Today is September 21, and the usual unthinking people will be falling over themselves to commemorate Martial Law today. But the anniversary isn’t today, it’s two days from now, Saturday, September 23.
Pete Lacaba takes a cue from his book, Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage, his coverage of the First Quarter Storm, and pens a reflection, Days of paranoia, nights of unease.
Conrado de Quiros compares two presidents: Marcos and Arroyo. My column for today looks at the views of the post-Marcos youth.
Some sober and sobering news and views on the Thailand coup. Let’s dismiss the obvious -the Philippine government is simply protesting too much (as Ellen Tordesillas puts it). The armed forces made its choice, on February of this year; and it sealed the pact with its activities against dissidents in the provinces.
The Inquirer editorial condemns the coup, but suggests the reasons it took place and why it does offer up a cautionary tale for Filipinos. The Arab News editorial focuses on human rights questions and the dangers inherent in a resumption, by the military, of its political role. Juan Mercado says the coup provides an “enduring lesson” -and that is, the king. An Associated Press story looks into the involvement of the Thai king in the coup (I heard the Philippine ambassador to Thailand vehemently deny this possibility on Dong Puno’s show last night). There’s an interesting commentary that Irish Pennants points to (from The Australian), saying any coup is bad but this one may be for the better:
Under his Government, corruption was widespread. More particularly, Thaksin had deeply affronted the citizens of Bangkok by the way he sold his family firm, Shin Corp, to a Singapore Government-controlled company in a multibillion-dollar transaction. There is no suggestion that the Singapore Government, or the Singapore corporation involved, have done anything wrong. Nor has any illegality been proved about the transaction itself. The transaction was, however, highly irregular and highly advantageous to Thaksin.
Whatever the technicalities of the transaction prove to be, it looked like a massive conflict of interest for a prime minister to be acting this way.
There is a fundamental split in Thai society between Bangkok, which is a sophisticated city, and the countryside, where policy matters less in determining election results than regional affiliation and, at times, even vote-buying practices.
There is an old saying that Thai governments are made in the countryside and unmade in Bangkok. This is what happened to Thaksin. In the end, he totally lost the respect of the citizens of Bangkok, even though he maintained the support of the countryside. As a result, in April this year there were huge anti-Thaksin demonstrations. Finally, even the King, the revered and much-loved Bhumibol Adulyadej, intervened to bring the earlier crisis to a close.
In the countryside, especially the north, the citizens are undoubtedly more fond of their King than their Prime Minister. But the King tries to be as neutral as possible in Thai politics, only intervening when absolutely necessary. The signals of disapproval that he sent out about Thaksin therefore were subtle and restrained. They were clear enough in Bangkok, but less clear in the countryside.
In any event, it became impossible for Thaksin to continue. Yet, analysts say, he may not have wanted to formally step down from the position of Prime Minister because of what a future Thai government might decide to do about – and with – the proceeds of the sale of Shin Corp. Other Thaksin family assets may also be under threat.
Thaksin had also fatally fallen out with the military. This was over two issues. One was his determination to appoint his own loyalists to senior positions within the military in this year’s round of promotions.
This, of course, is the right of a democratic government. But, given how much corruption flourished under Thaksin’s Government, there was good reason to fear what the consequences of these appointments might be.
Although the promotions round was the main cause of the alienation of the military, there was another issue of much greater importance. Thaksin has made a spectacular mess of handling the Islamist insurgency gripping the southern provinces of Thailand. This insurgency is exceptionally shadowy and difficult to understand but informed sources suggest that since the beginning of 2004 about 1700 people have died in the conflict…
Notwithstanding last weekend’s bombings, it is still believed that the Muslim terrorists of southern Thailand are not targeting Westerners, are not integrating their struggle into global jihadism and are not moving to targets elsewhere in Thailand – such as Bangkok or Phuket – that could severely damage the Thai economy.
The Thai military had a good handle on all this until a few years ago when Thaksin, in an act of wilful stupidity, abolished the mechanisms of local consultation that had built up over many years, when the conflict had subsided to much lower levels of violence.
The Thai army, led by General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin- coincidentally a Muslim – wants to try to re-create a political dialogue with the insurgents and try to address the legitimate grievances that the insurgents have exploited. Thaksin, in contrast, was determined to pursue a gung-ho, force and only force approach that was ineffective and was making things worse.
This may have been just arrogance on the part of Thaksin and his advisers, although some analysts speculate that it was a way of distracting attention from his own problems. In any event, it was exceptionally dangerous.
The Thai military has promised it will soon have new elections and a return to full democracy. Presumably Thaksin will not be allowed to contest these elections. The military has some support and advice from the King’s advisers on the Privy Council. Most important, the King has said nothing against the army.
The Bangkok public is likely to be ambivalent about this: glad to be rid of Thaksin, unhappy at military rule, probably willing to allow the interim government enough legitimacy to oversee a transition to a new democratic dispensation.
No democrat can support a military coup but Thai coups are the gentlest in the world, and this one may conceivably provide a path to something better.
Rep. Teddy Locsin made a devastating privilege speech titled One Night in Bangkok:
Not so long ago, and repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, you held up Thaksin Shinawatra as a model of the ideal parliamentary leader who best exemplifies the superior advantages of the parliamentary over the presidential system of government. This, in spite of the fact that Thaksin became a multibillionaire, with a media and manufacturing empire, on his income as a military officer and later as a member of parliament. Indeed, on the strength of those incomes he was able to purchase the prime ministership of Thailand along with the rest of the government. His sister treated the Thai air force like her own private jet service. Thaksin only forgot to buy the Thai Supreme Court and, of course, he could not buy the King, though he did suggest marginalizing the sovereign. Those were his mistakes.
Not so long ago, and repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, you held up the parliamentary system as the most conducive to political stability.
And you know what, Mr. Speaker, you are still right. It is the most conducive to political stability, to stasis, to paralysis and to despair — and violence.
That is why, this morning, in the witching hours after midnight, patriotic elements of the Thai armed forces swept into the capital, shut down all media and communications facilities, seized key government buildings, took over the government and abolished the Constitution.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the advantage of a parliamentary system is also its curse. It is indeed stable — too stable.
Once a person and his party take over a parliamentary government, and its vast resources, it is well nigh impossible to dislodge them and for another group to take their place.
Forget about reforming from within the government in place — you are either coopted or sidelined.
And that is why patriotic elements are compelled to step in from outside the Constitution and effect the necessary change from outside its legal parameters.
You see, Mr. Speaker, stability is a greater curse than instability because stability entrenches power, while power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely — and absolute power, where institutional checks and balance have been abolished, corrupts permanently.
Indeed, parliamentary corruption once entrenched is impossible to correct or remove except by military or revolutionary surgery.
And the summa total of all this is to marginalize the sovereign. In Thailand, that means the good King. In the Philippines, that means the Filipino people.
The key to political stability, paradoxically, is not stability, Mr. Speaker, but, on the contrary, a sense of perpetual motion and perennial wide-open possibility, so that no one despairs of being permanently left out, every pig is able to hope for its moment at the trough, and every dog shall have his day. And the people can indeed repeat with hope the words of Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With the Wind, when Rhett Butler left her: “Tomorrow is another day.”
As we stand on the threshold of Charter change, and a shift to the parliamentary system, let us, in the bowels of Christ, pause to consider what happened one night in Bangkok, as the song goes, and commit ourselves to drafting a Constitution that will foster not stability but changeability, not stasis but energy, not the assurance of the same old crooked faces but of fresh and new ones chosen by the people, well or ill, at every turn — all this to avoid despair and violence and generate hope and patience.
To tell the people that with a parliamentary system our politics will be so stable, that they will have to live with our faces in perpetuity, is to provoke them to the last extremity.
Locsin is not a presidentialist; he’s intellectually convinced of the virtues of a multi-party parliamentary system. He objects to a parliamentary system that will foster a one-party state and whose acceptance is premised on bribing officials to support it. So I suppose his speech is a last-ditch effort as the congressional steamroller heaves into action.
Technorati Tags: constitution, history, Marcos, military, philippines, politics, president, Thailand
per amadeo…”We should have more independent thinking Filipinos like the explanee. Filipinos who can discern base on the facts and not be afraid to be different.”
well, it is always nice to have people with different opinion in an argument. this expands the horizons of the citizenry. however, this dlsu student has no morals at all. how can he ignore the thousands of filipinos who were tortured, who died? how can he ignore the absence of freedom for 24 years during martial law? the least i can say is, he must have selective blindness…he recognized the bridges but not the lives of our countrymen. sayang lang ang kinain niyang bigas!
“What is even more amazing is that, to this day, Marcos still seems to be the best that we could do.”
Carl, Gloria will vehemently disagree with you! Gloria thinks she’s God sent to Filipino mankind or that God talked to her about breaking her word not to run, didn’t she?
She undoubtedly believes she’s the best that this country ever produced! Now, don’t take my word for it… just a hunch that she thinks that.
yeah, GOD talked to her. amazing! only a fake president can say that.
“The insurgency reached a strength of 12,500 regulars in 2000 before steadily declining again in the past five to six years, he said.
Cruz cited four factors for declining strength — economic resurgence in the countryside, better local governance and leadership, public disgust with terrorism as a method of achieving one’s goals, and the failure of the communist economic model.”
If his statement is true, why is he asking for billions to buy planes, guns, bullets etc. for military? why not work on the factors that he cited as reasons for declining strenght of the communists?
tbl,
fake president? fake statistics?
Could it be that Marcos saw himself in Ninoy? He did not want the competition. Both men glaringly flawed, but one made a martyr of the other. Now 20 years later, history has judged both. Perhaps 100 years from now history will be kinder to Marcos. Such are the vicissitudes of man’s opinion.
So CVJ, how do you differ from your enemy Gloria now? Gloria believes that she the best that we can have and you believe you are superior from the rest that you can never tolerate other beliefs. So why would we choose you over your enemy? This will just justify those silent revolutionaries belief that “they are just the same”. That it’s actually a moral pissing contest between two evils and really is not about the welfare of people but all about their egos….
The problem with being judgemental and even just sarcastic towards the proponents of other belief system is that it is soo isolationist and therefore divisive. You declared your abhorence to Glorias “divide and rule” style. But your your self is spousing divisivenes in your words by claiming to be superior than the rest.
Now lets question your “superior” beliefs. In what way you it is superior than the others?????????? I will not setlle for just one. Give at least 10 if its really that superior.
Ok Manolo expect the book to be in your office sometime next week. Ano nga pala ang address ng office mo? It not indicated in the contact me section.
Carl,
Im so impressed with the point of view you ve just presented. Just curious, if you dont believe much on Ninoy so who do you most admired among the Filipino politician/s?
tbl,
How did you know that the explanee ignored the sufferings inflicted on many Filipinos during martial law? Did he say it? Is that a fact written somewhere? Did his professor told him about those sufferings? Maybe? Maybe not? Is there a museum somewhere in the Philippines where young Filipinos can go and learn about those sufferings? NONE! All these young Filipinos hear year in and year out are the opinions of older Filipinos about martial law which may or may not be true. Why can’t older Filipinos who have memories of martial law write down their experience? Because they themselves are confuse about the effects of martial law. The explainee is not practicing selective blindness. He just doesn’t know any better. Blame it on older Filipinos not the explainee.
Rego, just to clarify – when i say that i believe my ideas are ‘superior’, it is not the same as saying that i, as a person, am superior. In this medium, when it comes to commenting, matters of ego are extraneous. What i meant in the previous comment was that everyone who defends a position has to believe in the rightness or superiority of his ideas or else why waste time advocating or defending it? And i take that position knowing that i may very well be proven wrong and that my belief in the superiority of my ideas was mistaken. When that happens, then i am compelled to change my position which i will then strongly defend until proven wrong. Google ‘strong opinions, weakly held’ and this will explain my attitude towards these matters.
You and Bong always tend to turn this into a meta-discussion about the norms of the discussion and on that basis, arrive at a conclusion that ‘they are just the same’. How can a commenter being ‘judgmental and sarcastic’ in a weblog compare with the actions of a politician who has cheated her way into power? Gloria has used deception and coercion to get her way. By contrast, a weblog comment offers little room for coercion and any deception is usually called out by other resourceful commenters or bloggers.
tbl,
What about the the ‘no morals’?
Let me check yours.
Please answer yes or no:
1) Do you eat sushi?
2) Do you own any Japanese electronics?
3) Do you drive a Japanese made car?
4) Have you been to Japan?
5) Do you have any relatives married to a Japanese?
6) Have you uttered any Japanese word?
7) Do you like singing using a karaoke machine?
8) Have you driven on any portion of the Japanese funded Maharlika highway?
9) Have you been inside the Manila Cathedral which was restored using Japanese cement?
10) The latest and the greatest “Have you been to the Japanese garden at the Rizal Park?
You have no morals if you answered yes to any of the questions above based on your conclusions about the explainee.
Re Carl,
I think we’re losing sight of one other important dimension in this remembrance of Martial Law that is now focused largely on the questioning of Ninoy Aquino’s heroism and legacy.
It is that Martial Law robbed us of the chance for the predictable and orderly leadership change in a democratic system. In the 24 years that Marcos overstayed as leader, the country could have had at least 4 new presidents. Now, it is entirely debatable if the country will have been better off had Martial Law not happened.
One thing I’m sure of is this: We would not have a highly politicized military establishment that we have today had Marcos decided to gracefully walk away into the sunset.
you are giving a very broad generalizations with regards to the japanese people. the sin of the japanese soldiers ( tha’s what i thnk you are implying)does not make the entire japanese race a sinful race.
in the same token, marcos sins do not make all ilocanos sinful or for that matter, all of us filipinos sinful.
let us just compare marcos with ninoy, compare banana with banana not banana with all the fruits that you can think of.
any person in his right mind with all his senses intact, i would say, can recognize the big difference between the two.
tbl,
Which means that you are not in your right mind when you said that the explanee has no morals. Thank you for admitting it!
oh, btw, my answer is yes to all except i don’t eat sushi and i don’t have a relative married to hapon. but two of my good colleagues friends are hapon. however, i had bad experience with japanese employees in thier airport, those three were descriminating the asians vs whites in the airport. that incident did not mean all japanese are prejudice, just like pinoys, some of us are prejudice. it happens in all places.
you missed my point about the japanese. Most if not all of the commenters here do not have a memory of WW II. We didn’t experience it. It’s alright for us to eat sushi without feeling guilty. Same thing with the explainee and martial law. Nobody should force them believe this or believe that about martial law.
adc, this is what i said earlier…
“let us just compare marcos with ninoy, compare banana with banana not banana with all the fruits that you can think of.
any person in his right mind with all his senses intact, i would say, can recognize the big difference between the two.”
you know as well as i do, what i was trying to tell you…i was saying that ninoy was a better man, with a better moral character than marcos.
i think you have read enough or experience enough things to understand that. i don’t need to spell out or enumerate all those things that you need to consider.
for clarifiaction, this is what manolo wrote in his column about the dlsu student, the topic of long discussion in this blog now,,,
“What the young student believes he said clearly and nicely enough when he appeared on ANC on Ninoy Aquino’s death anniversary. He argued that as far as he was concerned, there was no difference between Marcos and his nemesis, Ninoy Aquino but, as he himself told me, on the whole, Marcos at least did a lot for the country. “He built the most infrastructure,†he said. He suggested that as long as a president builds roads and bridges and creates jobs and provides health services, that is enough to make him great — as he seems to think Marcos in retrospect was. And besides, who says Marcos had Ninoy killed? he asked”
I do hope that all of those who are defending the clueless DLSU student realize the inherent mistake in their argumentation. One really shouldn’t have to experience a martial law or dictatorship personally to be able to judge it. Otherwise, what would be the point of trying to learn lessons from the history? And those who really believe that building a bridge here and a highway there can outweigh massive human rights violations are only reinforcing GMA’s conviction that she can get away with anything provided she actually uses at least part of the national budget for what it is normally used.
After graduating college I worked as a statistician at a presidential office located in Arlegui st. It was a wonderfull job. Totoy looking as I may be, with my ID on official business, I always get treated seriously and with respect.
Marcos was midway through his first term. He was really smelling so good at that time.
Okay, Marcos could do no wrong then and we idolized the Man. Here’s the thing: midway through his first term, vote buying using old paper bills(those that were supposedly to be burned). were already in the works. I was told that plans were being developed right in the building next to ours.
For some crazy unexplainable reason, we did not respond negatively to this. Some of the staff even thought it great, if not funny(the opposition is clueless funny). This crooked mentality that Marcos is indeed a smart man for “planming” ahead of time.
Unfortunately today we have the same fools, as we were then.
Marcos for all his sins, was a political genius who danced around with whoever he wanted to. He can convinced non-believer to believe his side with his eloquent speeches. Convinced even seasoned politicians and diplomats to his side during his healthier days. His other side was, he too was easily convinced by those who uses him for their own purpose and interest. The military was able to become the main player in Philippine Politics, not because Marcos wanted it too, but he too was out manuevered by his own Geneerals (ramos, ver et al). His family circles used him too to accumulate vast wealth by corruptions.
Just like most Politicians, he started with honorable intentions, ended like most others. But if you take a formal survey among those who experienced the years of Martial Law, just like today, the Filipino People are just as split as to the Legacy of Marcos as to their Opinion of the Current President. That i guarantee.
mlq3 said: “carl, from your views it seems you consider it impossible for any politician to do anything good, much less anyone from the upper class to contribute anything to society; and you do not seem to attach any importance to opposition whether out of principle or circumstance, or both.”
You may have a point that, under the political system which we copied from the Americans, I find it almost impossible for any politician to be altruistic and to devote himself to a life of doing good. The fact is that I am more skeptical about the system we have embraced than about the people. We are great people under a lousy system.
What I would like to see is for us to do better than what we have done so far. We have suffered from too many glib politicians who postured as fighters for a cause and only end up putting one over everybody else. I would admire a Rizal or Bonifacio, contrasting though both men may be in their upbringing and, perhaps, outlook. But they were true to their beliefs. I do respect Pepe Diokno, despite the fact that I do not agree with many of the ideas which he espoused. But he was consistent until the end and lived what he preached. I do admire Nelson Mandela because he was magnanimous enough not to stoop to vindictiveness and grandiose enough to move beyond racial and class preconceptions in order to spur his country’s development. He was also steadfast and purposeful enough to restrain his wife and some of his more ardent supporters from abusing their power. I admire Lee Kuan Yew because he was committed to his vision and made an economic miracle out of a backwater city-state. I even admire Mahathir Muhammad, at least before his present narcissistic and cantankerous disposition. He did take bold steps to bring his country to what it is now.
I do not admire Emilio Aguinaldo because of his inability to think beyond his narrow self-interest. I also think very little of Cory Aquino, who had a golden opportunity after EDSA and squandered it, because of her incapacity to hurdle the inner-circle limitations of class, clan and clique. Yes, mlq3, as far as what the Aquinos and Cojuangcos manifested, it makes me pessimistic that the upper class would contribute anything except to their own aggrandizement. I am not saying it would be impossible, but certainly very difficult. Recent history bears me out.
As for the “naked worship of powerâ€Â, a healthy respect for power may be more suitable. After all, it is very difficult to do anything of great consequence without power. Of course, there is the currently overplayed example of Gawad Kalinga, which I hope we could have more of (otherwise it might become a weary cliché). I do hope more Tony Melotos will step up in the future.
And regarding my point about dying for a cause being easier than living for one, a comparison of the number of suicide bombers would show that there are more of them than there are Mother Teresas. It is relatively easy to be killed, after all it only takes a moment. It is much more difficult going through the drudgery of life and enduring failures and disappointments over so many years.
Like it or not CVJ, you soaked yourself so much of Gloria are that you are just becoming like her. This blog is your little malacanang. That superiority complex is very very familiar. ..”All of you are wrong and I am soooo damn right so I must rule! No other ideas is as excellent as mine so the rest are just non sense and therefore should not be tolerated to flourish at all… This really ver very familiar…..
From Carl: Ninoy Aquino didn’t suffer for any principles. He only suffered because he happened to be a thorn to Marcos at the only game they were both adept at – politics…
Ninoy knew he was going to be assassinated if he returned. Yet he returned. Perhaps Ninoy thought there would be elections in the afterlife, Carl?
Politics isnt bad per se. How could it be when in itself it’s amoral? It’s the way it is exercised that has given it a bad reputation. Politics in itself is just the art of getting things done in a free society.
Rego, making me or any blogger/commenter the object of an argument is just another form of ad-hominem attack. This detracts from the issues that we should focus on in the real world.
“Ninoy knew he was going to be assassinated if he returned.”
There was information that Ninoy may be assasinated. But Ninoy was an inveterate risk-taker. In the political arena, he loved to push the envelope. Sure, there were risks. But if he could pull it off and convince Marcos to retire and call elections, the rewards for him and his clique of trapos and relatives would be great. Ninoy also thought he knew how Marcos thought. And Ninoy knew Marcos wasn’t stupid enough to have him killed, certainly not in such a brazen manner. Ninoy miscalculated because he was unaware that the lunatics had taken control of the nut house. Marcos was no longer in control.
Ninoy was an accidental hero. He may not even have been aware that his death would spark an EDSA.
Carl, it only seems that there are more suicide bombers because by their nature, they tend to make a louder noise than the Mother Teresa’s who quietly toil in the background. Your ‘healthy respect for power’ does show up in your writings. For example, anyone who follows news about Mahathir Muhammad knows that he has been ‘cantankerous and narcissistic’ even at the height of his powers. The only difference today is that he is ‘cantankerous and narcissistic’ but without the Prime Minister’s office which makes him powerless, therefore not worthy of respect. A ‘healthy respect for power’ should not be taken to mean willing submission to anyone who happens to obtain it by whatever means. That’s the essence of being a balimbing. That attitude is precisely what sustains the dysfunctional system that we are living in today, a system that will survive a transition to parliamentary.
As for Ninoy, it’s a good thing that his last moments were caught on tape so that everyone who wants to can see for ourselves whether he was in still in a ‘calculating mood’ at that time. That footage, i hope, will help him survive any character assasination.
“At best, Ninoy was only an accidental martyr.â€Â
Prior to his murder at the tarmac, Ninoy had offered his life for the Filipinos on two other separate occasions. Once when he decided to fast to the end until Marcos force-fed him while near death. At another when he willingly accepted his sentence to die by firing squad but Marcos, conscious of the grave political backlash of his nemesis’ execution, backed off.
At the height of the docility of many of his countrymen, Ninoy stood tall as the singular defiant symbol against the tyranny of Marcos. The despot deprived him of his basic human rights for nearly eight years during which he was abandoned by “his clique of trapos”; however while in confinement Ninoy transformed and cleansed himself of his “feet of clay.” Consequently, on his accord Ninoy accepted his symbolic imperatives despite many chances of deliverance.
Just like Rizal, Ninoy did not have to return home to face his executioner, yet he did because he believed the Filipinos are worth dying for.
Had Ninoy chosen to lead a decent life in Boston, the county in all likelihood would still be under a Marcos dictator today.
He may not even have been aware that his death would spark an EDSA.
That would be a fair assumption since he was, after all, dead. 😀
But let me go back to an earlier point I made: that Ninoy thought Marcos did the right thing when he suspended Congress, nationalized several oligarch-owned establishments, and confiscated haciendero-owned land, and called for a new constitution. It could be that these 2 people knew how to govern the Philippines, knew what it would take to break the people off from their colonial mindset. If Marcos didnt let greed get in the way, maybe he wouldve been proven right. Im saying maybe it’s time for an honest debate on the New Society as an idea. Let’s try to separate the idea from the man who thought it up.
new society was just a ploy, just like the things being advocated by sigaw. the true intention is hidden somewhere to deceive the people.
Thanks for the explanation, Carl. We will never agree on Lee Kwan Yew, I do have a kind of respect for Mahathir, but I am interested in your pointing out Mandela and Rizal who, I think, was right all along in saying without a sense of civic responsibility we will either get oligarchy or mob rule. Jeg also says the New Society should be revisited, which would be interesting though I do have my reservations as to the value of that: Marcos was able to seize, as the President has seized, a formidable desire to purge our country of the control of a few, something the opponents of Marcos and now, of the President, underestimate.
“Yes, mlq3, as far as what the Aquinos and Cojuangcos manifested, it makes me pessimistic that the upper class would contribute anything except to their own aggrandizement. I am not saying it would be impossible, but certainly very difficult. Recent history bears me out.”
I believe this the common sentiments among the Filipinos now. One reason why people power will never happen again. I wonder if this will ever change….
cvcj, you are just as guilty of the same……..
Jeg, i believe it’s worth while to revisit the ‘New Society’ option and develop it further before some aspiring dictator hijacks the idea again for his own enrichment. We can also refine the idea taking in the lessons of our neighbors China, Vietnam, Malaysia and Venezuela.
sorry…as mlq3 has said above, it may already be in the process of being hijacked.
can somebody tell gloria that she can be a NINOY .. just make
herself available for Assasination …
— Can somebody tell gloria that she can be a NINOY .. just make herself available for Assasination … for the NATION’s sake
Gloria (or Palparan) are symptoms of a disease. Killing them would just spread the infection. Containing them by capturing them alive and locking them up after a trial will be a better option. An example would be the handling of the two South Korean ex-presidents. Another is the capture and jailing of Maoist guerilla leader Abimael Guzman which effectively ended the Shining Path rebellion in Peru.
“Containing them by capturing them alive and locking them up after a trial will be a better option.”
Yup, let’s also scrutinize her under a microscope and analyze what’s in her mole that makes her lie.
cvj,
There is a saying that “the mark of a true and good leader is thet he provides a worthy successor”.
thank you for sending us a beautiful and meaningful message and news.
[url][/url] [url=]young gay boy webcams[/url] young gay boy webcams [url][/url] [url=]teenage boy pissing gay[/url] teenage boy pissing gay [url][/url] [url=]gay black teen with big dick[/url] gay black teen with big dick [url][/url] [url=]gay teen couple webcam[/url] gay teen couple webcam [url][/url] [url=]hot gay teen models[/url] hot gay teen models [url][/url] [url=]gay photographer looking for models young men[/url] gay photographer looking for models young men [url][/url] [url=]young gay twink sex[/url] young gay twink sex [url][/url] [url=]hot teen gay guys[/url] hot teen gay guys [url][/url] [url=]gay photographer looking for models young men[/url] gay photographer looking for models young men [url][/url] [url=]sex old young gay[/url] sex old young gay
What if Ninoy Aquino’s death was planned and orchestrated by
Ninoy himself? How can he predict his death minutes before
he left the plane? Is he expecting it because it was a plan
that he knew and with his approval to discredit the Marcos
regime? How come until now his death is still unsolve? No one
knew who really killed him. Was Ninoy’s supposed to be martyrdom orchestrated so that the filipino public will rise
up against Marcos? Ninoy knew he can’t defeat Marcos even in
an election, so the best way to do is to sacrifice himself and
faked martyrdom, in that way it will cause Marcos downfall.
Cristino, you forget Ninoy was warned by the Marcoses himself.