I would like to express my most sincere sympathies, condolence, and solidarity to the great loss, devastation, and suffering that befell Japan following Friday’s magnitude 8.9 earthquake and ensuing tsunami that struck several northeastern Japanese prefectures. As I’m writing this article, CCTV News (China) reported that there have been about 1,000 deaths, 10,000 people missing in six prefectures, 190 people exposed to radioactive materials following the meltdown of nuclear power plants, and millions of people displaced and affected. I never thought that I would see again in my lifetime such an enormous wrath of nature would hit Japan since the terrifying 1995 Kobe earthquake which claimed 6,434 lives.
The international community is in solidarity with the unprecedented natural disaster that struck Japan. Several government leaders from the European Union, United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, China, and the Philippines have expressed that Japan is not alone in its national grief. The Japanese government who has a record of deferring foreign aid in times of natural disasters just like in the case of the 1995 Kobe earthquake have for the first time allowed foreign assistance especially from China.
Amid the great grief hovering over Japan, I thank God there were no reported Filipino and Chinese casualties or injuries. I’m relieved as well to know that my Japanese friends and their families living in Japan were not affected. My Japanese friend from Yokosuka told me that though her prefecture was not badly hit by the earthquake and tsunami they felt strong tremors and that their electric and telephone lines were cut.
May the people and government of Japan and its people recover soon from the enormous damage, loss, and suffering the Sendai earthquake and tsunami have inflicted upon them. May God forbid that the Big One would hit China again just like what happened in Wenchuan in 2008. May God spare the Philippines from the Big One even as Japanese scientists have concluded several years ago that Metro Manila is sitting in one of the world’s most volatile seismic fault lines.
The 3rd Chinese View on Aquino & the Philippines
Because of the strong affinity Singapore has with both China (PROC) and Taiwan (ROC) many diplomats have dubbed the tiny yet prosperous Southeast Asian country as the “third Chinese state” and just like China and Taiwan, Singapore has a rich relationship with the Philippines ranging from people-to-people interaction, sports and education, commerce and trade, and formal diplomatic ties. Singapore is currently the 10th largest trading partner and a major export market of of the Philippines.
Last year Singapore and the Philippines marked its 40th year of diplomatic relations. To commemorate the anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries, both governments released a set of collector’s item post stamps featuring significant bridges in Singapore and the Philippines. The theme, ‘Bridges’ was chosen to signify the strong, multi-faceted ties between both countries.
For old generation Singaporeans, their first impression with Filipinos was quiet impressive. In 1960’s Filipino professionals who are mostly American-educated would usually go to Singapore to impart to Singaporeans corporate best practices and management. In 1980’s up until late 1990’s the image of Filipinos in Singapore has dramatically shifted from the brown-skinned English speaking professionals to the naïve-looking domestic helpers. The sensational case of Flor Contemplacion in 1995 has cemented the image of Filipinos in Singapore in the 90’s era as nannies. These past several years, the image of Filipinos in Singapore has changed again. Now, Filipinos in Singapore are not merely known as domestic helpers but professionals, corporate managers, teachers, and engineers who have helped tremendously in propelling the economy of the city-state.
Last week, Philippine President Benigno Aquino II visited Singapore to further the diplomatic and economic ties between the two countries and surprise of all surprises the Philippine president had encountered an unexpected even on his first day in Singapore that would impress upon the Singaporean people what kind of attitude the Philippine leader has. Ben Nadarajan of the Singapore-based Straits Times wrote:
“PHILIPPINE President Benigno Aquino had an eventful first day in Singapore – having to climb 20 flights of stairs after a lift broke down. His first stop after arriving from Jakarta was the Changi Water Reclamation Plant in Tanah Merah. The 51-year-old was shown the facility by senior executives of national water agency PUB, and was accompanied by members of his delegation as well as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Swee Say.
The tour included going 60m underground to view some used-water pumps. But as the group prepared to head back up, the only lift broke down – the first time this has happened since the plant opened more than two years ago. Technicians scurried to get it working again but after 20 minutes, Mr Aquino removed his jacket, loosened his tie and took to the stairs. Accompanied by Mr Lim, he remained in good spirits, taking short breaks along the way. An aide said Mr Aquino had a slight cough.
Members of his delegation helped keep the mood buoyant, with one Cabinet secretary quipping: ‘We’re okay, Mr President, we’ll follow you anywhere you go.’ Reaching the top after a 10-minute climb, Mr Aquino was given a towel and some water, along with apologies from Mr Lim and PUB executives. His reply: ‘No problem at all.'”
I’ve read from Singaporean dailies that many Singaporeans were impressed by the humility shown by the Philippine president. A Chinese whom I’ve spoken with said “The Philippine president showed greatness by showing humility”. Online forum members of the Singapore-based Channel News Asia have made the following reactions following the embarrassing incident: “I think this shows very well on President Aquino.”, “By climbing the stairs, Philipines President has proven himself to be faster, better and cheaper than our president and ministers”, “As an as apology, Singapore must offer 5,000 more jobs to Pinoys”, “Why did they have to report it in the front page? It’s not very flattering for the host to have to make the guest do this.”, “Better make sure there is no power black out during the State Dinner tonight.”, “This was embarrassing and a disgrace! It would open up to all sorts of speculation back in Philippines.”, “A classic “third world” incident in what we call as a “first world” country.”, “If MM Lee Kwan Yew is trapped below, I am sure they will carry him up”, “All I can say is that it is fortunate that LKY was not in the helm now, otherwise heads will roll”
Speaking of Singaporean’s impression on President Aquino, Former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew on his memoir “From Third World to First” has made a penetrating insight on the Philippines- its presidents, culture, and political system. For my reader’s pleasure, below is the complete text of Lee Kwan Yew’s view on the Philippines.
“The Philippines was a world apart from us, running a different style of politics and government under an American military umbrella. It was not until January 1974 that I visited President Marcos in Manila. When my Singapore Airlines plane flew into Philippine airspace, a small squadron of Philippine Air Force jet fighters escorted it to Manila Airport. There Marcos received me in great style – the Filipino way. I was put up at the guest wing of Malacañang Palace in lavishly furnished rooms, valuable objects of art bought in Europe strewn all over. Our hosts were gracious, extravagant in hospitality, flamboyant. Over a thousand miles of water separated us. There was no friction and little trade. We played golf, talked about the future of ASEAN, and promised to keep in touch.
His foreign minister, Carlos P. Romulo, was a small man of about five feet some 20 years my senior, with a ready wit and a self-deprecating manner about his size and other limitations. Romulo had a good sense of humor, an eloquent tongue, and a sharp pen, and was an excellent dinner companion because he was a wonderful raconteur, with a vast repertoire of anecdotes and witticisms. He did not hide his great admiration for the Americans. One of his favourite stories was about his return to the Philippines with General MacArthur. As MacArthur waded ashore at Leyte, the water reached his knees but came up to Romulo’s chest and he had to swim ashore. His good standing with ASEAN leaders and with Americans increased the prestige of the Marcos administration. Marcos had in Romulo a man of honor and integrity who helped give a gloss of respectability to his regime as it fell into disrepute in the 1980s.
In Bali in 1976, at the first ASEAN summit held after the fall of Saigon, I found Marcos keen to push for greater economic cooperation in ASEAN. But we could not go faster than the others. To set the pace, Marcos and I agreed to implement a bilateral Philippines-Singapore across-the-board 10 percent reduction of existing tariffs on all products and to promote intra-ASEAN trade. We also agreed to lay a Philippines-Singapore submarine cable. I was to discover that for him, the communiqué was the accomplishment itself; its implementation was secondary, an extra to be discussed at another conference.
We met every two to three years. He once took me on a tour of his library at Malacañang, its shelves filled with bound volumes of newspapers reporting his activities over the years since he first stood for elections. There were encyclopedia-size volumes on the history and culture of the Philippines with his name as the author. His campaign medals as an anti-Japanese guerrilla leader were displayed in glass cupboards. He was the undisputed boss of all Filipinos. Imelda, his wife, had a penchant for luxury and opulence. When they visited Singapore before the Bali summit they came in stye in two DC8’s, his and hers.
Marcos did not consider China a threat for the immediate future, unlike Japan. He did not rule out the possibility of an aggressive Japan, if circumstances changed. He had memories of the horrors the Imperial Army had inflicted on Manila. We had strongly divergent views on the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia. While he, pro forma, condemned the Vietnamese occupation, he did not consider it a danger to the Philippines. There was the South China Sea separating them and the American navy guaranteed their security. As a result, Marcos was not active on the Cambodian question. Moreover, he was to become preoccupied with the deteriorating security in his country.
Marcos, ruling under martial law, had detained opposition leader Benigno (Ninoy) Aquino, reputed to be as charismatic and powerful a campaigner as he was. He freed Aquino and allowed him to go to the United States. As the economic situation in the Philippines deteriorated, Aquino announced his decision to return. Mrs. Marcos issued several veiled warnings. When the plane arrived at Manila Airport from Taipei in August 1983, he was shot as he descended from the aircraft. A whole posse of foreign correspondents with television camera crews accompanying him on the aircraft was not enough protection.
International outrage over the killing resulted in foreign banks stopping all loans to the Philippines, which owed over US$25 billion and could not pay the interest due. This brought Marcos to the crunch. He sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300-500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, “We will never see that money back.” Moreover, I added, everyone knew that Marcos was seriously ill and under constant medication for a wasting disease. What was needed was a strong, healthy leader, not more loans.
Shortly afterward, in February 1984, Marcos met me in Brunei at the sultanate’s independence celebrations. He had undergone a dramatic physical change. Although less puffy than he had appeared on television, his complexion was dark as if he had been out in the sun. He was breathing hard as he spoke, his voice was soft, eyes bleary, and hair thinning. He looked most unhealthy. An ambulance with all the necessary equipment and a team of Filipino doctors were on standby outside his guest bungalow. Marcos spent much of the time giving me a most improbable story of how Aquino had been shot.
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.
The denouement came in February 1986 when Marcos held presidential elections which he claimed he won. Cory Aquino, the opposition candidate, disputed this and launched a civil disobedience campaign. Defense Minister Juan Enrile defected and admitted election fraud had taken place, and the head of the Philippine constabulary, Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos, joined him. A massive show of “people power” in the streets of Manila led to a spectacular overthrow of a dictatorship. The final indignity was on 25 February 1986, when Marcos and his wife fled in U.S. Air Force helicopters from Malacañang Palace to Clark Air Base and were flown to Hawaii. This Hollywood-style melodrama could only have happened in the Philippines.
Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who wanted to do her best for her country by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, “We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution.” Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems before Marcos? Apparently none.
Endless attempted coups added to Mrs. Aquino’s problems. The army and the constabulary had been politicized. Before the ASEAN summit in December 1987, a coup was threatened. Without President Suharto’s firm support the summit would have been postponed and confidence in Aquino’s government undermined. The Philippine government agreed that the responsibility for security should be shared between them and the other ASEAN governments, in particular the Indonesian government. General Benny Moerdani, President Suharto’s trusted aide, took charge. He positioned an Indonesian warship in the middle of Manila Bay with helicopters and a commando team ready to rescue the ASEAN heads of government if there should be a coup attempt during the summit. I was included in their rescue plans. I wondered if such a rescue could work but decided to go along with the arrangements, hoping that the show of force would scare off the coup leaders. We were all confined to the Philippine Plaza Hotel by the seafront facing Manila Bay where we could see the Indonesian warship at anchor. The hotel was completely sealed off and guarded. The summit went off without any mishap. We all hoped that this show of united support for Mrs. Aquino’s government at a time when there were many attempts to destabilize it would calm the situation.
It made no difference. There were more coup attempts, discouraging investments badly needed to create jobs. This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed, because America had been generous in rehabilitating the country after the war. Something was missing, a gel to hold society together. The people at the top, the elite mestizos, had the same detached attitude to the native peasants as the mestizos in their haciendas in Latin America had toward their peons. They were two different societies: Those at the top lived a life of extreme luxury and comfort while the peasants scraped a living, and in the Philippines it was a hard living. They had no land but worked on sugar and coconut plantations. They had many children because the church discouraged birth control. The result was increasing poverty.
It was obvious that the Philippines would never take off unless there was substantial aid from the United States. George Shultz, the secretary of state, was sympathetic and wanted to help but made clear to me that the United States would be better able to do something if ASEAN showed support by making its contribution. The United States was reluctant to go it alone and adopt the Philippines as its special problem. Shultz wanted ASEAN to play a more prominent role to make it easier for the president to get the necessary votes in Congress. I persuaded Shultz to get the aid project off the ground in 1988, before President Reagan’s second term of office ended. He did. There were two meetings for a Multilateral Assistance Initiative (Philippines Assistance Programme): The first in Tokyo in 1989 brought US$3.5 billion in pledges, and the second in Hong Kong in 1991, under the Bush administration, yielded US$14 billion in pledges. But instability in the Philippines did not abate. This made donors hesitant and delayed the implementation of projects.
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 Philippine 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 that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. . Publicly, 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.
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 thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of the American constitution.
The difference lies in the culture of the Filipino people. It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over 20 years, still be considered for a national burial. Insignificant amounts of the loot have been recovered, yet his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics. They supported the winning presidential and congressional candidates with their considerable resources and reappeared in the political and social limelight after the 1998 election that returned President Joseph Estrada. General Fabian Ver, Marcos’s commander-in-chief who had been in charge of security when Aquino was assassinated, had fled the Philippines together with Marcos in 1986. When he died in Bangkok, the Estrada government gave the general military honors at his burial. One Filipino newspaper, Today, wrote on 22 November 1998, “Ver, Marcos and the rest of the official family plunged the country into two decades of lies, torture, and plunder. Over the next decade, Marcos’s cronies and immediate family would tiptoe back into the country, one by one – always to the public’s revulsion and disgust, though they showed that there was nothing that hidden money and thick hides could not withstand.” Some Filipinos write and speak with passion. If they could get their elite to share their sentiments and act, what could they not have achieved?”