Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 1

GOLDEN BUDDAH
WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE GOLDEN BUDDAH? SalTheButcher 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The golden buddha? Who knows if it ever existed.  Because of the super-secrecy during their regime, people weave so much yarn about them, or the Marcoses must have spread those lies themselves, no one can tell which are lies or truth anymore.

NPOV about "People Power Movement"?
Should I rephrase the part that says: This so-called "People Power movement" as This People Power Movement? The current way the sentence is written appears to imply that few acknowledge it as a "People Power Movement". Edward Sandstig 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Philippine national self-reliance programs?
Did he really conducted a Philippine national self-reliance programs including the research and development for their local automobile, with the acquisition and discoveries the secrets of nuclear and rocketry?

Yes, the Bagong Lipunan which was added to the article.

I was in the Philippines in all of the 21 years he was the ruler. I've never heard of self-reliance programs, nor research and development for automobile, or nuclear, etc. If he did they kept it to themselves.

It's all damn propaganda or excuses for funding proects to get kickbacks. Responsiblebum 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ilocano Ancestry
It says Marcos was the second president of Ilocano ancestry. Who was the first? Forgive my curiosity. I happen to be an Ilocano descendant. Gerald Farinas 18:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The first one was Elpidio Quirino who was born in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Soup 16:20, 4 Jun 2004

Marcos is not a war hero
The medal of valors that he usually displayed in public was just a decoration he made for himself.

I remember the pre-Marcos regime, our books in school have taught us the exploits of Yay Marking, a revolutionary icon in my time. During the first term of Ferdinand Marcos, he commanded to change all books and delete Yay Marking from it. As of the present, all exploits of Yay Marking is now in Marcos credit.

The name Maharlika of Ferdinand Marcos's Bagong Lipunan program is derived from the name of the most notorios bandit group of the WW2 era.

As a summary, at the time when Yay Marking's group were guerillas, Marcos and his men were bandits. But when Marcos became president, he took all the credits and delete the Yay Marking name in history. Then in the 1980's he wanted to change the name of Philippines to Maharlika, the group that he once belonged.

Re: Marcos is not a war hero
He was not the war hero his hagiography, commissioned by him to writer Hartzell Spence, presented him to be. He did, however serve in World War II until Japan took control over the Philippines. His exploits as a resistance fighter was exaggerated. He was at most an opportunistic resistance fighter, only surfacing when the going was good for their side. On a side note, his father was executed for collaborating with the Japanese.


 * yeah, but you miss my point. Let us put YAY Marking's name in history.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

new comment from different writer:

Yay Marking should definitely be remembered as one of the strong Filipino women that contributed significantly to the Philippines during that time. she did in fact lead guerillas during WW II and was very compassionate to her guerillas and fought side by side. but also, let it be know that she joined Marking's Guerillas and help to build the small army to 200,000 + guerillas both Filipino and American. Brig. Gen. Marking and Yay Panalilio met during the war and developed a relationship that lead to the marriage. they fought and loved both for each other and their men. Yes....Yay should be in the history books. And, behind this strong woman was a strong man, General Marking. Without each other, they may have not made the history books. i will agree that Marcos has misrepresented himself in history. I have heard General Marking talk about Marcos' misrepresentation. Thank you for mentioning these names in this history forum.

sincerely,

mark marking grandson

---

This is hardly certain....


 * But the one thing that remains for sure is that no other Philippine president, past or present, made history like Marcos did.

Roadrunner 02:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 20 years is a long time, but YMMV.

Soup

Marcos as a war hero is undocumented and is based on heresay. When he became president, a number people who were identified as war heros denounced Marcos as a Japanese collborator. As son as I've checked out sources, I'll have documented files before offering a different POV and possible have this section reworded. VodkaDry 1 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

It was his father who collaborated with the Japanese, as written in James Hamilton-Paterson's book America's Boy. Mariano Marcos was subsequently executed after the war amidst a witch hunt of collaborators, which included President Jose Laurel (who was acquitted).

According to the same book, his martial exploits were just overly exaggerated (remember Hartzell Spence's "For Every Tear a Victory" IIRC) and greatly misrepresented. What's for sure is he did serve, and he did survive the death march. The rest is shady bollocks.

HE SURE DID TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY! HE EVEN CLAIMED TO SCORE A PERFECT SCORE IN THE BAR EXAM!!!! IF HE HAD NOT BEEN TOPPLED FROM THE THRONE OR IF IMELDA WERE THE DICTATOR, WE WOULD HAVE A TOTALLY REVISED HISTORY!!! HE WAS GOING TO NAME ALL THE IMPORTANT STREETS, THE AIRPORT, HIS PROVINCE OF ILOCOS, ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURES (PICC, ETC) AFTER HIM, IMELDA, HIS PARENTS, AND CHILDREN-- I WOULD GUESS HE WOULD CHANGE THE PHILIPPINES' NAME  INTO THE 'REPUBLIC OF MARCOS'! HIS NAME SHOULD GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE VILEST VILLAIN EVER!!! MAY HE ROT IN HELL!!!!!!!!!

Marcos never claimed to have achieved a perfect score in the bar exam. He only claimed to have the highest score ever. Regarding his World War II service, it was at best, a miserable failure. There are documents unearthed by Charles McDougald in is book, The Marcos File, that could even show that he served under the Bureau of the Constabulary of the Japanese-sponsored puppet government. From the same book, alleged Marcos to be less than stellar and definitely twitchy when it comes to front-line duty. However, he remains the most intelligent of the Philippine Presidents, something most Filipinos concede.

chinese
how do people know he is chinese?

Sterling Seagrave's book "The Marcos Dynasty" (1988) claims that Mariano Marcos isnt his biological father but a certain Judge Chua. The book also claims that there isnt any Chinese blood in the Marcos side of his family. His mother apparently is a Chinese-mestiza. so that makes him 75% Chinese. Carl9331

Marcos looks like his mother, Josefa Edralin. It must be noted that Seagrave was a known anti-Marcos journalist, too.

The Worst and Most corrupt President in the Philippines
I'm sorry to say this comment, but he was corrupt and a try hard. Marcos was no good as a President, he stole millions to billions of Pesos from the Filipino People, "tried very hard" to make the Philippines a communist country and even wanted to change the country's name to Maharlika, but failed. How stupid can this guy get!. I don't know how he managed to stay in office for 25 years or so. I doubt, that there must have been a lot of political - match fixing and bribery. Gonzalo (UTC), August 20, 2004, 7:30 p.m.

New comment from different writer:

Yeah, he was corrupt. I mean, he put my grandfather in jail. My grandfather was the mayor of Sorsogon, and when he opposed Marcos during that period of Martial Law, he threw my grandfather in jail! Really corrupt!! No Duh!!

Well, for me Ferdinand Marcos was corrupt and so was Cory Aquino. But I like Marcos more than Cory. Philippines economy was much better in Marcos's time - till Cory took over. In fact, it became the number one rice exporter in ASIA. Also, Marcos has built so many buildings that all filipinos use now.. these are the : Folks Art Theatre, Ali Mall, Manila Film Center, PICC, Cultural Center of the Philippines. Well, whos idea was the LRT in manila to be built? Once again, it was the Marcos's. Cory didn't like the idea of it bcuz she thought it was just a waste of money. well, who's using it right now? non other than, the poor people of the philippines.

Other new comment: I'd say GMA is worse. She didn't do anything good, compared to Marcos. And what so bad about a name change? We still sound like a Spanish/Portugese Colony.

- Who the fuck cares about Folks Art Theatre, Ali Mall, Manila Film Center, PICC, Cultural Center of the Philippines when you're hungry?

The idea of the LRT came from economic managers and academics who did the study. Along with all (if not most) of the infra projects Marcos did. They were there before him. He was just really good at taking credit. I hope this fact changes you're mind about him.

-

'''Marcos Was Living Off The Diosdado Macapagal's Reforms '''

Yes the 1970s was better than it is now, but so were the 60's and 50s. Marcos may have built all these monuments and such but was it sustainable? No it was not. Marcos' projects and activities were ticking time bombs. Employment, productivity, government efficiency were all declining while he was still president in the early 1980s even late 70s. All because of him.

A lot of the bad things we are experiencing now is a direct result of his corruption. I'm not just talking about the projects financed by foreign loans (WHICH DID NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE PEOPLE TO COVER THE EXPENSES THEREFORE IT WAS A WASTE OF MONEY!!!). I also talk of Marcos' complete destruction of our institutions. People were more obedient during Marcos' time but they were also more obedient before him. He didn't make the rule of law possible, he only inherited it and then squandered it.

He placed his cronies at the head of our society's institutions. The rule of law was only possible because of him. No longer by the system which he broke. Isn't it any wonder all hell broke loose when he was ousted? The economic growth during his first term was the result of the politically hard reforms done by President D. Macapagal. Economic reforms take time to become effective. Marcos merely rode the wave. After that Philippine growth became UNSUSTAINABLY rooted in foreign loans. Because given the choice between enriching himself or the country, he chose the latter. This he could not do without the system of graft and corruption which destroyed the country's institutional and economic structures which we are still feeling today.

The bastard's poverty alleviation programs consisted of giving money away. He had the government giving out soft loans without any good mechanism ensuring repayment. He kept spending the government's money without making the economy produce much in new wealth. ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD THINK THIS IS ADMIRABLE. If you supported Marcos because of his poverty & infrastructure programs, fine. BUT IF YOU SUPPORT HIM KNOWING HIS POVERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS WERE UNSUSTAINABLE, YOU'RE A MORON.

Lag effects, what good things we experienced during Martial Law was largely because of previous administrations. The bad things we are experiencing now are either directly or indirectly caused by Marcos (a lot of them anyway).

Corazon Aquino should stop being so high-minded. She was too cowardly and corruptible to restore what Marcos broke. But that's another story.

to 196.203.128.90
Where did you source your edit? I believe it definitely had a case for POV, and until you provide a CREDIBLE source for Marcos trying to call for martial law again (which is preposterous), as well as your allegation that the events resulting to his ouster was a total lie with him calling on to crush the insurgency, i dont think that your edit would do the article any good. One, check the live dialog on TV which was added to the EDSA Revolution article, in which Marcos clearly refused to give Gen. Fabian Ver the order to fire was transcribed as it happened. It was sourced from J. Hamilton-Paterson's _America's Boy_, which in turn sourced it from the Philippines Sunday Express of March 2, 1986 quoted in Remigio Agpalo's biography, Ferdinand E. Marcos. Please take time to check your sources before editing and flaming away. Until you do, this article will be reverted to the previous edit. Thank you so much. I will give you this: You are right on the Bataan Power Plant, but i believe it should be mentioned on Marcos' downfall.

My cousin was one of those members of the military (I won't mention which dept) who was ordered to attack and crush the insurgency. The TV showed him as "benevolent". He was the biggest hypocrite-(my cousin's word, not mine). After the TV spectacle, he gave the order.

Really?
Do you really think reading two books (one of them citing a blatantly pro-Marcos and Marcos-controlled newspaper), and watching a video qualify you as some keeper of mystic knowledge? Truly? Well then I'm afraid that by comparison, my credentials will be rather weak: I just happened to have been there in 1986 as a reporter for the Manila Times. Yes, I saw that act where Ver asked Marcos for permission to attack the civilians. Had you been there, you would have known that though Marcos made a big public show of reluctance in private he did order the tanks to go in. That was the whole point of Edsa wasn't it? Civilians stopping tanks (actually Marine assault landing vehicles) on the corner of Edsa and Ortigas, where Robinson's Galleria is now. But you don't need to take my word for it, check it out in Karnow's book, Bonner's book, Burton's book, and Carlos P. Romulo's book. Second you'll just have to take my word for it (but don't worry, I'm currently digging up the relevant articles from the archive and should have them soon) that Marcos did indeed declare Martial Law. That was around the time his TV broadcast stations were captured so he had to go to radio (the government channel suddenly started playing cartoons), and was finally reduced to using a telephone -- where he was interrupted by a party line. Sometime in that sequence he tried saying he was declaring Martial Law, imposing a curfew, blah blah. "POV"? "Preposterous"? You should really try to come up with some sources to match your condescension. I'm sure I'll be impressed. Regards as always comment by 210.213.247.92 21:45, 4 December 2005 UTC


 * Well, pardon me all over the place. I am sorry. Seeing that you once worked for an anti-Marcos newspaper during the Marcos regime, as well as citing from blatantly anti-Marcos sources, I understand. The point here is that Marcos was a controversial, polarizing figure and it will be extremely hard to write a fair and unbiased article that gives two sides to the story, not through EDSA-tinted glasses nor Martial Law tinted glasses. I'm calling for something that includes two equally represented sides, not a one-sided account by a Corysta, and not a one-sided account by a loyalist. It is fair to say that it is inevitable that the EDSA revolution demonized Marcos, but it is unfair to throw out everything that Marcos accomplished (economy, infrastructure, stability), warts (human rights abuses, corruption) and all. Thats why i believe in a fair account. I believe that airing out opinions and vendettas should be reserved for the talk pages, not the articles themselves. One more, it is a sweeping generalization that everybody believes that Marcos was the worst president the philippines had. I hope you see where im coming from and what my point is, because im not looking for a war or something here. Nobody's here to shit on someone's credentials, thats why i apologize if i did, but my point is fairness to both sides. Grievances, feuds and vendettas have no place for encyclopedia articles. Regards. comment by User:Soup 06:48, 5 December 2005


 * There's a fine line between being "impartial" and a "denier" but it can be easily spotted. To write an article saying Marcos was a "controversial" figure without mentioning what he was famous for -- gross human rights violations (on which court awards were made), large-scale looting ( which the Swiss government itself acknowledged, by returning $685 million) and destruction of institutions (as evidenced in the coup attempts between 1986 and 1990) -- strongly suggests an agenda to gloss over and whitewash. I smell the same sort of "impartiality" which fuels  some people who say Hitler "allegedly" persecuted Jews. Until you mention the most salient points of  Marcos' dictatorship (there, did that hurt to say it?) I'll be right here making sure that it's mentioned. By the way, I'm eager to read your sources for your insistent assertion that Marcos was good for the economy.


 * Marcos did declare Martial Law. Read it in Sandra Burton's "Impossible Dream", p. 402. Ah, but oh yes, anything that even breathes Marcos had a whiff of criminality about him is to you "anti-Marcos". Who's sweeping now? cheers comment by User:Carunungan 07:36, 5 December 2005


 * Both of you, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ( ~ ).
 * Calling Marcos "the worst president the Philippines ever had" is a point of view. See the policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Nobody is denying that Marcos did some bad things (to put it lightly), but we need to write the article in a more objective and neutral tone than you're approaching it, Carunungan. I certainly don't mean we should make it 50% good things and 50% bad things... what I mean is we should have unbiased writing that presenting conflicting views without asserting them. If we present the facts fairly, then they will speak for themself, and we should be careful not to state that any particular view at all is correct. Coffee 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

210.213.240.194 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)To make it "more objective", as you put it, then I can rewrite the paragraph to read "Three things make Ferdinand Marcos different from any previous president." However, not to mention those three things (human rights abuses, looting, destruction of Philippine institutions) or to preface them with "alleged", when there is plenty of legal, anecdotal and historical proof to hand, is to purvey a story so "neutral" it becomes essentially a travesty of the facts. I would also like to see more specific details on the "good" that Marcos did. As well as more details on human rights abuses and looting, which after all have become synonymous with the Marcos regime.

It is possible to do a line-by-line critique of the biography as currently written, and provide the footnotes to back it up. Just for example, to assert that the economy under Marcos did well until the Aquino assassination of 1983 ignores the fact that the economy was already in bad shape before that -- so much so that Central Bank governor Jimmy Laya in 1982 publicly overstated the country's foreign exchange reserves and was found out. Also, even as distant but credible an observer as Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew remarked on the Marcoses "flamboyant frivolity" in a time of "desperate poverty." I trust you see what I'm getting at.The piece as it was originally written is inadvertently or deliberately misleading.210.213.240.194 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe it's important to maintain a kind of moral clarity even when striving to be objective. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler. It does not gloss over genocide, war crimes, etc. None of that "Hitler was nasty but at least he built autobahns and created the Volkswagen" foolishness. Gareon 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Family
Is there any info about his family? Children/grandchildren? --84.188.147.22 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Marcos did not bomb EDSA because there were no ammunitions and bombs!
Col. Carlos B. Manalo, chief ordinance for bombs and ammunitions release, never signed the papers authorizing the army to use the military weapons and materials to bomb the EDSA (Philippine Daily Inquirer (Feb. 21, 2006). That's the one major reason why Marcos said "No" when asked and summoned by Ver to attack the rallyists in EDSA. So the claim of Marcos "statemanship" post big question mark. (Condorhero)

The Worst Thing to Happen to the Philippines
Marco is one of the worst things to happen to the Philippines!!! Did you know that before Marcos declared martial law the Philippines was one of the most economically developed countries in Asia, but because of his greed, the Philippines is now has the on of the worst economy in the world. He not only ruined the Philippines but he ruined many families, generally the Lopezes. The Lopezes are one of the most important families in the Philippines, running numerous important companies such as ABS-CBN, MERALCO, BENPRES, and a lot more.

I have to conclude that i hate Marcos and so do millions of people. The Marcoses can kiss my ass.
 * Sore loser. 24.10.111.114 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Worst thing

What is your basis for the Philippines being one of the most economically developed countries in Asia before Marcos? Oh, yeah. ABS-CBN is kind of substandard...wait...theres oligarchy again.

I blame GMA and the idiot before her for the economy. -- We only get the government that we deserve. I guess we deserve all of them @#&*#@ presidents. The Philippines is hopeless. I say, Let's just bomb the whole country to smithereens. -- There is some truth to this. People who yearn for the time of Marcos not knowing or caring whether the good things in that time were sustainable. THEY WERE NOT! ASK ANY SANE & CREDIBLE ECONOMIST! These people don't deserve their freedom and should be bombed away. The same people who won't fight and would rather just have someone do their thinking for them. --

Just because there were oligarchies didn't mean we were inefficient. This is a common misconception of an oligarchic market structure. And if we were inefficient then, Marcos made it worse. At least under the oligarchs the companies made money and were innovating. Can't say the same for Marcos' cronies.

We were relatively advanced based on indicators of life expectancy, labor productivity, food production, GDP, infrastructure, nutrition, education etc.

Guys please read what I wrote above in the topic: The Worst and Most corrupt President in the Philippines. I say that Marcos simply lived off D. Macapagal's reforms and much of what we are experiencing today is directly or indirectly because of Marcos. I welcome criticisms.

The problem with most people judging Marcos' legacy is they only look at the economic numbers and not the economic fundamentals. As a student of economics, I implore you to focus also on Marcos' destruction of institutions. They are more telling of who he is.

Discussion on editing
I dont care how much you all hate the guy, or if he imprisoned a family member.

Just know that this is Wikipedia. Neutrality is of utmost importance. Don't rant, or insult here. This is not a forum. No one really cares how much you hate Marcos.

Marcos helped the country. You read the article right? He had intelligence. I want to be like him, minus the nepotism, avarice, and big headedness. Personally, I think he is a good study(not model) subject if you're in politics. I'm of Ilocano descent, and I'm proud to be that way. I'm proud that Marcos was one of us. I don't give damn what others think.

Now, what I really want to talk about is the overuse of the word "crony". It carries a negative connotation, which would not fit into Wikipedia's neutrality standards. And I don't want it being replaced by something like "henchmen".

I'd be ashamed to be called Ilocano if I were you. That was rather uncalled for, sir.

HE HELPED THE COUNTRY!?! He only kept people happy enough long enough for him to rob it! When i pay my taxes i help the country. When i volunteer for government i help the country. When i create a business and provide jobs i help the country. Do any of these it make me excusable to loot the country? The point is NOTHING MAKES IT EXCUSABLE TO RAPE AND PILLAGE A PEOPLE AND ITS' COUNTRY, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID. HIS POVERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS WERE A SHAM AND UNSUSTAINABLE. HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS DID NOT GENERATE THE REVENUES (for citizens and government) TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE UNLESS STROKING HIS FUCKING EGO IS A JUSTIFIABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. I remember his housing and school projects. There were so much kickbacks those buildings lasted only 2 years. The Philippines had one of the most advanced railway systems in Asia. His cronies looted it (AND GAVE HIM A CUT) by asking for bribes to load your cargo. My dad still remembers trains running nearly empty of cargo cause no one could afford the bribes.

Maybe you should also defend Adolf Hitler for reviving German nationalism and industry. What idiocy...

What you said was pretty stupid in that your statements imply that just because someone has one good factor like intelligence then he can be avaricious, nepotistic, and a megalomaniac. THE FACT IS HIS INTELLIGENCE ONLY MEANS HE MUST PUT UNDER MORE EXACTING STANDARDS THAN THE REST OF US. Is it that Filipino attitude of never mind being egotistical so long as you can back it up? Have you no values?

I have raised valid points Ilocano. In the spirit of seeking the truth, I suggest you answer them to defend your Marcos. Perhaps you'll convert me.

I think the Ilocano is unwilling to admit error or incapable of defending his position. Responsiblebum 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words!
This article is full of weasel words, particularly the section on his legacy. How about some citations? Who are his critics, supporters, apologists, detractors, etc.? This is a classic example of the problem of slipping in unattributed opinions.

Japanese ancestry
This article says Marcos is of Japanese ancestry. Is this ancestry enough to place him in the 'Japanese Filipino' category? Thanks Hmains 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First time I heard he had Japanese ancestry, but he looked Japanese alright.hmmmmm, maybe an illegitimate child of Donya Josefa and a Jap soldier. BTW, why do his biographies refer to his mom as Donya, she was just a teacher. ylangylang.67.38.22.120 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) - The Japanese can have him, for all I care.

Imelda wants Marcos corpse buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani. I've heard some people say that they wanted it to happen, so they could dig his corpse up and throw it into the stinking garbage which it deserves! ---

Now, now, the man is dead. Give it a rest.

Marcos paid Manuel Elizalde Jr. to fake the Tasaday as a ethnic group?
I am a newcomer, however, I think this statement needs a reference. When I went to the link on the Tasaday, it seemed to indicate that the "Tasaday Hoax", was itsself a hoax. The article alluded to cororate interests attempting to get the Tasaday declared a hoax so they could gain access to their land and it's natural resources. Where did the author get the information that "Marcos paid Manuel Elizalde Jr. to fake the Tasaday as a ethnic group?"

66.192.126.3 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Bear

"Mild streak" to his strongman's image ???
Torturing prisoners is not "mild streak". Burying them alive is not "mild streak." Imprisoning senators for years and years is not "mild streak". Rampant killing of the non-privileged is not "mild streak". I don't know what your definition of "mild streak" is.KaElin 02:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

'''The mild streak argument... I say BAH!'''

I'm reminded by the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. It has been argued there that the Ku Klux Klan lynched or killed very few of any other race. But the potential threat was there. They thought they would surely die if they did any opposing so people just behaved very submissively.

The same is true with Marcos. Fewer people were actually killed compared to Cory's and subsequent times. It wasn't because Marcos was less oppressive. It was precisely because Marcos was so oppressive thus people were so sure they'd be killed that they wouldn't do anything. Cory's time was different. People thought they had a chance of getting away with being in opposition or wouldn't get killed at all (they probably did) that they went all out in voicing opposition.

Responsiblebum 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Marcos was very good at shifting blame. He would easily point the finger on his lackeys like Fabian Ver, Enrile, etc. to account for disappearances and killings. Reminiscent of the Machiavelli's The Prince. WHAT he was incapable of controlling them!? That's such a stupid leap of logic don't you think? I mean he's suppose to be so smart and strong willed and all. You Marcos Loyalists give me a headache. I wouldn't be talking to you if you weren't poisoning other Filipinos with your ideas. Responsiblebum 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Corrupt President (?)
I'd love to punch this guy in the nose and flaten it out, his already Flat nose! i hate this stupid son of bitch!Most corrupt president ever!

---FROM KRONOS251 SEPT.2006 To the Reader: What you see above is very immature.

In Reality: The Philippines, as of to-day, is doomed perhaps beyond repair.

For once, Look beyond your pain.

Should we all blame EVERYTHING to Marcos?

The reason why there was a decline in the economy during the Eighties was because of the Iraq-Iran War (1981-1982). Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khumeini were holding the oil hostage against the world; and practically everybody, in nearly every country, be it communist or not, were suffering because of this type of strangulation.

So this can also be said a decade earlier, during the Israel-Palestinian War (1971-1972).

It was a tumultuous time back then. The Communists were in power, their height in the 1960’s, 1970’s; nearly half the world was in the grip of despair.

-China -Malaysia -Indonesia -Laos -Cambodia -Vietnam -Thailand -The African States -Latin America -Jordan -North Korea

… almost all, except the Philippines. Had Marcos not declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus, we would’ve gone the way of those countries mentioned. Communism is an elusive enemy. If you couldn’t remember how LBJ, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. lauded Marcos’ staunch stand against the Reds, perhaps you’d like to go here: www.presidency.ucsb.edu.

Being a respectable journalist that you are, go directly into the source. Look into their speeches that mention the former president. Scroll down directly under the First Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debate, and see how George Bush sympathizes about Marcos’ plight at the time, about how “his last combat mission (during WWII) was over Manila, and [he] knew that [Marcos] was fighting the imperialism down there.”

Reagan also remarked that, sadly, Marcos’ friends weren’t there when he needed them the most. The man, painted by the media as a butcher, had confused the United States and the entire world.

One may say that that’s a whole crock of nonsense, but how could 4 US presidents and the entire world be so sympathetic to Marcos during the 60’s and 70’s? How is it that the Philippines was second to Japan, as the most successful country in Asia?

The world media coverage over the latter years of Marcos were as rabid as its news coverage on the Vietnam War. Unjust, and omitting, to the point of mocking the idealistic cause of extinguishing the prevalent communist nihilism. Sensationalizing to buy newspapers, but not history however. The truth shall set the righteous free.

I am not stating that Marcos was infallible—of course not. Nobody is. In the first place, he should’ve relinquished the Office since his health was declining. (He only had one kidney; he lost the other due to a grenade blast in WWII). Caesar Virata, the Phil. PM at that time, was a great man to lead the Philippines due to years of experience at IMF, and later on at the ADB, as a consultant.

Graft and corruption was prevalent, yes. Nepotism, yes. The Romualdezes have a lot to answer for, that I agree. Perhaps that’s why Marcos told his wife, in the hearing of the rambunctious world press in the island of Hawaii, “It is all your fault.”

To be fair, Imelda made a better job of governing Manila than any who succeeded her. Nepotism is not so much of a problem, if a person really is doing their job.

Sadly you cannot say the same thing to-day.

Had Aquino not step in to take the reins, this country we had loved and fought for wouldn’t be in such a mess. Her “kitchen cabinet” tactics, and the removal of the US bases in the Philippines had sealed the country into its own isolated suicide.

We are now the laughing stock of Asia. Instead of Japan, we’re now second to Indonesia; next to Ghana when the welfare of education is concerned.

I have never, in my entire life, felt so depressed for my own country. Democracy here indeed is dead. Such reasons force 3 out of 4 Filipinos to flee the country, to find a good life someplace else.

I am sure you feel the same.

But we must move on. We MUST move on. We cannot dwell so much in the past. Not anymore. Otherwise, the only solution is Civil War, the rich vs. the poor; the middle class in the meanwhile at the sidelines, half-way round the world, seeking asylum in a country other than their own.

---Reply: I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE: but yes, the post above does not help

The threats of communism and oil prices were not sufficient factors for Marcos robbing the country as much as he did. It perhaps necessitated more extreme measures for security but let's look at South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan. All had authoritarian regimes yet are vibrant democracies now. Their presidents/dictators made sure that they were bulding a future for their country and not just enriching themselves.

There is a story in developmental economics of how the South Korean dictator/general during the cold war would wake up early in the morning to study economics taught by MIT professors (I can't remember korean names). Marcos had nothing like that. He wasn't stupid nor was he infalliable but god damn he was a greedy corrupt son of a bitch. And that's all we're hanging him for.

Imelda better at governing Manila? Well if you had the power to evict people without due process etc. etc. it's friggin easy. Problem was the number of poor and people who couldn't afford her projects (heart center, kidney center, lung center, etc.) just kept on increasing. Imelda had to start building walls to cover the "eyesores" she called squatters. You can build a really nice house but if you can't sustain it's operations, so what?

I like that thing about Marcos telling Imelda it was her fault. What? Is that suppose to make us soften our stance to him? Was he too stupid not to stop her earlier? Or was he too trusting with his close associates that he'd sacrifice the welfare of the Filipino people? Highly doubtful. Either way he should be hanged for it. A president has no business being president if he's this weak.

As for Reagan's comment, what the hell?! the guy's an actor. He wouldn't know anything about the social and economic situation of the Philippines. All his speeches and ideas were fed to him by his advisors and party. Reaganomics was cooked up by academics and Reagan personally got a (helluva) lot of the ideas wrong. His support of Marcos centered on America's interest in the Philippines not going communist. That's all he and the USA cared about. The USA couldn't care less about the human rights of non-Americans (Guantanamo Bay, Palestinians, Georgians, Possibly the Subic Rape Case, etc. anyone?) unless it's in their interest.

And what's this about moving on? Of course we have to move on but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the immorality and criminality of Marcos' regime. Yes we MUST move on but we also MUST REMEMBER and ACKNOWLEDGE the evil that was Marcos. To forgive him or not see the problem is to invite the disaster all over again. Responsiblebum 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My Thoughts It used to be that I was so proud of my country. During Marcos's time, we had a sense of belonging to one dignified race, able to take on the challenge of the world knowing we, as a nation, are as good as anybody.

My nationalism is at a point where leaving the country is unthinkable. People from all over the world come to visit and marvel at all the wonderful things that we built, others decide to come and live permanently and fulfill their hopes and dreams for their families.

"If they are coming over, why would I leave?", I tell myself.

Now, I felt sad leaving my country, but like everybody else, "survival" takes priority. Just go to a common carinderia and ask anybody if they'd want to leave the country. I honestly think that 3 out of 4 is an understatement, it's more like 9 out of 10, given the opportunity.

Blame Marcos all you want, the fact that this debate rages on until today is proof enough that people believe we are better off during those times than the sordid story that we are in today--20 years later.

--- RasterBlaster 143.101.232.90 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MY REPLY Read some comments above about The Worst Thing to Happen to the Philippines. It is argued that what Marcos did before resulted in most (not all) of our current pain. If Marcos was sooo good how come we're in such dire straits now? When other countries had bad democratically elected leaders, their country didn't sink immediately after the departure of that awful leader. How much more if Marcos was a good leader? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS WERE STILL FUNCTIONING. THEY WEREN'T FILLED WITH CRONIES BEHOLDEN TO A BAD LEADER THAT COULD DIE AND LEAVE. Frankly, life BEFORE Marcos was already relatively good, orderly, and peaceful. He didn't make such a thing happen. He was good at making the Philippines look good BUT IT WAS UNSUSTAINABLE. All his megaprojects weren't making enough money to sustain themselves. He ran the country's best firms to the ground. Sure they were oligarchs before but at least they made money and provided good service. Again read the above comments.

Do you bribing the police and politicians came from Cory? hell no, Marcos took that and raised it to new heights of larceny. But he controlled it. Problem was, he made sure he was the only one who could control it. When he left all hell broke loose. Philippines before Marcos relied on democratic institutions to administer justice, order, law etc. Marcos broke it so everything depended on him.

It seems I have to make the point of sustainability clearer: To praise Marcos is like praising a family man for buying a BMW or a mansion (megaprojects) on a loan (WB & IMF) when he makes can barely make payments (Philippine economic strength). Sure we can be wowed he has such a thing (Marcos loyalists). Especially when he hides the fact he won't be able to pay for it in the long run (Marcos propaganda). Whatever savings he makes from commuting is eaten up by just maintaining the vehicle (megaprojects and supposed economic benefits). Worsening the sitaution is the man's impaired ability to work (wholesale destruction of the country's institutions thus impairing economic efficiency). And the family (Filipino people) suffers but they get to enjoy the BMW & mansion for awhile (Hollow Filipino pride at the time). The suffering lasts perhaps for generations to come if debts were inheritable but in the case of a country it is.

The debate rages because Marcos was so good at hiding the truly dire situtation he was putting the country in as well as the existence of short-sighted people. Responsiblebum 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, blame him all you want, blame him for every bad thing that is happening today, but that fact that this debate still rages AFTER 20 YEARS is proof enough. Calling people "short-sighted" (for one) is a pretty good excuse to justify our situation today. --- RasterBlaster 143.101.239.35 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

'''You didn't raise any valid points or argued against my claims. I already argued against your premise as to why we still debate about Marcos' times. Plus you got something wrong''' You don't think I raised valid points as to how Marcos contributed to the Philippines current situation? You think my arguments were untrue? Did you even read the piece on the above? I said a lot of what we're experiencing is a result of his plundering and destruction of intstitutions BUT NOT ALL! Cory and her likes deserve some blame. Even Ramos, Estrada (especially), and Arroyo.

I didn't just blame him RasterBlaster. I argued how he did it. I say people are short-sighted because it seems that all it takes to impress most people are strong currencies (THE PESO STARTED DEPRECIATING BECAUSE OF HIM, HE TRIED TO DELAY IT WHICH BUILT EVEN MORE PRESSURE RESULTING IN A LARGE DEVALUATION DURING CORY'S TIME), low inflation, employment, schools, etc. BUT WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ASK IS IT SUSTAINABLE. YOU DON'T! Marcos borrowed from the future to make those megaprojects. The least you can do is prove all in all his policies and projects were in fact sustainable (i.e. gave a net positive return on investment which no economist will tell you considering the INSTITUTIONAL ROT he did).

THE DEBATE STILL RAGES 20 YEARS ON BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LOOK AT THE ROT MARCOS CAUSED IN OUR INTITUTIONS AND ECONOMY. THEY ONLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. THEY DON'T SEE THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARCOS' ACTS DID WOULD COME YEARS AFTER THE FACT. HENCE SHORT-SIGHTED!!! IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE. Did you not notice the economy started to unravel during his final years as president?

Just look at out foreign debt, white elephant projects, over-politicized army, bribable judiciary and police force etc. They weren't there when Marcos became president. These were there because Marcos installed his cronies and goons there. He made himself the law rather than institutions. When he left it crumbled. AND CORY WAS TOO MUCH OF A CORRUPT PIECE OF CHICKENSHIT TO FULLY RESTORE OUR INSTITUTIONS. Then again, she wouldn't have been president if it wasn't for Marcos

I'm not singling out Marcos loyalists as the only short-sighted people. It's common in most societies, especially (but not entirely) uneducated ones. But then it becomes relative.

Responsiblebum 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm WAITING for a rebuttal RasterBlaster. Or are all Marcos loyalists' arguments based on emotions rather than simple logic? You say this and that but you never ask why it is this and that. Responsiblebum 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything you've said, I've heard before, so has everybody else. Since this is a discussion page, I cannot expect you to substantiate your "arguments".  "The peso started depreciating because of him...", "Economy started to unravel during his final years...", "Marcos installed his cronies...", "Good at hiding the truly dire situation...", "All Marcos loyalists' arguments  based on emotion...".  I could argue with you that these things was NEVER caused by Marcos, but that's not the whole truth... so is yours. And FYI, I'm not a loyalist, I'm just an observant.  RasterBlaster 143.101.239.14 00:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

...

-FROM KRONOS251 DEC.11,2006 Responsible Bum,

FIRST OFF, NO SWEARING. AS YOU SAY ON YOUR PROFILE, YOU'RE AN ECONOMIST. BEHAVE LIKE IT.

I'm sure you have the capacity to say what you mean CIVILLY, without sounding like a foul-mouthed jerk, and I'm doubly sure that the Administrators of this website will not smile on words like "god damn" or "shit" or "bitch".

1. Quote: I'm not singling out Marcos loyalists as the only short-sighted people. It's common in most societies, especially (but not entirely) uneducated ones. But then it becomes relative.

Do you mean, societies being not fully matured? Immature societies often miss great leaders even if it hit them with a 2 by 4. Take for example, Abraham Lincoln, who declared martial law before the Civil War (1861). He was despised so much for his strongarm rule, he was assassinated for it. Only after some 20 years does his country realize that what a great leader he became. That is what is happening today in the Philippines. Those who were old enough to see Laurel, Magsaysay, Quirino, Garcia, Macapagal Sr., Marcos, to Aquino, Ramos, Estrada and then Arroyo, can only understand what Marcos had done to the Philippines.

You have to be completely unbiased. Without any rancor in your heart. You practically want to sentence the Marcoses to hell, assuming you have the right information; Information from books, whose authors you are not entirely sure if they were paid to sensationalize just to make profit.

I am nearly 58 years old, a Fil-Am, I do not need a book, or visit another messageboard to educate myself. I remember, back in '71, it only takes P 5.00 (five pesos) to go from Rizal Ave. to Pampanga via Philippine Rabbit. P 11.00 at 1985. Dirt roads gave way to concrete roads and highways, Streets were cleaner, people were actually following traffic regulations; the foreign exchange rate was P 4.00 to $ 1. Yes, there were squatters, but they were not as deplorable and as many as they are today. Corruption was almost minimal, but there was still.

2. Quote:I didn't just blame him RasterBlaster. I argued how he did it. I say people are short-sighted because it seems that all it takes to impress most people are strong currencies (THE PESO STARTED DEPRECIATING BECAUSE OF HIM, HE TRIED TO DELAY IT WHICH BUILT EVEN MORE PRESSURE RESULTING IN A LARGE DEVALUATION DURING CORY'S TIME), low inflation, employment, schools, etc. BUT WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ASK IS IT SUSTAINABLE. YOU DON'T! Marcos borrowed from the future to make those megaprojects. The least you can do is prove all in all his policies and projects were in fact sustainable (i.e. gave a net positive return on investment which no economist will tell you considering the INSTITUTIONAL ROT he did).

My friend, you are hyperventilating. There's no need to go rabid on another person who is willing to make an opinion. That is probably why RasterBlaster felt tired of answering the same questions you pose. We may seem like Marcos-loyalists, but we are not. We are more than willing to see things for what they are now, as you do too (even though you want to bite our heads off). And we do so calmly, and rationally, to point out the Truth.

Economics is NEVER sustainable, because it will always depend on politics. And politics has as many vicissitudes as the society itself. It is a never-ending process; that's why it is imperative for constant maintenance. "Asking for economics to be sustainable" displays too much idealism, and not enough practicality. Economic policies and sustaining them is not a simple thing to do, and cannot be compared to a simple analogy of a man buying a car and couldn't pay the debts.

3. Quote:... but let's look at South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan. All had authoritarian regimes yet are vibrant democracies now. Their presidents/dictators made sure that they were bulding a future for their country and not just enriching themselves.

Exactly! Their people had enough sense to KEEP those dictators in office in order to have "economic sustainability." And what did the Filipino people do? They were swayed by the media to overthrow their own dictator, and promise to lynch him again in twenty years! Even when he's dead!

Now, why is it that the commoner is "so impressed" by "strong currencies" and so on.? Because the commoner appreciates the fact, that what he had worked for will be given in return, especially in a Democratic Society he belongs to...

... Which brings the discussion to this:

4. Quote: The threats of communism and oil prices were not sufficient factors for Marcos robbing the country as much as he did. It perhaps necessitated more extreme measures for security but let's look at South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan.

Democratic Republic of South Korea (DRSK), Taiwan (back then there was no Taiwan; only Red China), and Thailand (besieged by Laos/Myanmar/Vietnamese Communists) had economies practically closed to the global stock market. Their economies were in the doldrums. DRSK, Taiwan, and Thailand--and even Singapore and Hong Kong--were ambivalent to trade with; in the first place, investors are more comfortable with a free, Democratic Society. Japan, back in the eighties, still had the imperial stigma of World War II, however with the help of the Marshall Plan for over 40 years, it had become and is still the leading economy in the Asian continent, the second in the world.

That being given, those countries cannot be compared to the unique situation in the Philippines.

As I've said before, Communism is an elusive enemy. Had Marcos not declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus, we would've gone the way as half the world's continents did.

Communism is reached through poor socio-economic divisions, wherein the Lenin and Marx philosophy counts heavily on the lack of faith in a democratic government. To hand down all rights, possessions of the people (bourgeoisie) to one elitist group, is the goal, so as to free men of any responsibility; to free men of any cause of war, in order to have peace. That is the communist goal. It is good on paper, yet not applicable in real life. Democracy encourages open trade policy: "You keep what you earn; Reap what you sow; A good day ends with a hard day's work."

That is why the common Filipino was and is continually impressed by statistical reports, and not just another book, newspaper, or magazine article in publication. They do not need the opinion of a reporter, biased or not, because they practically see the results everyday--the price of oil, rice, meat, the sanitation and maintenance of the roads they travel on, all having to do with good economics. Because frankly, people are not interested on politics that is too emotionally convoluted. In fact, they'll go as far as despising the situation in which others could not get past the year, "1986". Life is hard enough to support a family, and when a politician actually does his job--in this case, they say Marcos had done his job after all--they start to appreciate those statistical reports, and the tangibility of its implementation it ensued.

5. Quote: There is a story in developmental economics of how the South Korean dictator/general during the cold war would wake up early in the morning to study economics taught by MIT professors (I can't remember korean names). Marcos had nothing like that.

True, but why do you emphasize so much on a university degree? What is it with the mentality that once you have this title or that position, you are impervious to mistakes? Take the current Fed reserve chairman Bernanke for example: He either has a degree on MIT and/or was teaching at Stanford and Princeton. Look what he had done to the construction sector, through raising the interest rates to 5.25% back in October. Housing is down in the States. His reasons were "to decrease the inflation for future generations." Now how could he do that in expense of the present? And I recall watching his induction live on Bloomberg, listening to his long, impressive resumé being read. At first, it was overwhelming, but what about WORKING experience? Has he ever spent time with the IMF or the World Bank? Has he taken to himself to see the ordinary labor force and experience how it is to earn a buck? No, he'll just be another pencil pusher, who'll try to feel his way while the limelight is on him.

Book wisdom is one thing; practical wisdom is another. Marcos had both. If you try to read the books HE had written, aside from those that were written ABOUT him, then you'll see the clearer picture, and you yourself can be the judge since you'll have the advantage of hearing it DIRECTLY from the horse's mouth.

6. Quote: I like that thing about Marcos telling Imelda it was her fault.

"Likes" or "dislikes" deters the common objective of being neutral.

7. Quote: ... What? Is that suppose to make us soften our stance to him? Was he too stupid not to stop her earlier?

"Likes" or "dislikes" or calling others "stupid" deters the common objective of being neutral.

8. Quote: Or was he too trusting with his close associates that he'd sacrifice the welfare of the Filipino people? Highly doubtful. ... A president has no business being president if he's this weak.

Read my post that was written earlier, this time, calmly.

It was a situation of Catch-22. How could a man who was too ill, having to be connected to a kidney dialysis every afternoon, listen to reports by those who were going to turn tail on him (ie. his cousin Ramos, Enrile, De Venecia, practically everybody)? And he knew very well that they were going to do so. It's just that he had put so much responsibility on himself, that he didn't count on dying. Too soon, anyway. And that is the one conceding fact, that he should've relinquished office to Virata, whose international working experience was renowned in the IMF, and ADB (HQ in Pasig) as a consultant.

9. Quote: Either way he should be hanged for it.

It is physically impossible to hang someone who has been dead for over 15 years.

10. Quote: As for Reagan's comment, what the hell?! the guy's an actor. He wouldn't know anything about the social and economic situation of the Philippines.

That argument is weak and hackneyed, and was used constantly by the Soviet Union. Do you remember what had happened when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev... Tear down this wall." You think a plain actor can dismantle the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republic? 11. Quote: All his speeches and ideas were fed to him by his advisors and party. Reaganomics was cooked up by academics and Reagan personally got a (helluva) lot of the ideas wrong.

And yet he is being lauded by both Democrats and Republicans for his call for lower taxes, his choices for economic advisers like Milton Friedman, Paul Volcker, and the more distinguished Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1988) prior to Bernanke.

It was true that Reagan was being made fun of for being a raw recruit, even scorned within his own political party back then (GHWB, "Voodoo Economics", etc.). But then again, political campaigns and reelections nearly always have the knack of making others a polemic.

Time (say, 20 years) has an ingenious way of clearing the air.

12. Quote: His support of Marcos centered on America's interest in the Philippines not going communist. That's all he and the USA cared about. The USA couldn't care less about the human rights of non-Americans (Guantanamo Bay, Palestinians, Georgians, Possibly the Subic Rape Case, etc. anyone?) unless it's in their interest.

Do I hear "bias" in there somewhere? Why are you so anti-American? What about the Sudan agreement, the economic trade bill in Vietnam, etc. Only 60 years on do you ignore the fact that our fathers or grandfathers have fought side by side and died in this land we love. WWII, the ready installment of an open Democracy (1946), the demise of the USSR (1990), Japanese imperialism (1945), Nazi Germany (1944), the independent state of Israel (1949) after being denied their piece of land for literally ages; Closer to home, the Bataan Death March (wherein 150,000 Filipinos and Americans marched with no food, no water or rest from Tarlac to Cavite under the conditions of scorching heat, or if a low-ranking Japanese soldier would chop your head with their samurai sword under the misguided notion of seppuku and hara-kiri.) And yet you say that the US cares for none on the welfare of the world.

The US makes mistakes, I concede to the fact, especially the foreign bureaucrats--politicians wanting to lend a hand in the economy of SE Asia (George Soros and his involvement in the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98)--and the US Senate Commision that was sent to overview the 1986 Philippine elections (Phil Habib, Richard Lugar, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc.), and Sen. Lugar, notably had a grudge against Marcos. However, does that completely undermine the stature of US credibility?

Let's face one fact that had stood since 1945-present: If the US is such a horrible place to deal with, then how come so many people migrated and continually want to migrate to their shores?

As for moving on, if we are unable to stop discussing a 20-year-old topic, and continually blame someone for our own mistakes, then what kind of future are we going to make for this country?

None. nothing. No future. Talagang hindi na uunlad itong bansa.