Skip to main content

[OPINION] Why I Believe EDSA Revolution Succeeded and Why Tiananmen Square Protests Failed

Kuwento ni Kapitan Kokak

Being a Chinese Filipino can be a complicated thing. It took me years to figure out my place in the Philippines. It wasn't until I was in my fourth year high school (in 2001-2002) that the Filipino teacher spoke about Jose Rizal being Chinese by blood. The Filipino teacher asked if one had to be born ethnically Filipino (though it's best to view Filipino as a race, and most Filipinos are of Malay-Indo descent) to be a true Filipino patriot. The answer was no, where she cited several Filipinos of Chinese descent. However, seeing Communist China progress over the Philippines, tends to be my favorite justification whenever I become unreasonable. I even blamed democracy (rather than its misuse, or a wrong notion of it) for the ills the Philippines suffered. An irony is that Communist China should become more powerful than the Philippines.

It's easy to brag about the EDSA 1986 Revolution and how it influenced the world. However, take note that the EDSA Revolution 1986 isn't anything unique, as Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi led a peaceful protest during the British Occupation of India. I'm not going to diminish its significance. It was good to transition back from fascism to democracy. Thankfully, the late Jose Maria Sison's passport was canceled while he was in the Netherlands. Sison could've probably set up his own version of the Khmer Rouge, if he ever took over the Philippines. Why I use the Khmer Rouge as an example is because the late Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) barely ruled for a decade (just four years) but caused more deaths than the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. ever did. I doubt Sison had the brain power of either Ho Chi Minh (real name is Nguyen Sinh Cung) or Mao Zedong to die with their parties still ruling the country.

However, there are stark differences between the Marcos Regime and Communist China. The Marcos Regime was characterized as an era of massive debt and inflation. The Marcos Years as the Fool's Golden Years of the Philippines, were ruled by rampant protectionism. In turn, the Philippines was already bankrupt. Per Se from the University of the Philippines (UP) revealed that the Marcos Years followed the Latin American debt-driven policies. The regime can be likened to a person who lives a luxurious life under debt. Meanwhile, Communist China under Deng Xiaoping's rule (though the guy was also a dictator, by default) had created Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Deng opened Communist China for business. 

As I read the book From Third World to First, I remember what the late Lee Kuan Yew said about Marcos. Marcos' economy was literally bankrupt. LKY even called Cesar Virata (who was a prime minister in a presidential government) a nonstarter. As I read through the book, it was interesting to see the stark contrast between the Philippines under Marcos and China under Deng. The Chinese military was already fully equipped. It's possible that the military wasn't even paid properly under Marcos' fascist regime. If Marcos wasn't paying them properly, then I don't think the military would even be willing to suppress the protesters. However, China's military under Deng had a significant improvement compared to Mao's time. I bet that Col. Conrado Dumlao Yap (by the way, he's a Chinese Filipino, not a Mainland China citizen) and his troops were only able to succeed because China's military was already weakened by Mao's mismanagement.

I could also credit the Chinese students who protested, rushed in unprepared. The EDSA Revolution of 1986 succeeded because the military defected from Marcos. I doubt Marcos was paying them much or even giving them enough benefits. It's not easy to be in the military. You might compare that to an underpaid security guard, leaving their agency for not paying them properly or providing him/her proper benefits. The Chinese students demanded to be heard. However, I can assume that the Chinese students ignored that the military was on the side of the CCP. Marcos lost the support of his military. The CCP had the full support of its military. With the late Fidel V. Ramos and still-alive Juan Ponce Enrile having had some significant control--it's safe to ask what could the late Fabian Ver do at that time? Ver may have lost control of significant parts of the military, along with his trusted loyalists. 

It might be important to note that Marcos, despite being a tyrant, may have ordered, "Not to shoot". The Kahimyang Project suggests that Marcos ordered "not to shoot", which might be impossible. Pretty much, Marcos lacked the ruthlessness of the CCP or even Pol Pot. Would've Marcos followed Pol Pot's ruthlessness--he may not even be able to sit for 20 years in total! Marcos may have also lacked Mao's charisma or deceptiveness. Mao was able to rule for 27 years as a tyrant, until his death. Mao still had a good amount of support, probably being careful. Plus, China was already too hungry to even dare to overthrow Mao. Leaving China for other parts of the world was the only option. Later on, several Chinese became different nationalities such as the Chinese Filipino. It seems none of the descendants of overseas Chinese would ever desire to live in China either!

These are two different situations. The Tiananmen Square Massacre victims shouldn't be forgotten. The incident should also be a warning that it's not the Chinese people that's the enemy, but the CCP! It's possible to love China but not the CCP. I love China, but I don't support the CCP. However, with the CCP possibly weakening, it might be overthrown by the Chinese people, if ever. 

Popular posts from this blog

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why  here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign  look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...