Can Anti-Reformists Prove to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy That the Marcos Regime was a Real Parliamentary?

The previous comparison of the CoRRECT Movement was between the late businessman John Gokongwei Jr. and Hilario Davide Jr., a public policy expert. The comparison is pretty much apples and oranges which is why Kishore Mahbubani, founder and former dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) would make more sense. It's not enough to say something. If the source is just merely Merkado CTTO (read here) then I have every right to doubt it. I tried asking for empirical evidence they have that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was a parliamentary government. The only evidence they have was that there was a prime minister and his name was Cesar Virata. However, further details reveal that Virata was a non-starter and a no leader. From Third World to First, Virata was even considered a candidate to replace the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, a president with powers.

A challenge that I want to pose to people who still insist that the Marcos Years were indeed under a parliamentary form of government is to try telling the LKYSPP for a start. The same can go for those who try and defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as the best in the world (read here). Although Mahbubani may no longer be the idea (probably due to his age) we can't deny that the guy knows business and economics, saw Singapore rise up from third world to first, and joined a world economic forum in contrast to Davide Jr. Mahbubani can be seen offering countries advice on how to do better. What about Davide Jr.? Davide Jr. has still been spewing out nonsense about FDIs or saying that there's "absolutely no need to amend the 1987 Constitution". 

With COVID-19 being an endemic problem, it's already safe to travel than when it was a pandemic problem. Let's say that the anti-reformists who still insist that the Marcos Years were a parliamentary system would set an appointment with the National University of Singapore (NUS). These graduates may come from top Filipino universities such as Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) and the University of the Philippines (UP). I confess that I wasn't qualified for either which school. Fortunately, I could understand any academic papers written by people above me. I believe it's a requirement for professions like lawyers to write things down in a way that people beneath them can understand. I may not be a lawyer but I could at least, understand what a lawyer has to say or what a basic law textbook can teach me to a certain extent. I might need training as a lawyer to practice the profession. However, I don't need to be a lawyer to understand basic law.

These anti-reformists will say, "Okay! We'll take the challenge to Singapore!" Some of these may be elite constitutionalists. Some may be lawyers themselves. Some may just be MARITESes who just love good gossip. I could imagine if they finally faced the faculty of the LKYSPP of the NUS. They would say, "Hey, do you know that the Marcos years of the Philippines was a real parliamentary?" It might be funny if they brought Davide Jr. with them, assuming that he's still in good shape. Maybe, Mahbubani might be paying a visit to the NUS while its recent dean, Danny Quah, would probably be there with the faculty. I could imagine if these anti-reformists would be bringing a TV crew with them so they can prove, once and for all, that the Marcos Years, were indeed under a parliamentary form of government.

I could imagine the end results. The LKYSPP knows how a real parliamentary system is run. It might be amusing if Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong were there to personally watch the debate. Even better, if LSH also had Singaporean President Halimah Yacob (and I believe, until now, that the late Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino should've remained symbolic even after EDSA) together with all parliament members to watch it. The anti-reformist teams might state their "evidences" such as that there was a prime minister named Virata, that a parliament was really formed, and that it was a modified parliament. I could imagine how the real experts in running a parliamentary system would respond.

Knowing typical Filipino emotionalism, I could imagine the tantrums that some anti-reformists must throw. Some of these anti-reforms who insist that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, was under a parliamentary government, belong to the boomer generation (read here). Yet, some of these boomers are still immature people on social media even in their 60s. They post offensive icons, brag how "great" they are (and it's easy to brag about what you don't have). I could imagine them acting like little children who lost in a game. They might start hissing even at Singapore, maybe even raise the issue of the late Flor Contemplacion, etc. It could be very funny if LSH would actually order their arrest at the NUS for losing their temper.

The results might be funny. Maybe, they might be flogged on live television where they'll be screaming, "The Marcos years were parliamentary!" A strike of the cane hits the buttocks. They will keep insisting on it even after they get the recommended number of strokes. I wonder if they'll try to make themselves look like martyrs instead of the fools they truly are, if ever that happened?