QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Apr 9 2010, 04:03 AM)
It was Marcos who first took the initiative in removing Spanish from the curriculum (Spanish was removed by Marcos' Constitution); Aquino finished it.
Before Marcos, the Philippine Peso was in English; today, it is in Filipino.
Twas Marcos who started the Sabah claim, though he should have also included the northern areas of Kalimantan Utara and Palmas Island of Indonesia which historically belongs to the Philippines. (Spratly doesn't historically belong to the Phils).
The economic demise of the Philippines comes from corruption, actually started during the term of Magsaysay. Coincidentally, he was also the first president to start the colorful type of presidential campaigns that we have now. I think there's some connection between the two. Magsaysay was a stooge of CIA officer Landsdale, and he revived the Anti-Chinese and Anti-Indian policies of the American Colonial Period (which led most Filipino-Chinese and Filipino-Indians to hate him up to this day).
Marcos was the one who started massive looting from the country's treasury, although many modern infrastructures today date from his term (NLEx, SLEx, completion of EDSA, Manila LRT, PICC, and many hotel chains). In the end, he was betrayed by the IMF and the American government, forcing him to resign and hand over power to another USA stooge: Aquino - who was meant to be a transitional president.
In reality, the Philippines is actually more of a client state or a protectorate of the USA; it isn't really completely independent, more like Palau or Federated States of Micronesia. All Philippine presidential candidates are always summoned by the US government to present their platforms and plans.
If Gordon wins, the Philippines will vacillate again toward the USA and the gains in the "Asianization" of the Philippines will lose ground. Of course he has American blood (just like Gibo, too), and naturally, he will tend to side with the USA instead of other Asian countries.
Luxembourg (a Catholic country) may be rich, but it is an exception rather than a general trend.
Australia is majority Catholic, although a substantial portion of Australians are Protestants; MOST of its Prime Ministers are Protestants, too, mostly Presbyterian and Anglican. Out of 18 Christian Prime Ministers, 12 are Protestant and only 6 are Catholic.
CA became the richest state because it is where many large businesses are located (e.g., Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc.); most of these are founded by Jewish Americans who are the ruling class. The large Hispanic population of CA (4 out of 10 Californians) account for the large Catholic population.
I see. So your choice of the presidency is still within the context of Philippines for the East Asians.
The people who would do the looting more actually occured right after Edsa, when Cory Aquino allowed her Kamag-anak Inc. to bankrupt various state controlled corporations and national utility companies then the oligarchs would have them(Cory gave the sequestered and state-owned Meralco to the Lopezes for no extra cost) and some Marcos cronies like El Capitan, Lucio Tan, bought some of these and declared them as all for themselves. READ THIS THREAD... http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=430188
Marcos wealth came from the so called Yama$hita treasure(Remember the Golden Buddha of Rogelio Roxas) and not much from corruption as what the saintly Corystas say and he literally bought the presidency with tons of cash to the voters.
About the Spratleys and the Sabah claim, that was sufficiently answered by the above posters. The next thing we know, China would claim the entire South China sea.
The demise of the Philippines occured during the decontrol which started during the Macapagal presidency. The Philippines had been employing decontrol since the early '60s, leading to the results seen today: chronic trade deficits, a contracted manufacturing sector, heavy reliance on foreigners for loans, and much of economic growth based on consumer spending. Not surprisingly, the U.S. has the same characteristics.
In contrast, Asian nations employed protectionism. And once they became Industrialized(NIC's) and that's when they opened up.
TO REITERATE(WHICH ANSWERED HOW WE BECAME THE LAGGARD OR THE SICKMAN OF ASIA):
We have successive pro-globalist presidents with their IMF-WB-WTO mantra of GLOBALIZATION, DEREGULATION, LIBERALIZATION AND PRIVATIZATIONS.
One such pro Globalist president that we had in the past is FVR...
He signed many sovereign guarantee contracts which accounted for the high cost of electriciy and add to that the failure to operate the BNPP which could have solved the more than 12 hours of brown outs during the Cory administration which caused many factories to closed. No industrialization will take place in a country with sky high electricity rates like what we have now. Pang CALL CENTER ECONOMY lang
. Such industries that rely heavily in electricity will not be able to compete GLOBALLY (in the so called level playing field of the very UNFAIR FREE Trade) and will soon close down just like what had happen to our various factories leading to so many jobs lost. It's so easy to see the vicious cycle that would ensue, with corruption getting more rampant, increasing prostitution and hunger, a resulting substandard health care, more crime, etc and thus, we ended up as a NATION of SERVANTS and the SICKMAN OF ASIA.