Can Diehard 1987 Constitution Defenders Prove Their Claims to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy?

It's not enough to say something. The question is, "Where's the substance or the empirical evidence?" When I start quoting from the late Lee Kuan Yew, these diehard 1987 Constitution of the Philippines defenders start diverting the topic by pointing out my errors to spite me than to correct me. They would ask if I know the Deming Theory of Management which talks about quality management in the company culture. Okay, that was something worth asking but as said, can these people really understand the problem of the Philippines has been more systemic (that is, within the system) than just the people running the system? What allowed the legislative to be filled with people who know-nothing anyway? That's why I didn't want to vote for Senator Robin Padilla (who ironically understands the need for reforms, read here). Unfortunately, so many Ad Hominem attacks have been done. 

A past article I wrote was Should you listen to either Davide Jr. or Kishore Mahbubani. Both grandfathers have been former United Nations diplomats for their respective countries. It's easy for Davide Jr. supporters to cite that the person they admire is a policymaker. That's why I raise Mahbubani of Singapore instead. Mahbubani founded the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). Both Mahbubani and Davide Jr. have been former United Nations diplomats. Both of them have similar exposures. However, only one of them has the better key to the development of the Philippines. It's very easy to dismiss Mahbubani because he's not a Filipino. It may be because he's a Bumbay (a common word used to describe Indians in the Philippines) and they might throw red herrings like his armpit must smell bad. Those are nothing more than red herrings and Ad Hominems. Maybe, some of them are still unable to move on from Flor Contemplacion's "wrongful execution" there (read here).

This would be a challenge. Instead of hurling personal attacks, name-calling, etc.--why not try and prove the claims to the LKYSPP? Calling somebody demeaning names might irritate a person. However, that doesn't make one win the argument just because the other person reacted wrongly. Sure, a person can explode when they have enough. However, facts remain as facts even if the other person starts hurling personal attacks. It's like how I can get called demeaning names on Facebook whenever I try to prove that the reign of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. wasn't a parliamentary system. Heck, I even had to point out what LKY said in his book that Cesar Virata was a no-leader and a non-starter for the Philippines. A real parliamentary system would've made Virata the real person leading the nation, not just some state executive assistant to a president with powers! Still, they insist on this and that on the ground that there was a prime minister, even if said prime minister was nothing more than an executive assistant to the president with powers!

Sure, Mahbubani may no longer be the dean of the LKYSPP. Mahbubani may no longer be the dean but the current deans still honor him. It's interesting to know that the current dean, Professor Danny Quah, has this in his profile which is rather impressive actually for credentials snobs who might look down on me because I didn't get my degree at the Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) or any University of the Philippines (UP) campus:

Danny Quah is Li Ka Shing Professor in Economics and Dean at the School. His research interests lie in income inequality, economic growth, and international economic relations. Quah’s work takes an economic approach to world order - focusing on global power shift and the rise of the east, and alternative models of global power relations. The economic approach emerges in that Quah’s work studies the supply and demand of world order: What international system do the world’s superpowers wish to provide; what world order does the global community need? Quah’s work on income inequality sets the challenge against a broader background of social mobility and cohesion, and in so doing suggests a single narrative on the challenge of income inequality is unlikely to be correct or helpful.

Quah is Commissioner on the Spence-Stiglitz Commission on Global Economic Transformation; and serves on the Executive Committee, International Economic Association; the Executive Committee, Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs APSIA; the Advisory Council, Bennett Institute, Cambridge University; the Academic Advisory Board, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University; the Global Advisory Board, Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management; the Advisory Board, LSE IDEAS; the Advisory Council, OMFIF; the Eminent Advisory Council, UNDP Asia-Pacific; and the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council for Geopolitics. He is Vice-Chair of Singapore’s Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.

Quah gave the third LSE-NUS lecture in 2013, TEDx talks in 2016, 2014, and 2012, and the Inaugural LSE Big Questions Lecture in 2011. Quah’s research has been supported by the Khazanah Research Institute, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the British Academy, the UK’s Economic and Research Council, and the Andrew Mellon Foundation.

Quah was previously Assistant Professor of Economics at MIT, and then at LSE Professor of Economics and International Development, and Director of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre. He served as LSE’s Head of Department for Economics, and Council Member on Malaysia’s National Economic Advisory Council.

Quah studied at Princeton, Minnesota, and Harvard.

It would really be amazing to see if the apologists would want to have a formal debate with the LKYSPP. Maybe, Mahbubani in spite of his old age, would want to show up. I wonder if Davide Jr. would want to book a plane ticket to Singapore with them due to his advanced age? I believe that Davide Jr. and Mahbubani must've met at some point. I would wonder how Mahbubani would react if he knew what Davide Jr. said about FDIs. Mahbubani would just dismiss the claim with the evidence at hand of Singapore's progress.

It's very easy to make a claim. It's very hard to prove a claim. I can brag that I have a billion dollars, that I live in a palace, that I have this and that and the evidence suggests otherwise. A person can dress up in expensive branded items and have bad debts incurred from doing so. The evidence is more of the substance than the form. In the case of Singapore, both substance and form can prove the Philippines wrong. 

What can be amusing is in quoting Davide Jr. that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "only constitution" that is this and that. I would expect the eyes of the staff at the LKYSPP to glare open. What about Singapore's green policy which is very pro-environment? What about Singapore's pro-poor policies? A lot of stuff written in LKY's book From Third World to First would immediately prove Davide Jr. wrong. Such people act like as if the Philippines is the most unique place in the world, like it can't follow any country's model of success because "How many times do I need to tell you? The Philippines isn't Singapore, isn't Vietnam, isn't China, isn't Taiwan, or any country you like to cite. We are unique! Let's just do everything ourselves!" I wonder how the staff at LKYSPP will react to that.

Given the background of the current deatn Quah, I would really imagine him laughing at what Davide Jr. Jr. said about FDIs last 2018. With Mahbubani having been a former UN diplomat, I could imagine that Quah would probably say something like, "Is Davide out of his mind? What happened to the years when he was a former UN diplomat like our founding dean?" I would imagine Quah himself would probably laugh and say, "Well, why isn't Singapore ruled by foreigners with FDI?" Quah, being a developmental economist of a model country speaks volumes It's not the words he speaks but the quality of life in Singapore that speaks volumes.

I even wonder how they intend to defend the false claim that the regime of Marcos Sr. was a legitimate parliament. The claim is absurd because the Batasang Pambansa (National Legislation) never had a real parliamentary setup. Even the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III in his Los Angeles speech cited several problems. The very idea that there was a parliamentary without a parliament means there was no real parliamentary government. How can you have a parliamentary government that has no parliament to begin with? They can go ahead and insist on the "evidence" of Virata himself. However, what LKY said about Virata will still ring true. 

This also shows what's wrong with the Philippine education system. I got my MBA last 2014 yet I only learned Warren Edward Buffett's investment method after school. I never learned any investment method such as how to deal with stocks (and I'm currently using equity funds since I hate direct stock picking). I only learned Buffett's method of cost averaging into an index fund during the COVID-19 pandemic. Decades of Filipino First Policy have really done nothing. I wonder what people who still insist is nothing wrong can tell the LKYSPP that nothing is wrong with the current constitution? 

Chances are, I'd imagine these people might actually get a caning at the LKYSPP. Maybe, the dean of the LKYSPP, Quah, will get a rattan cane and have these clowns spanked in from the LKYSPP assembly. Maybe, not as thick as the ones used by the prison cells but thick enough to teach a lesson. Maybe, they'll be bent on the tables and be spanked like children who misbehave in school. They might even be required to wear dunce caps because they refuse the evidence. Maybe, they'll get spanked because of their unprofessional behavior. They might start to cry insisting on the evidence then Quah (or any staff member) will continue the caning because of their insolence.