Do Anti-Reform Crybabies Even Know Why The Marcos Sr. Years Weren't The Golden Years?

Well, it's the GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY of the time that the late despot, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., declared martial law and abused it, right? Martial law in itself isn't wrong per se. Martial law is STILL constitutional even in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. When former president Rodrigo R. Duterte declared martial law - it was only in MINDANAO. It's a very far cry from what Marcos Sr. did when he declared NATIONWIDE martial law. Quite interestingly, I heard the late Ninoy Aquino also supported the declaration of martial law all before challenging the UNJUST implementation. Marcos Sr., like Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars, created a legislative for show only and used the emergency powers for his own benefit. 

A legacy of economic protectionism was a real monster

I always find it stupid when people hate Marcos Sr. BUT they love economic protectionism. I can't be certain if President Bobong Marcos will really reverse protectionism. However, I'm still skeptical because Bobong keeps defending his father's "legacy". A legacy of human rights abuses, labor export, silencing of critics, and impunity was definitely part of it. Magiging parang Singapore? Please, one needs to read From Third World to First in detail and see why the Philippines was closer to becoming ANOTHER NORTH KOREA! 

I heard that Marcos Sr. did more than just close ABiaS-CBN. An interesting thing to know is that both the late Noynoy Aquino and Duterte both had a hand in the network's loss of franchise. Noynoy berated ABiaS-CBN on TV Patola's 25th anniversary and left the party. What happened next was that there was ONLY ONE NETWORK which flashed Marcos Sr. propaganda almost all the time. People only had Marcos Sr. and Imelda Romualdez-Marcos sang "Dahil Sa Iyo". The Marcoses were definitely a monarchy at that time. You can have protectionism to thank for that!

Source

I'm amazed that IBON Foundation even dared to call Marcos Sr. a neoliberal pro-FDI president. That's just plain nuts. On the contrary, Marcos Sr. was NO liberal nor neoliberal with economics. From Per Se, Emmanuel S. De Dios mentions the the Marcos Years were severely protectionist. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that IBON Foundation is LYING about Marcos Sr. being pro-FDI. In fact, if he were, his cronies were getting stronger as a result. It's also another lie that idiots like Lazy Filipino Students, Anak Ng Bayad, Anakpatis, Kayabangan Partylist, Migraine International, etc. (all CPP-NPA LEGAL FRONTS) are lying about. Ironic that they should hate Marcos Sr. while LOVING ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM!

In turn, the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) program became an alternative to keep the Philippine economy going. The whole OFW phenomenon became highlighted as the new heroes. The result of Marcos Sr.'s policies was that the Philippines became MORE DEPENDENT THAN INDEPENDENT economically. Soon, Marcos Sr. even attempted to borrow money from the late Lee Kuan Yew. The book Third World to First even highlighted that Lee was hesitant to loan money to Marcos Sr. Lee was a brilliant statesman. 

It wasn't a parliamentary government but a FAKE PARLIAMENT that ruined the Philippines

When Lee met with Cesar Virata - he even called Virata to be nothing more than a non-leader. In short, Lee backed up Ninoy's statement that the Philippines wasn't a real parliamentary government either. Instead, Marcos Sr. ruled UNCHALLENGED like Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars. In short, Marcos Sr.'s new order was pretty much the rearrangements of the Philippines into the Imperial Republic of the Philippines under the rule of Emperor Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. At that time, Bobong might as well be addressed as Spoiled Brat Crown Prince Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. Would have Marcos Sr. die in power - the Philippines would be under the rule of his majesty Emperor Bobong. At that time, Bobong was a spoiled brat who did nothing but party using the royal assets and was on his royal yacht, had a royal chauffer, and was practically enjoying the best years of his life because his parents were emperor and empress. Pretty much, Marcos Sr. could've become the Philippines' own version of the late Kim Jung Il and maybe Sandro Marcos would've become the Philippines' Kim Jong Un.

As Ninoy mentioned in his Los Angeles speech - the Philippines was never really a parliament to begin with. As Ninoy said, "We had a parliamentary without a parliament." It was a far cry from Lee's Singapore, from Singapore where the president is but a national symbol of unity, and where a real opposition existed. The details such as the establishment of the Butasang Pambulsa of 1973 had this format...

 Any talks about shifting from presidential to parliamentary have been tarnished. You can thank people who refused to compare the arrangement of Marcos Sr.'s Imperial Senate and Marcos Sr., like Emperor Palpatine, arranged his Imperial Senate in such a way that he can dissolve it but it can't dissolve him. Just reminds me of how the late Peter Cushing flawlessly delivered the line in Star Wars: A New Hope where Grand Moff Tarkin (and his counterpart would be the late Fabian Ver) announced to everyone that Palpatine dissolved the Imperial Senate. That's not how a real parliamentary would work. As Ninoy mentioned in his speech - all the powers were concentrated upon his majesty, Marcos Sr. The arrangement was still pretty much like a PRESIDENTIAL setting.

Meanwhile, Singapore was having this setup under Lee. Singapore was having the government on the right side and the opposition on the left. Where was the opposition seated in the Marcos Sr. "parliament"? That's where Pinklawans keep saying that parliamentary will never work because of Marcos Sr. When I tell them to go ahead and tell Singapore that parliamentary is evil - they say it worked in Singapore because of Lee himself. They say that the Philippines had a parliamentary because of Virata. Did they even bother to read what Lee said about Virata? Virata was practically NO POLITICAL LEADER. Marcos Sr. HANDPICKED Virata as his own personal puppet. There was no real opposition either. Where was the real opposition in the Marcos Sr. parliament? Still, present all the data and they would rather stick to the "empirical evidence" provided by chismosas like Marites Vitug and Raissa Robles. Again, Virata was just a prime minister IN NAME ONLY. Besides, South Korea is still a presidential government even if it has a prime minister. The same went for the Philippines.

Besides, if the Marcos Sr. Years were a real parliament - Marcos Sr.'s powers would've been limited. If we were prime minister - he could've been voted out by a vote of no confidence. Ninoy even mentioned about the vote of no confidence that could remove an erring prime minister. If it were a real parliamentary - there would be no EDSA at all. Instead, Marcos Sr. would've probably been arrested in the Philippine Parliament. Maybe, Ninoy would've been the opposition leader and pointed out everything wrong with Marcos Sr. Instead, Marcos Sr.'s hyper-presidential government - was more of an imperial style of governance.  That's why Marcos Sr. had to be overthrown because he was getting TOO MUCH POWER at that moment. Meanwhile, a parliamentary system would've just kicked him out without the need of a massive protest.