've worked if Duterte and Noynoy spent time debating weekly in a parliamentary system. Noynoy had valid criticisms but presidentialism held him back. Duterte has great promises but it was kept back by the presidential system. The presidential system in itself is too soft and forgiving. That's why I support the need for a parliamentary system for that reason.
Comments
Post a Comment