This is a massive question, which once can only touch on general themes. First of all though, the linked article is a blend of facts, vacuous opinions masqueraded as facts, and a dislike of the Philippines, perhaps coloured by the experience of the writer in the Philippines. I suppose one needs but 18 months to form an expert opinion of a culture and people.
The Philippines, like most emerging nations, is fraught with many many issues that are homogeneous to nations that are forced to accelerate development without the benefit of hundreds or thousands of years of steady evolution, with the occasional phase changes. No, in 50 years or so, countries that fit the generic "emerging nations" category went from backwater, agricultural nations, to 21st-century standards of modern civilization: smaller income equality, sufficient minimum wage, minimal unemployment and underemployment, affordable and available healthcare, access to water, electricity, broadband density, well-developed democracy, a well-educated population, and so on. The US, UK, Scandinavia, Japan, practically all developed took centuries to move most of its population from a situation where they were a bad winter away from selling their children into slavery to what is generally accepted as minimum standards.
So how do emerging nations face this unique challenge? Overwhelmingly, they had strong armed dictators who could make the unpleasant, autocratic decisions that no true free market democracy would allow. They had time in position. Accompanying this are all the ills of dictatorship: cronyism, nepotism, corruption, human rights abuses, etc. What differs with the Philippines was that it adopted Western democratic tendencies too early in its evolution -- it tried to fly before it could walk. Witness:
- South Korea's Miracle on the Han River had General Park Chung-hee[1]
- Thailand had succession of military dictators, with Field Marshal Srisdi Dhanarajata setting the foundations [2]
- Malaysia experienced rapid growth under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled with an iron fist from 1981 to 2003.
- Singapore, has been ruled by one party since 1959. It is ranked 150 out of 180 in the Press Freedom Index, comfortably sandwiched between the Philippines at 149, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is known for its draconian approach towards political and human rights. [3]
The Phlippines has (and perhaps is still) in essence been a US vassal, witness the thorough adoption of American culture and the almost certain support that the US can count on when WMDs are found in a recalcitrant state. What we now have is a curious blend of democratic tendencies in the populace: collectively aware of human rights and freedoms, but individually ignorant of the same.
The Philippines does not suck, I always look forward to going back home when I take trips abroad as I greatly miss the comfort, caring, pleasantness, respect, and politeness individually. But Philippine society is too spoiled and too lazy to take the suffering and abuses that comes with authoritarian regimes. We are not prepared to give up the comfort of simple sugars for the blandness of vegetables (or at least increase our portion of them). We'd rather be spoiled by afternoon shows that do nothing but perpetuate the stupor of the population, and yaya's create the same lasting habit in generations of our children. We are impressed by the politician that sings and dances but has not the qualifications, experience, or rectitude. We impeach a president but vote him in as Mayor. Place a former president under house or hospital arrest, but still vote her in as Congresswoman. This is what is wrong with the Philippines.
[1] Park Chung-hee Admired for Making Something Out of Nothing
[2] Economy of Thailand
[3] Page on rsf.org
No comments:
Post a Comment