Why presidents fail

The problem with getting derailed is that it takes a superhuman effort to get back on track. The result is a post more kilometric than usual.

I have a bone to pick with those who argue that the presidential system has gotten us nowhere. This is the kind of victim mentality whining, for example, that attempts to acquit the majority of the sins of the minority, by sidestepping the culpability of the majority in what the minority has done. It’s the same kind of mentality that blames the United States and colonialism for the shortcomings of Philippine society, or, put another way, thinks that by blaming the United States, the majority can be kept pure and untainted. A simple explanation seems logical, but of course it’s unpleasant: what if, either the United States is less capable of influencing our affairs, or, we are better at manipulating the United States than either Filipinos or Americans would like to think? You then have the specter of a Philippines with Filipinos who like America, want to wheel and deal with America, and most of all, deal with America in order to get what they want, which more often than not is not what America would want? There lies the complexity of real life.

Anyway, with regards to the presidency: to have had it as an institution for much of the past century, requires not just dictation by the ruling class, but the collaboration of the led. It is a reflection of certain realities in our communal way of thinking, which involves the selection of a communal leader, and expectations that the role of a leader in a political setup is to mediate between the many and the few. You will find this in the social background of many, if not most, of our past presidents, who reflect origins from the periphery, but whose achievements or professional reputation indicates the ability to master the social complexities of dealing with the ruling and professional classes. The argument that they have achieved nothing ignores the status of the country as second only to Japan in the early 1960s: the breakdown of the system of regularly selecting and changing leaders, of keeping social mobility going, is what what wrecked the country. The man who wrecked the system, of course, was Ferdinand Marcos and he wrecked the system with the enthusiastic support of those upon whom the system relied to continue functioning. I have tackled this in two essays for PCIJ, Elections are Like Water and Circle to Circle.

The Presidency as an institution is dysfunctional because the professional politicians have been unable to keep up with a fundamental requirement of politics -communication. Losing out in the communications game, they want to change the game altogether. This ignores the reality that the public is both accustomed to the game, and likes to play it.

Most of all, the central assumption that the presidential system is leading to bad leadership has as its central assumption, that the public is no longer capable (if it ever was, in the minds of such critics) of selecting sensible leaders.

To select a sensible leader requires some things, foremost of which are: clear alternatives, and limited choices, a sense of self-restraint among those presenting themselves as alternatives.

Let’s look at the so-called bad choices of the past national elections, since the 1987 Constitution demolished institutional controls that served to limit the electorate’s choice to (usually) two main contenders. The bad choices are usually limited to two, Joseph Estrada and Fernando Poe, Jr. I’d say, they were three: Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and Fernando Poe, Jr. Once again, let’s examine the results of past presidential elections.

From 1935 to 1969, all presidents achieved majority victories, with one exception (Carlos P. Garcia in 1957), and several elections resulted in “landslide” victories that served, for a time at least, to send the signal of a definitive repudiation of those who failed to achieve either election or reelection. Quezon’s landslides in 1935 and 1941, for example, served to provide his administration with an unquestionable mandate during two crucial periods, the institutionalization of autonomy prior to independence, and on the eve of war; Magsaysay’s landslide in 1953 signaled a generational shift, and the birth of a new era of populism; Marcos’s 1969 landslide signaled that his ruthless methods were acceptable to the public, at a time when the system seemed increasingly incapable of withstanding outside challenges. Thus you also had the most influential, and domineering, administrations in our political history. Each one played the mediator card: they would be the court of final appeal, the supreme arbiter, the ones who could intimidate the elite, and speak for the electorate. Garcia, as the lone plurality, and not majority, president of the era, could at least point to his leadership over the Nacionalista Party at a time when Magsaysay had already put the mechanisms to destroy party influence in place. His plurality was still equal to his two leading opponents, Jose Yulo and Manuel Manahan, combined.

Since the 1987 Constitution went into effect, which instituted a multiparty system without runoff elections to guarantee a majority victory for a president, the presidency has had to hobble along without a proper electoral foundation for every president eventually elected. In fact, the elections prove that the failed presidents of recent years have been overwhelmingly not the choice of the majority of voters. Let’s just use the official figures, regardless of allegations of fraud:

1992: Fidel Ramos, 23.6%. An astounding 71.4% of voters voted against him; indeed, the unrecognized “close call” of that election is that had Eduardo Cojuangco (18.2%) and Imelda Marcos (10.3%) combined forces, they would have achieved victory (28.5%), since no other combination seemed likely. As I’ve said, Ramos’s gift was the self-assurance that comes from long experience in handling, and commanding, men, so that having won, he acted like a winner and had the skills to get others to follow him. But the people never, ever, loved him.

1998: Joseph Estrada, 39.6%. An overwhelming 60.4% of voters rejected him; like Garcia in 1957, his votes (almost 11 million) dwarfed that of his 4 leading opponents (de Venecia, Roco, Lito Osmena, and Alfredo Lim). The last candidate to obtain a comparable number was Cory Aquino (or Marcos), most significantly, Estrada’s opponents all appealed, more or less, to the same constituency. It isn’t the fault of that constituency that its leadership was incapable of self-restraint, in figuring out a leader they could all unite behind to defeat Estrada. Cojuangco and Imelda pointed to the enduring ability of the Marcos KBL machinery to deliver. It delivered for Estrada this time around. But 1992 and 1998 were it’s last hurrah, as the Marcos machinery is dying off, and getting fragmented.

2004: Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, 40%. An undeniable majority of 60% voted against her; Fernando Poe, Jr. got even more votes than Estrada, while Lacson, Roco and Villanueva denied Arroyo a landslide (presuming those that voted for them would never have voted for Poe). At the time, I suggested to colleagues that if Lacson had been the candidate, with Poe as Vice-President, they would have achieved something close to a landslide win, and a majority victory at the very least, which even Roco and Villanueva’s withdrawal in favor of the President wouldn’t have prevented (or, if they’d thrown their support behind Lacson, an even bigger victory). In a sense, the opposition elders were incapable of either the statesmanship, or pragmatism, that led Laurel and Recto to back Magsaysay in 1953.

My point is, the leaders who were in a position to make the presidential system work, despite its institutional limitations (the lack of a run-off election), did their best to guarantee that the candidate they all feared the most, would win, anyway. The tools were always there, in fact, the overwhelming majority of voters were there, to court. Political leaders today bewail our lack of unity, but the unity, on a very basic level, has been there. But it takes leadership to transform potential into reality.

Manuel L. Quezon III.

39 thoughts on “Why presidents fail

  1. mlq, just like torn and frayed said and I will quote, “The idea that a superficial alteration of the political system could heal a rotten political culture could only take root in a country as addicted to the quick fix as the Philippines.” BTW, have you seen CNN’s Talk Asia last sunday’s interview with GMA? Whats your take on that?

  2. Alma, since Friday I’ve just been trying to keep my head above water, much less really follow things closely. I agree with Torn, cha-cha is premised on b.s.

    Carl: Our governments have always lived beyond their means, but a balanced budget was for many administrations, something that had to be aimed at achieving, because of what was our experience under the Americans. By Quirino, we had to have a debt cap. That’s what people have been proposing time and again since Cory’s time. A graph would be interesting, but you’d also have to translate the borrowings in terms of today’s prices, and it’s not easy. When I tried calculating yesterday’s salaries in today’s terms, it was a very rough process and exhausting.

  3. Hi Carl, a good start in terms of figuring out the history of budget deficits since the colonial period is Vicente Ybiernas’ article in Ateneo’s Philippine Studies journal. The title is “The Philippine Commonwealth Government: In Search of a Budgetary Surplus,” (PS No. 15, 2003). Ybiernas notes that as early as the Commonwealth era presidents were already trying to grapple with budgetary deficits, and in MLQ’s case, hiding it by pretending there was a surplus. Interesting stuff since very few people study the “downs-and-downs” of our budget process.

  4. Agree with Jojo, the problem of the Commonwealth was it was spending the oil excise tax windfall in a scramble to build up infant industries. We simply don’t know if the gamble would have paid off.

  5. mga sir,

    interesting to point the problem with budget deficits. i, as not so absolutely as possible, believe that budget reforms are necessary but not within the confines of allowing the president to succeed in such situation but rather looking on th e way our money are being appropriated and what items should be prioritize.

    Any president who prioaritize “debt servicing” over programs/services are lacking on political will…well, that should be coupled with necessary economic policies attuned to that. what so disgusting about the budget process is the fact that it is not even participatory in nature and the power of the purse remains with the one in power.

    What makes me wonder is the fact that Cory Aquino’s “revolutionary government” could have been a handle to negotiate/re-negotiate for debt cancellation but it was not done.

    Of course, we have to factor in the economic framework in terms of assessing the real “value” of our money as compared to the past and the present. it is exhausting all right but the problem is “is it necessary to compare and contrast the borrowings at this point in time?” what would that graph proves? that we borrow more which we already know…

    with due respect to the economists, they work on by the book in terms of economic theories but in real terms they are just working on sheer figures and numers in a volatile economic system that is being salvaged over and over again…

    tingin ko kasi, kung ang sumasagka para sa ganap na pag-unlad ay mga sistema at balangkas na ginawa lamang ng tao…maari itong baguhin ng tao mismo…

    sabi nga sa live8live concert, 8 MEN in ONE BOARDROOM CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE in terms of debt cancellation, imposing fairer trade and make poverty a history in Africa…then why not let it spread too in Asia…I don’t think that when rules are change, there will be economic crash…those are just “theories” which makes no sense at all…

    sa mga intellectual/intellegentsia: this is just a lumpenic thought and maybe you’re all right and am wrong but this is my truth. he he he. 🙂

  6. gari, no one has been able to explain to me why jobo fernandez’s idea of honoring marcos’s debts was a good idea, when our prestige as a nation was high enough for cory to have renegotiated those debts.

  7. gari, I must admit you are not alone with those lumpenic thoughts. I also wonder why Asia cannot be condoned their debts. Is it because the West this huge collective guilt over African slavery?

    mlq3, I do wonder what Cory and her advisers were thinking. They squandered so much political capital for what? “Amor propio”? Were Cory and her advisers’ gentrified upbringing reacting in a Pavlovian manner to the aristocratic notion that, under all circumstances, “a gentleman must honor his debts”? They probably never heard about thinking out of a box, which these times require.

  8. Manolo, someone just really explore the use of the (coconut) oil excise tax by both Marcos and MLQ to jumpstart infant industries. It appears that presidents who started with grand plans (while remaining politically ambitious) always had, as part of their plans, the initiation of new (infant) industries. Did Marcos follow MLQ’s path?

    Carl, in Cory’s case, she deferred to the technocrats when it came to debt servicing and not listen to clamors for selective debt repudiation (which even the Ateneo Department of Economics — then less militant as their UP counterpart — suggested). And there was considerable IMF, World Bank and US government pressure too for her to “honor” the debts amassed by the Marcos dictatorship. Since then our economy continued to slide, with the only minor surge under Ramos.

    On Jobo’s being able to convince Cory to honor the Marcos debts, Paul Hutchcroft’s “Booty Capitalism” (Ateneo) hints are the former Central Bank governor’s staying power (surviving Marcos and keeping his influence supreme under Cory).

  9. Once again, we are excluding from the equation the immense and intricate involvement of the economic class as if the whole mess on the pavement has been spilled over by our political troglodytes and the political culture alone.

    Please don’t forget the competitiveness of a nation largely depends on the competitiveness of the economic elites.

    And please don’t forget further that the Philippine national debt at 3.36 trillion pesos as of 2003 is split equally between foreign and domestic liabilities. “Renting” is preferred to “risking,” let’s state that clearly. If this “behavioral deficit” is not transformed, Filipinos are in for the very long and hard haul, regardless of the niceties of the political form.

    The “will to survive” by our OFWs ought to be matched by the “will to develop” on the part the economic class.

  10. Alas Abe, our tha majority of our economic elite has had a long history of showing no ability to appreciate their role as the country’s elite, concerned merely with their myopic family interests and rarely identifying these with that of the nation’s.

    And true, part of that huge debt is local, part foreign. What the government as far back as Cory Aquino has so far refused to do is figure out which of that debt was accumulated for the purpose of the patrimonial plunder of the Marcoses (and those who subsequently followed them), and which went to real economic development. Had this been done as early as 1986, the country would have been in a strong position to negotiate for selective debt repudiation and together with its lenders and governments like the US, track down where these stolen monies all ended up.

    And re Manolo’s eloquent: “what if, either the United States is less capable of influencing our affairs, or, we are better at manipulating the United States than either Filipinos or Americans would like to think?” Authors like Frank Golay and Raymond Bonner have confirmed this. The US, like many other colonial powers, never maintained a long-term, intimate curiousity and concern over its colonies.

    On the rest, especially the presidency, Manolo’s historical insights should give us pause and allow us to reflect the current state of this highest position now in the hands of an admitted fabulist.

  11. A very clear example of fraudulent debt was the one for the Bataan nuclear plant. Yet, the Cory administration chickened out on that one, despite the fact that Westinghouse was discovered to have given huge and anomalous commissions and kickbacks, and that the whole project was way overpriced. Other examples were the scandalously-overpriced sugar centrals put up by Benedicto, et al., Manda Elizalde’s highly-leveraged (guaranteed by the government) mining ventures, and the list goes on. A good case could have been made for condonation or reduction of those debts. But I guess that’s what happens when political expediency and survival becomes more important than doing the right thing. It carries on until today.

  12. You can consider this tsismis, but I had the chance to talk to a highly placed government bureaucrat who served a number of administrations after EDSA ’86. Our group was told na meron kasing komisyong nakukuha ang isang Finance Secretary from IMF-World Bank kung patuloy na nagbabayad-utang ang isang indebted country.

    I did not give that banter much thought, but the ongoing conversation reminded me of it. It was an informal one, but who knows?

  13. Sorry for the incoherence folks. My keyboard has been going nuts of late….will try to have it replaced!

  14. mlq3 said: “carl, i don’t know where they even got that idea. since when did gentlemen ever really pay their debts?” – Ha! Ha! That’s right! The landlords of the sugar haciendas are the most notorious debtors.

    jack, you could be right. If agencies like the U.N. and their oil-for-food program have been proven to be riddled with corruption, why not the IMF and officials of its client countries?

  15. On RP’s debt problem former Finance Secretary Edgardo Espirutu today writes: “The only real option is to work doubly hard to accelerate development so that we would be able to eventually grow out of this problem.” I agree in part.

    But I tell you, someone like me for instance can only “work doubly hard” by blogging passionately about it because, like many of us here, that’s all that I can effectively do about it.

    Simply put, we all know that run-of-the-mill Pinoys do not have the means to build the right industry to generate the needed revenues in order to build further and to pay the national debts and to keep our best, brightest and bravest from seeking better opportunities in other climes. And neither do most of the whipped up politicos.

    Now, who do you think can but are not “working doubly hard”?

  16. On Finance Secretary Edgardo Espirutu comment: “The only real option is to work doubly hard to accelerate development so that we would be able to eventually grow out of this problem.”

    Abe, such views are part of the problem really. The technocrats running the economy are unable to think outside “prescribed” norms laid out by powerful financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Unless the latter say “selective debt repudiation” is OK, then Espiritu — and all the Finance secretaries before and after him — will parrot whatever the official line of the time is. Mahathir Mohammad and Thaksin Shinawatra disagreed when the 1997 financial crisis hit their countries while Suharto followed. Malaysia and Thailand came out of the doldrums with more sound economies; Indonesia spiralled down from that time on and cost Suharto his rule.

  17. “Work doubly hard to eventually grow out of the problem”. Wow! That’s like telling a dockworker that if he works doubly hard and lifts more cargo, he will eventually become well-off. From what I know, most Filipinos work hard at earning a living, if there is any work to start with. Coming from a former finance secretary, that statement sounds so calloused.

  18. hmph! rent-seekers everywhere…
    bakit di na lang pabagsakin ang
    world bank and imf kasabay ng wto.

    speaking of wto, heard amb. tehankee
    says that the negotiation are still
    going on amidst the fact that there is
    political crisis…

    which reminds me that as much as we want to raise the “will to develop” , the trading
    mechanisms are not leveled.

    as for the migrant workers who keeps our
    domestic economy afloats amidst the political
    crisis will be affected by the negotiations on
    gats particularly the modalities on migrant

    wala lang, magulo lang utak ko. :-]

  19. “The argument that they have achieved nothing ignores the status of the country as second only to Japan in the early 1960s”

    That “achievement” never trickled down to the grassroots, Manolo. That was why it was during the 50s and the 60s when the Huk and Communist movements were born.

  20. I’m all for debt repudiation pag na move ko na lahat ng assets ko palabas ng Pilipinas. When prices will have stabilized after the debt default price correction babalik ko lahat ng assets ko sa bansa.

  21. “I’m all for debt repudiation pag na move ko na lahat ng assets ko palabas ng Pilipinas. When prices will have stabilized after the debt default price correction babalik ko lahat ng assets ko sa bansa”. – The elite have probably done that. Hindi naman lahat, but a good portion. I went over Sec. Espiritu’s column and I really find it so craven and unimaginative. He actually quakes in the presence of his masters in the Paris Club. His constituency is not the Filipino people, it is the bankers in New York and Zurich. These are the people who have consistently sold us down the drain.

  22. Sassy, I’d disagree. The Huks were the 1940s, crushed by the 1950s. By the period mentioned, the Huks were basically reduced to banditry. The Communists of today began in the late 60s, after the period mentioned; the slim window of the late 50s to early 60s, which people cite, began to fray in the late 60s, and it was to prevent the necessary changes thereafter that precipitated martial law.

  23. To learn more about the Philippines abrupt industrialization in the late 50’s early 60’s read Alejandro Lichauco’s Nationalist Economics. He blames Diosdado Macapagal for killing our premature industrial capacity with his fucked up currency policy. Macapagal, for all his moral virtue, nationalism, and brilliance as a lawyer, was a total ignoramus when it came to economics.

  24. mlq3,

    Do you also have the percentage of the “voter turnout” (those who actually voted) versus the number of eligible voters or the voting age population? Thanks.

  25. Hi Sassy and Manolo: the poverty was there, but what temporarily “saved” the Republic from a severe crisis (although the signs were already there as Pinas entered the 1950s) was the massive AND spontaneous migration of communities from Luzon and the Visayas, to Mindanao (about 1 million in 15 years). The conflict was postponed and later on transferred to the South.

  26. bam, thanks for pointing out lichaoco’s book, which my dad forced me to read as a teenager. both the protectionism under garcia and what followed had their limitations.

  27. JOJO wrote: “. . . the majority of our economic elite has had a long history of showing no ability to appreciate their role as the country’s elite, concerned merely with their myopic family interests and rarely identifying these with that of the nation’s.”

    I have today a very elaborate rejoinder (altho an old blog) to your reply too long to be posted as a comment to mlq3’s blog topic here. If you are interested please check out http://www.redsherring.blogspot.com, or click on my name. THanks.

  28. Palagay ko, kagaya sa entry ko doon tungkol sa India. Dahil nga tayong mga Pinoy ay kulang sa tinatawag na de-kalidad na nasyunalismo, kaya naman ang ating napipili ding lider ay hindi rin makabayan.

    Tingnan nyo puro tayo englisan ng englisan, sasabihin nasanay na, e meron naman tayong sariling wika bakit kailangan pa natin gamitin wikang dayuhan samantalang ang kausap o nais natin bigyan ng impormasyon ay kapwa naman natin mga Pilipino.

    Mayroon ba kayong alam nanaging maunlad na bansa ang ginagamit at mas pinapahalagahan ay wikang banyaga.Tingnan natin ang mga pangunahing pahayagan, ENGLISH newspapers. Pakiramdam ko tuloy para tayong mga bata.

    Kung ang mentalidad ng mga Aleman, Hapon, Koreano kagaya sa mga Pinoy, negatibo silang naging MAUNLAD!

    Magbago na tayo stayl, mga Pare’t Mare ko, sayang panahon… kawawa lang mga kababayan nating mahihirap, di-bale mga meron — ok lang mga yan.


    Juan Rodrigo

  29. Juan Rodrigo isa kang mangmang. I’ll give you an example of non-English countries who became prosperous because of English: Singapore. They used English because the Chinese, Indian, and Malays needed a language to unite them.

    Don’t equate Tagalog with the National Language because it’s insulting to us Cebuanos, Ilocanos, Bicolanos, Pampangenos, Pangasinenses, etc. We have our own language too. We like to preserve our language that’s why we don’t speak Tagalog but English instead. Given that there must be a hundred languages in the Philippines we choose one that not only can unite the Filipinos but is also an international language: Tagalog is not an international language, English is. Itanim mo yan sa kokoti mo.

  30. Also the countries you mentioned, Germany, Korea, and Japan are monolingual countries. The Philippines is one of the Polyglot countries in the world so you couldn’t compare their experience with development with our historical and linguistic situation.

    Educate yourself.

  31. Salamat kaibigang TK, totoo, isa lamang akong mang-mang sampu ng iba pang mga Pilipinong kagaya ko na hindi gaanong bihasa sa english.Siyanga pala maka-pag englis nga ng konti — did I mention tagalog, I said ‘wikang tagalog’, and for your information my dear old friend, I’m also a Visayan,a Waray; I speak Cebuano,Ilonggo,Bikolano,Ilokano,Arabic,Turkish,and yes English. I may not be as well educated as you, but I am sure I’m not as ignorant as you!

    Visit me at Tinig.com Forums, ayaw ko sana mag-englis,kaso parang nasaling mo damdamin ko kabayan.

    Eniway, salamat parin… kaya tayo ganito, magagaling lang tayo mang-lait.

    I pray for you,

    Juan Rodrigo

  32. correction: ‘sariling wika’ medyo tumakbo ang adrenaline ko sayo kaibigan, kaya namamali mga tirada ko. konting dagdag, ang India kaibigan — ‘hindi'(kai se hai – how are you?) ang ginagamit at official langguage nila, gumagamit din sila ng englis dahil naging colony din sila ng England, and coincidentaly speaking of India “independence day ” nila kahapon.

    Its just my opinion I suppose, is there anything wrong with having an opinion?


  33. Hhmmm…

    “Matalino man daw ang matsing nagugulangan din”.

    Sa buhay ng tao, napakahalaga iyong mayroon tayong tinatawag na “bukas na kaisipan”, lalong-lalo na sa mga mangmang na kagaya ko. Subalit ang kamangmangan ang nagtutulak sa tao upang mag-aral at maabot ang mataas na antas na karunungan.

    Bueno, bigyan natin ng kaunting libreng edukasyon ang ating matalinong kaibigan (TK). Hindi ako maniniwala na hindi ka (TK) nakaka-intindi ng tagalog o wikang Pilipino — dahil nag ‘react’ ka sa pain (bitag) ko. Hindi ko sinasabi na masama o pangit ang paggamit ng wikang englis (dahil ako wikang englis ang mga aklat na napadaan [scanning] sa mata ko). Ang punto ko, na kinakailangan (napapanahon na)mabigyan natin prayoridad ang paglinang, pag-aaral, paggamit sa sarili nating wika bago ang anupamang wikang dayuhan (mapa-internasyunal man yan o ano pa). Dahil ang wika o salita ay sadyang napakahalaga, impormasyon ang pinag-uusapan dito — at impormasyon higit anupaman ang magiging daan o tulay tungo sa minimithing pagbabago, pag-aaral, pag-unlad ng alinmang bansa.

    … sa mga pangunahing pahayagan (ng Pilipinas) halimbawa — kanino, saan ba natin nais iparating ang mga balita, komentaryo,pag-aanalisa (mga impormasyon) –hindi ba sa mga kababayan din nating kapwa Pinoy? alam natin karamihan ng Pinoy nakakaintindi naman at nakakabasa ng englis subalit hindi karamihan bihasa at mahilig magbasa sa englis.

    … ang masa o mga pangkaraniwang tao (mga mangmang ‘as per TK’) ang siyang higit na nangangailangan ng mga tamang impormasyon (interpretasyon, pag-aanalisa) sa mga kaganapan sa loob at labas ng bansa. Samakatuwid, papaano tayong (mga Pinoy) magkakaroon ng tunay na pagkakaisa at pag-unlad kung umiikot lamang ang mga mahahalagang impormasyon sa mga “well educated (english speaking) ladies ang gentlemen” — samantalang higit na nakararami ang masang Pinoy(mga mangmang ‘as per TK’ uli)!

    … naghahangad tayo ng pagbabago,ngunit ang pagbabago ay kailangan ang maayos na simulain (unang hakbang), at inuulit ko, ang wika o salita (impormasyon) ay isa sa mga pangunahing hakbang tungo sa pagkakaisa.

    … napakaganda marahil kung ang ginagamit na salita ng mga nasa palengke, magsasaka, mangingisda, ng mga pangkaraniwang manggagawang Pinoy ay siya ring ginagamit ng mga nag-oopisina, mga intelektuwal/matataas ang pinag-aralan, at mga pangunahing pahayagan.

    … mahirap bang pag-aralan ang wikang Pilipino? eh kong wikang dayuhan nga gaya englis kayang-kaya nating matutunan — mas magaling pa nga tayong mag-englis kumpara sa mga Kano at mga Britons (mga Kano simple lang mag-englis,mga Pinoy kailangan mo pa maghagilap ng thesaurus o dictionary – sa lalalim na ginagamit na englis). — ang basehan ba ng karunungan ng tao ay ang pagkabihasa sa anumang wika? kapag magaling ba ang isang tao sa englis nangangahulugan ba na mataas ang kanyang IQ?

    … ang pagkakaintindi ko, mas mahalaga ang paggamit, pag-aaral ng lohikal (Philo) na pag-iisip; “and logic dictates” na higit anupaman, paggamit ng sariling wika ang isa sa magbubuklod sa mga Pinoy tungo sa tunay na pagkakaisa.

    P.S. .. at sa bagong henerasyon na mga Pilipino ngayon (mula 40 yrs. old pababa) ay halos karamihan bihasa sa wikang pambansa (Filipino language o tagalog) — at ang mga dialects na tinatawag ay language din yan para sa akin, na kung pinagtutuunan lamang ng sapat na pag-linang(pag-yamanin) o mag-aaral ay lalong madadagdagan ang kahusayan at kagalingan ng wikang Pilipino.

    PALAISIPAN; (para sa mga ‘highly educated’ kagaya ni TK)

    Napakarami nating mahuhusay, magagaling na Unibersidad o mga paaralan. Napakaraming Pinoy ang may mataas na pinag-aralan/propesyunal sa ibat-ibang larangan(arts & sciences/PhD’s,MA’s,LLb’s,etc.,etc)


    Bakit magpahanggang ngayon, Panginoon nating lahat, hindi magawan ng paraan at maisaayos ang HILAHOD na kalagayan ng bansa?!

    Que paso, senor?
    Que sera, sera… what ever will be.. will be!


  34. Ano nga pala ibig mo sabihin ng TK? tan..in.. k. ! ang galing magtatago sa likod ng palda. I wonder what ‘mangmang’ means.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.