Ramos' legacy in the eyes of Singapore's great leader, the late Lee Kuan Yew
Mrs. Aquino's successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th 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 it did not check corruption. 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 to work in Singapore are as good as our 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 American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of an American constitution.
The next works are all about the quote which is often used to discredit the Marcoses. Personally, I still believe in what Lee Kuan Yew said about the Marcoses. I still think about the stories I heard about how the Marcos Years weren't the golden years after all. Though, I guess Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong congratulated Marcos Jr. out of courtesy. I think it was no different when Lee Hsien Loong offered his condolences when Aquino III died from complications of renal failure secondary to diabetes. Both are acts of diplomatic relations between nations. Marcos Jr. won the presidency, congratulations. Aquino III died from complications of renal failure secondary to diabetes, condolences.
A side of Ramos that I never saw during the 1990s and for some time
Public Office
Fidel Ramos was President of the Philippines from 1992 to 1998. Under his leadership the Philippines experienced a period of political stability and rapid economic growth and expansion.Prior to his election as president, Fidel Ramos served as Secretary of National Defence (1988-1991) and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (1986-1988) with the rank of General.As President, Fidel Ramos’s policies and programmes to foster national reconciliation and unity led to major peace agreements with Muslim separatists, communist insurgents and military rebels, which renewed investor confidence in the Philippine economy. Ramos pushed for the deregulation of key industries and the liberalization of the economy. He encouraged the privatization of public entities, to include the modernization of public infrastructure through the expanded Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) law. During the years 1993-1997, the Philippine economy recovered dramatically. Gross National Product averaged 5 percent annually, the total inflow of foreign exchange into the country outpaced that of the combined periods of rule of both Presidents Marcos and Aquino, and the average income of the Filipino family grew more during Ramos’ administration than in the preceding two decades. This allowed Fidel Ramos’ government to implement a comprehensive Social Reform Agenda (SRA) that addressed long-standing problems regarding poverty, health, education and skills training, housing, environmental protection, children and the youth, the elderly and the handicapped, jobs and livelihood, agrarian reform and access to equal opportunity.The peace agreement which Ramos brokered with military rebels and the MNLF southern secessionists won for him (together with Chairman Nur Misuari) and the Philippines the coveted 1997 UNESCO Peace Prize – the first for Asians. His public service spanned a total period of 51 years.
However, six years isn't enough to really make a difference. One can say that the Philippines became a rising tiger under Aquino III's administration. Former Philippine Rodrigo R. Duterte may have made some bad decisions too. However, Duterte was right to sign the Public Services Act of 2022. Duterte critic Andrew James Masigan did mention it was better late than never. What I appreciate about Masigan is the way he criticized Duterte's wrong decisions--it was focused on improving the economy than derailing the person. Masigan wrote a very professional critique on some of Duterte's policies. Masigan was a long proponent of opening up of the economy to develop the economy. I wrote about how opening the Philippines to 100% shares ownership will be beneficial to developing the national industry (read here). If there was one reason why Aquino III brought some stability (and please, lower gasoline prices aren't one of them)--Global Risks Insights talks about foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow during that term. Aquino III did work on easing certain sectors from the negative list. Duterte also did well to sign the Public Services Act of 2022. However, I felt that the Public Services Act should've been made urgent last 2016 before starting the Build Build Build program. That's why I agree with Masigan as an economist even if he and I have different political spectrums.
Just reading what the Global Leadership Foundation said made me regret why I even feared Ramos back then. Again, I was only 11 years old back then, and not doing well in school. Ramos deserved the UNESCO Peace Prize. I think about how his economic policies by amending the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 managed to help the Philippines survive the crisis. Yet, there was a time, in high school (when I no longer feared Ramos) when I mentioned him in my Asian history essay. Too bad that I'll have to ask my high school to give me my test paper from the archives. I lost a lot of my academic papers in high school because my first PC is now as good as gone. My second PC is also good as gone. Thankfully, the knowledge learned hasn't been gone just yet. Ramos had good economic policies that kept the Philippines afloat.
Ramos did make a few mistakes too. Ramos, back then, almost cut ties with Singapore after the execution of Flor Contemplacion. Fortunately, Ramos decided to restore ties with Singapore. This caused people to get angered especially with the event regarding Contemplacion's death. It was in 1995 when it happened--the same year when The Flor Contemplacion Story hit the theaters. The strain was fortunately resolved between the two countries. However, some people (such as "think tanks" like Migrante International) still stuck with the same story that Contemplacion was "innocent" even when evidence said otherwise. It was a wise decision of Ramos to make amends with Singapore. Singapore should remain an important business partner for the Philippines.
Why I also support Ramos' desire for the Philippines to go parliamentary
Why did Ramos (and neither did any of his successors) turn the Philippines into another Singapore? The difference lies in the form of governance. As mentioned earlier, Lee Kuan Yew didn't transform Singapore from a third-world country to a first-world country in just one term. Aquino III also had infrastructure projects that weren't started because of his fixed term. I believe Aquino III should've supported the shift to parliamentary. Just imagine it if Ramos had more than one term. Just imagine it if Ramos himself were prime minister instead of president. Just imagine it if Mrs. Aquino remained as a national symbol of unity for Filipinos while Ramos led the country in 1986 up to a certain period in time. Ramos would have had more time not just to make good projects but to also implement them.
The parliamentary government would also have an opposition that would question the government and hold it accountable. Having a healthy opposition with an official role works better in preventing tyrants from rising than a one-term only for presidents. As mentioned earlier, Idi Amin and Pol Pot barely ruled for a decade but those guys were brutal tyrants. Mao Zedong was a tyrant not because he ruled China long. Instead, Mao was an uncontested dictator. Lee Kuan Yew ruled for 31 years having to face a formal opposition, had to do well if he expected to serve another term, and parliamentary systems have better checks and balances. That's why I want to have a parliamentary Philippines (read here). It wouldn't be magic but it will provide the right tools to help create better governance.
If we were a parliamentary right now, we would have former Philippine Vice President, Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo wouldn't be heading an NGO called Angat Buhay--something she created during her term as the vice president. Instead, Mrs. Robredo would've already marched in the Philippine Parliament with her fellow Liberal Party of the Philippines members. Mrs. Robredo would serve as the Leader of the Opposition and have a shadow cabinet. Marcos Jr. and his cabinet are directly faced with Mrs. Robredo's shadow cabinet. Any policies Marcos Jr.'s government wants to make must be questioned directly by Mrs. Robredo and her shadow cabinet. Mrs. Robredo and her team represent the minority bloc. Mrs. Robredo will have her own set of appointees that will reflect Marcos Jr.'s appointees. Every minister of a certain department will have a shadow minister of a certain department.
Right now, I want to see Ramos' vision realized. It must not die with him. Instead, I'm among those who will now say that we need to reform an already outdated constitution. We need to have a parliamentary system for better economic policies as a result of better transparency.