A Business Graduate's Random Blog on History and Gossip

Some Filipinos who are totally against charter change (or constitutional reform) always use political dynasties as an excuse. It's not enough that some of them should keep saying that economic charter change will mean "selling the Philippines to foreigners". Please, if they realize it, developed countries allow 100% FDI ownership--allowing foreigners to own 100% of their business . Back on the topic, I would like to discuss political dynasties and why they're not necessarily bad . Some people keep talking about the anti-political dynasty law--that is one per family. It might be because they still think the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system. Please, evidence has been gathered that it was never a parliamentary system, to begin with (read here )!  It's easy to talk about political dynasties. Some people were citing President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as a member of a political dynasty. Some people also cite the Dutertes. I even

Kahimyang Project It's often said by some of the now-old folks that the Philippines was once under a parliamentary system. I had some insults from a close-minded political scientist, some former dancer of an OFW, and others whenever I said, "We must shift to the parliamentary system!" They would say, "Look stupid! We already had a parliamentary system back in the Marcos Years!" I ask for the proof and they keep using Cesar Virata. By using insults, they start to make me doubt their credibility. It's because insults and other forms of Ad Hominem attacks are often the favorite tools of sore losers .  I would like to give this an example. One of their best sources is Cesar Virata. At first, it sounds like, "Okay, we had a parliamentary system." However, we must take note that not every country that has a prime minister, is under a parliamentary system. Some of them are still presidential in nature with parliamentary features . I wonder if Mrs. Raissa