.jpg) |
| Archives Online |
Today is Singapore Day. I guess it's not surprising that there will be more people still crying over the death (and "unjust execution") of Flor Contemplacion. Back then, the late former Philippine president Fidel V. Ramos nearly cut ties with Singapore until the forensic results came out. Not everyone was all too happy as some people still made Flor a "heroine" and a movie about her was made. FVR reestablished ties during the reign of former Singaporean prime minister Goh Chok Tong. The late Lee Kuan Yew in his autobiography didn't only talk about the Marcoses (and sadly, some people just cherry-pick that and forget the more important lessons). It also talked about the problems that hit the late former Philippine president Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino.
LKY talked about how Mrs. Aquino herself was meant to work up the people's feelings. What LKY also highlighted was the endless coups that hit Mrs. Aquino. What I find interesting is how LKY mentioned FVR. I almost feel that if not for the late Saldavor Laurel, maybe FVR himself should've led the Philippines as the Head of Government while Mrs. Aquino herself should've remained as a national symbol of unity. Mrs. Aquino hid in a convent during the EDSA revolution. Mrs. Aquino herself was a national symbol of unity and should've remained as such. It seems LKY acknowledged the fact that Mrs. Aquino herself was more fit to represent than lead the Philippines. Today, Singaporean President Halimah Yacob serves the role of the symbolic head of state. Mrs. Aquino herself should've been given duties similar to Yacob herself. FVR was more fit to lead the Philippines as its first official prime minister. Cesar Virata's position as "prime minister" only made him an executive secretary. LKY even didn't see Virata as a leader but as a non-starter, not someone you'd want to succeed the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.
Pages 304-305 of From Third World to First also highlights this about ramos and painful truths the Philippines needed to hear:
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 at the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, "I do not believe that 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 a British parliamentary-type constitution worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.He (Ramos, emphasis mine) 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. 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 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 them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution which has not been made easier by the workings of ta Philippine version of the American constitution.
I just wonder if those people who kept quoting from LKY about the Marcoses bothered to read the whole context about the Philippines? It was during the reign of FVR that I feared the possibility of another Marcos-style dictatorship. There were even TV ads that said, "If we shifted to parliamentary. Think how scary it'll be if a president ruled for more than six years." Please, some American presidents have served for two consecutive terms resulting in eight years. If they bothered to read, LKY ruled longer than Marcos Sr. It's very easy to say that Marcos Sr. was corrupt (which I agree) while LKY wasn't, that's why the parliamentary system worked.
LKY said is that Filipinos need more discipline than democracy. Back then, I thought the only way for the Philippines to progress if I discipline every single Filipino. That's why I almost wanted to adopt Chinese-style or Vietnamese-style Communism after hearing the two countries progressed more than the Philippines. Later on, I wrote an essay about why trying to discipline every single Filipino is a bad economic plan. Certainly, a country needs more discipline if it expects to become a healthy democracy. Otherwise, democracy without discipline will just create chaos resulting in rampant crime and corruption. This will be a very chilling thought because many Filipinos hate discipline. Back when LKY was still starting to lead Singapore out of poverty, a lot of Singaporeans too hated discipline.
If it was true that the parliamentary system was indeed used during the Marcos Years, LKY already proved it downright wrong. LKY was blunt about why Virata wasn't even qualified to lead. Virata was described as a non-starter, a first-class administrator who wasn't even a political leader. LKY having been a prime minister, would know the real runnings of a real parliamentary system. I wish LKY highlighted what the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Laurel mentioned. Laurel mentioned that Marcos Sr. had never been a legitimate prime minister either. Marcos Sr. was even, at one point, both president and prime minister. That's what makes the whole Marcos "parliament" nothing more than a sham. Both FVR and LKY both agreed that a British-type parliamentary would work better. Why aren't some Filipinos even aware that LKY not only badmouthed the Marcoses but also said that parliamentary system would work better? As Aquino Jr. highlighted, the whole 1973 Constitution was pretty much 80 Days Around the World. It went from American to British to French. In the end, Marcos Sr.'s regime was a presidential one as verified by his own words!
LKY eventually mentioned the Philippines' rambunctious press. It's very easy to say that the press are doing its job in maintaining government checks and balances. Well, LKY sadly highlighted how the Philippine press was so easily bought. I wonder if the late former Philippine president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III made that speech at TV Patrol's silver anniversary for that reason. Before that, I remembered some anti-charter change ads were shown left and right. Who paid for those ads anyway? It wasn't done only during the time of FVR but also during the time of Philippine Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The presses could be easily bought. All it takes was the highest bidder to have a partisan press. Maybe, I need to talk about how some of the Philippine presses are prone to bootlicking incumbents. Some presses continue to demonize the need for charter change. I think they're paid by businessmen who benefit from economic protectionism. How's that for "better check and balance"?
LKY may have praised some Filipino artists. Pinoy pride right? Well, LKY did mention the sad fact that millions of Filipinos leave the country not because they want to but because they had to. There's really no choice, especially with very limited job opportunities. It's really something that some people believe that FDI will "ruin the spirit of the country". An irony that some of those who spread it are Filipino Catholics. Not surprisingly, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has some barrio-minded Catholic priests. Isn't it ironic that the CBCP is supposedly part of a multinational organization namely the Catholic Church and it's got bishops like that? I also wrote why FDIs vs. OFWs as a game of conquest is a ridiculous idea. Romanticizing the OFW phenomenon is just stupid. How family families are torn apart? LKY wasn't a bit impressed that Filipino workers, as good as Singaporean workers, had to leave their country when they could've helped the country.
I believe a lot of what LKY said about the Marcoses is true. Right now, the 17th Philippine president under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, is Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. What I'm going to really mention is why are some people so quick to mention LKY about the Marcoses and then ignore the rest? LKY led Singapore to better governance. Even two major Communist forces, China and Vietnam, learned from Singapore as well? Instead, LKY's major economic lessons have become nothing more than a tool of convenience. FVR then was later unfairly demonized by people who reject even amending the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, as if the constitutional amendment is even illegal.
This is why I'm going to trust what Kishore Mahbubani has to say over what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. has to say. Both men are public policymakers and former diplomats. However, Mahbubani founded the reputable Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) at the reputable National University of Singapore. Even if Davide Jr. managed to create the 1987 Constitution School of Public Policy, we know which nation has a better reputation of truly rising from third world to first. If there's one thing I can agree with some supporters of Aquino III--it's if they speak well of FVR. Some supporters of Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo even see the need to reform the constitution.
That's why I say it's time to correct the constitution. If we want the Philippines to be Singapore-like, why not follow Singapore's system? Because if the the 1987 Constitution was indeed the best in the world, why are people from different Asian countries choosing to consult with Mahbubani over Davide Jr.?