Rulers

I've always enjoyed reading old Chinese history stories such as Romance of Three Kingdom, Sun Tzu Art of War, as well as Emperor Kang Xi, Yong Zheng and Qian Long era of ruling. In each I slowly learned that a Kingdom's success is determined by its ruler.

I have long admired Emperors and Kings who ultimately are sort of rulers but can decide the fate of many in the name of God-believed royalty rights.

Today at work, I had a friendly discussion with a Filipino colleague who like many have echoed before to me, that life of the Philippines Under Ferdinand Marcos regime from 1965 to 1986 was actually great. And she remembered clearly those times when USD was 1:1 with the Peso currency (today is is ~ 1: 48) and of course ultimately the President's infamous wife Imelda and her shoes.

Her gripe was though there was corruption under his regime, it was isolated only to the top level. Right now, corruption was seen everywhere and things do not get done. Unlike many other nationalities living in Singapore, the Filipinos seems dead set of leaving their country and not returning and would boldly love Singapore or any other country that would take them in. Yet when a visiting Filipino basketball team or artise comes along, they show the love and support like no other nation I can think of. I know countless of Filipinos are living in the US, and even speaking Chinese in Taiwan and I believe they number in about 300 thousands in Singapore.

A quick Wikipedia search made me understand why though they love their country, they choose to leave. Though Philippines is the 2nd highest remittance recipients in East Asia & Pacific after China ($25.7 bn), Philippines ($17.0 bn) - the country is being so striken by poverty and my colleague told me many citizens are paying high taxes which is more than Singapore - why?

The economic growth that Marcos brought about was largely financed by U.S. economic aid and several loans made by the Marcos government. The country's foreign debts were less than US$1 billion when Marcos assumed the presidency in 1965, and more than US$28 billion when he left office in 1986. A sizable amount of these moneys went to Marcos family and friends in the form of behest loans. These loans were assumed by the government and still being serviced by taxpayers. Today, more than half of the country's revenues are reserved for the payments on the interests of loans alone.

So indeed economic growth might be sustained in one ruler's term but can it be preserved for generations after generations? Is paying the highest salary (in the case of Marcos whereby known corruption is overlooked) the only way out of calls for a desperate behest for proper leadership? For now it seems there is no foolproof way of selecting rulers for countries, and definitely money isn't the way to go as shown in Philippines history. Would leaders who came after Marcos be better off without those debts incurred?

They are so many questions which cannot be answered but knowing many Filipinos preferred a government like ours because though our rulers and government officials are paid a lot openly and legitimately, they do bring about efficiency and stability. But I just hope in the absence of accountability and checks, there are other ways to keep them in their place and not usurp to be Emperors, Kings or even Gods where losing billions are not trickled down to the later generations to pay for.