Efficiency and Effectivity: Do We Filipinos Know the Difference?

Once upon a time there were two villagers working the fields in a remote boondock. The fields were well-tilled as they were a hard-working people. Fortunately they had good soil and because of that there was minimal need for water. Still, the village needed more water and a council decided to have a competition on who can best serve the needs of the village.

The water source was roughly 5 kilometers away from the village – they both needed to fill a huge vat of water by the end of the day.

The villagers were presented with two challengers -Leon and Pablo. Leon and Pablo wanted the village to be happy and so each were given a day to come up with a solution.

The following day, Leon and Pablo met at the village plaza. All the villlagers were there to see what they were up to:

Pablo worked hard from dusk till dawn. He got his wheel barrow and his bucket. And filled it up to the brim. Walked all day long filling the bucket with water – filling the vat. He braved the heat of the sun, put on a hat and went on his way. The villagers admired Pablo for being hardworking and praised him.

Leon meanwhile, took out a piece of paper with a drawing on it which showed the highest point at which he can place a bamboo that will just flow downwards to the river. He estimated that he can string enough pieces of bamboo, mount them on bamboo stands, figured he will have the set-up ready by mid-afternoon, giving him an extra hour to make corrections. The villagers thought Leon was crazy, arrogant, and a braggart. Leon didn’t he went to the woods with his bolo. And went about his way. He worked inch by inch. Cutting the bamboo, the pegs, and the mounts.Whistling as he went about – under the shade. The villagers thought he was lazy and said Leon was cheating because he was under the shade. They even insinuate that the game is rigged because Leon was taking it easy. Leon just kept on working.

By the afternoon, Pablo was getting a second wind because he already had lunch. The villagers passed the hat and gave food and drinks to Pablo because after all, Pablo worked so hard. By early afternoon, Pablo had filled two thirds of the vat. Leon’s vat was still empty.

Leon on the other hand just went home to eat and reviewed his plan and where he was at that part of the day. By early afternoon he had put his bamboo pegs down – slightly after mid afternoon, he had tied all the bamboo’s in a neat tube.

Pablo meanwhile, was getting tired, his back was getting store. He rallied people to his side saying Leon was cheating and that his work will cause all the bamboos to be gone, and that Leon was instigating anti-village ideas.

By late mid-afternoon, Pablo’s back was extremely sore from all the lifting. His vat wasn’t full.

Leon was aligning the end of a bamboo tube with the water source.

By the end of the day, Leon’s vat was overflowing with water and had room for more vats. He had to change the directions of his tube so the water can flow into a more permanent structure from which the villagers can draw water.

P.s By evening Pablo was complaining about unfair competition and exploitation by…. LEON. He referred to Leon’s focus and discipline as dictatorship. 😯 8) They also thought that it wasn’t fair for Leon to be paid more because he didn’t sweat as hard as Pablo. For short, the villagers rewarded Pablo.

Leon moved to the next village – were they implemented Leon’s system and rewarded him well.

Pablo still complains about his back pains every day, Leon has a rewarding bath on-demand, every day, a nice cottage too – in a lot overlooking the valley.

Who was efficient? Who was effective?

This shows that given the same situation – two parties can look at it differently and present a case.

There are just too many questions – If you were the villager whose plan will you go with? Have you encountered similar situations? Your life? Your family? Neighbors? Your TV shows? What do we Filipinos value most? Do we even have these values at all? Should we assimilate these values into our culture?

Given the unruliness of the presidential system and the more systematic parliamentary system – which one will the Filipino villagers prefer?

What’s your take?

[poll id=”17″]



  1. BongV,

    I believe this question was addressed quite some time ago. Most Filipinos don’t appreciate the different concepts of “efficiency” and “effectiveness”, and all too often equate the former with the latter. The proof lies in the fact that we don’t have a word for “efficiency” – except that bastard loan word from Spanish, “episyente”.

    And until the Yellow masses learn to appreciate the difference, this country will always be the depressed hellhole it has always been since the late Marcos era.

  2. That’s Pinoys — always looking to labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive solutions. Capital input into Leon’s solution were his brains and the time he invested to build his system. Results weren’t instant, but when they came, they were sustainable in an efficient manner.

    Hirap sa Pinoy e. It is always those who come up with pwede na yan solutions that become “heroes” and those that apply a bit of brain who are seen to be “mayabang”.

  3. palebluedot · ·

    i still blame the catholic church for the ineffectiveness of the filipino through their propagation of the concept of sacrifice – carrying one’s cross – as a way of life. those who carry their crosses (as what Pablo does by pushing his wheelbarrow) will be rewarded in heaven, while those who just sits in front of the computer creating blueprints for solutions to ease the existing redundant systems are servants of the devil – they are lazy & their work aims to remove manual labor, thereby, decreasing available jobs for the poor. “we should pray for the salvation of their souls. amen!”

  4. dapat ganun yung nangyayari sa agriculture natin. we are agricultural nation it is so ironic we are more of industrialized courtesy of the oligarchs than being innovative of our most impt part of livelihood. the hacienderos should help their farmers bloom their crops than just paying them 9 pesos of tyranny.

  5. Just look at our transportation system, the jeepneys and the tricycles clogging the streets and highways. The Filipinos are complaining about traffic and pollution but it seems the governing bodies are incompetent to plan an efficient system of urban transportation.

    Urban planning should go with the highest standards and systematic solutions. I do not find beauty with living in a modern and well-built house or condominium when the window view reveals of poverty and chaos.

    Indeed, a lot of things show our incompetence to deal with simple problems. We let easy problems become complicated. After Smokey Mountain, we have now Smoggy Manila, and we are not even through with the cleaning of the Pasig River! 😦

  6. Pablo seems to demonstrate one of the myths of Pinoy piety – that inconveniencing oneself is a worthy sacrifice. Relatives want to see you inconvenienced or they’ll brand you as lazy. Bosses want to see you inconvenienced as a worker. If you avoid inconvenience, even if you get results by the end of the day, you’re branded as something bad. That’s the kind of idiocy trumpeted by our deceptive local media too.

  7. Pasig River is getting dirtier by the week… And for me I see that when I pass by Guadalupe bridge… Its a sickening site to behold.

    I agree with you on the beautiful condos & houses… They don’t patch up the filth of the country… Even how much its beauty.

  8. its better to be cunning and crafty than too populist which sank the whole nation into ruins. if a candidate is competent but unpopular the fruit of his principles will be his ultimate contribution to the country. balat sibuyas cannot make you stronger.

  9. NFA rice · ·

    This is related to the inability of Filipinos to think for longer time scales. In the short-run, Pablo provided some satisfaction in the short-term. But in the long-term it is Leon that is more effective. In the long term, Pablo’s method will need greater amounts of input labor and time to meet the demands of increasing population. The village that adopted the method will suffer because the extra amount of time and labor eaten up by the method could have been spent elsewhere like improving the streets. The cost of missed opportunities is there. Also if the village adopted Leo’s method, it could have sold the method to other villages, maybe become technologically dominant.

  10. It takes intelligence and practicality to recognize intelligence and practicality.

    In a nation where Wowowwowwee and Erap and telenovellas and Kris Aquino are recognized and gasp, appreciated by the bulk of our society, are we surprised at all by our results? We reap what we sow. Can I speculate we don’t exactly sow intelligence.

    For those of you who have not read this:


  11. FreeSInce09 · ·

    Mabuhay kang Bong, saang baryo ba to?

  12. Hyden Toro · ·

    Efficiency and effectivity are the two criterias, I’ve known in evaluating the performance of an employee. We, Filipinos were brainwashed by our Colonizers; that : everything imported are good, last long and very efficient. These are the reasons, we buy their imported goods.

    I have never seen the innovativeness of Filipinos. They want stability. So, a stable job, working 8 Am to 5Pm; is enough for them. We are trained to be Employees, not Employers. If you ask most of the graduates. Almost 90% would want to work in foreign countries. No good pay in the Philippines. They see foreign countries , with streets paved with gold.

    Political offices and positions are like the end of the rainbow. There is a pot of gold there! We fight tooth and nails during elections. We cheat just to get elected. We delude voters to vote for us. Then end up sloganeering: “Kung walng corrupt, walang mahirap.” The gullible Filipinos will believe the slogan. Then we will all live happily ever after in this Wonderland.

  13. Perhaps the single biggest factor is the dominant religion about lack of understanding of efficiency and effectiveness.

    Why Filipino Prayers are very Inefficient

  14. I just experienced one small but noticeable example of inefficiency in Philippine business: CD-R King. While it provides a lot of computer accessories at low prices, heavens, its sales system is ancient. Instead of a single centralized system with barcode scanning and computerized cashiering, the CD-R King staff are armed with paper receipts and calculators. Thus, processing purchases is very slow, and I had to wait just for my turn. Makes me wonder how ironic the country is, or at least this Manila business is, in having a computer store, but their system is anything but computerized.

  15. @chinof oo nga kaya ang tagal haha cdr king is slow pero mahal yata yung cashier machine kaya ganun.

  16. Galing akong SM Cubao branch kanina kaya ko nasabi. Wala pang stock ng CPU and monitor cover, yun pa hanap ko, tsk tsk. Mahal nga ang gamit like cas registers… pero they’ll be cheaper if foreign investors could provide such equipment at better prices. Or other foreign investor-backed sellers of computer parts can do the same with better service.

  17. NFA rice · ·

    the cashier machines might be expensive but why not invest on them. They increase the revenue in the long run by speeding up the purchasing process.

  18. indeed, a POS system is costly. However if you intend to stay in the market (and CDR-King certainly found its share), that machine easily pays itself off and the added added materials (ink, register paper) needed to run it. Time per transactions are faster, allowing for better customer service (80% of the time unheard of in CDR-King). I take it that each store is a franchise controlled by a different owner so the business methods are certainly as pinoy as it gets.

  19. Sakto talaga ang istorya ni Leon sa mga efficient at effective OFWs and migrants: when their skills weren’t appreciated here in Pinas, they offered their services to the other barrio and they gladly accepted it.

  20. anonymous · ·

    I seriously thought this was about the work ethic and values of the Filipino but the end seriously disappointed me. It would’ve been better if this analogy was applied with the Filipino work ethic.

    “Any one who will trade freedom for security deserves neither”
    -Benjamin Franklin

    Those who value freedom should take this to heart. There IS A REASON why the presidential form of government was created and this has something to do with combating tyranny, oppression and unchecked absolute power in the government. You do realize that instituting a parliamentary form of government won’t do anything in a culture such as ours because it will just ensure easy access to oligarchy and political dynasties in the government.

    Any form is useless if the problem lies within the people itself. Let’s face it, our culture rewards connections and not on merit. Those who are in power have been using the powers of the government to grant special favors to whom they know or whom they are friends with. As much as I want things to get done, a parliamentary form of government is not the answer.

  21. anonymous · ·

    You have to thank the semi-feudal mindset for that. Of course, the tenant-landlord system where rents are paid in the form of produce of the land (the usual system employed is around 70% of the produce goes to the landlord while 30% goes to the tenant) stifles efficiency since there is no incentive to be competitive due to the almost non-existent labor costs. The result of this is that our agricultural produce only results to low yields and substandard products due to the fact that our industry becomes labor incentive (and in fact is nothing more than slavery) in contrast to other countries who practice the payment of farm hands as laborers and invest more on capital-incentive methods of production. Ironically, the great benefits generated by the IRRI, which stems from the Philippines itself has been used by other countries to make production more efficient while we Filipinos are still stuck in the rut.

    Amazing how we shoot ourselves in our own foot.

  22. that’s Philipppine society for you – Pablo’s enablers . disappointing

    I disagree that parliamentary is not the answer.

    The current Presidential form of government has not done anything to “combat tyranny, oppression and unchecked absolute power in the government” – in fact, the presidency has been a source of tyranny and oppression – case in point – Marcos and Estrada.

    I disagree that “instituting a parliamentary form of government won’t do anything in a culture such as ours because it will just ensure easy access to oligarchy and political dynasties in the government.” given that the current presidential form already provides “easy access to oligarchy and political dynasties in the government”. When two major parties are indistinguishable from each other and are composed mainly of oligarchs – the chances of a party which is not for a pro-oligarch agenda gains a higher profile due to the polarization of the narrative – in the process increasing chances of a party that is not affiliated with oligarchs.

  23. @mike tan

    True. As a documentary to what you have said:

    A Filipina from Naga, an elementary school graduate, is sitting as Check-In Officer with the Lufthansa at the Munich International Airport, earning a monthly net pay of P96,000.00! Later when she retires, she will have at least P54,000.00 per month!

    Here in the Philippines, they need labels and diplomas to measure the efficiency and effectivity of Pinoys!

  24. anonymous · ·

    Actually my friend, the system where Marcos exploited the system to gain a foothold for more than 20 years WAS A PARLIAMENTARY system and I don’t even know where to start about Estrada when he wasn’t even tyrannical in the first place . Let’s face it, a system such as a parliamentary form of government only allows for oligarchs to remain in power. The problem lies not within the system but with the people themselves.

    And regarding your comment about “When two major parties are indistinguishable from each other and are composed mainly of oligarchs – the chances of a party which is not for a pro-oligarch agenda gains a higher profile due to the polarization of the narrative – in the process increasing chances of a party that is not affiliated with oligarchs”, well tough living in fantasy land kid because the opposite could also happen – parties that are obviously composed from the same political dynasties which has run the government for generations and generations could exploit the system to gain an indefinite foothold in power. Unless Pinoys get a firm smack in the head and vote for people based on their platforms and not on personalities, oligarchs with the right exposure and money will always win.

    It’s our society to blame. Unless Pinoys get their shit together, nothing will change. The system may change but the game will remain the same. Filipinos don’t deserve any form of democratic form of government to be honest. The concept has been bastardized in our country and it’s merely a farce in here. What we either need is an iron fist of a benevolent leader to rule us or an anarchist society where there is no government/state but will solely be run by the communities themselves.

  25. I’ll have to disagree. that was a sham parliament. let’s try a more recent one

    “The United Kingdom general election of 2010 was held on Thursday 6 May 2010 to elect members to the House of Commons. The election took place in 650 constituencies[note 1] across the United Kingdom under the first-past-the-post system. None of the parties achieved the 326 seats needed for an overall majority. The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the largest number of votes and seats but were still twenty seats short. This resulted in a hung parliament where no party would be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. This last occurred in the February 1974 election, and only twice since the Second World War.[2]

    Coalition talks began immediately between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and lasted for five days. There was an aborted attempt to put together a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition although other smaller parties would have been required to make up the ten seats they lacked for a majority. To facilitate this Gordon Brown announced on the evening of Monday 10 May that he would resign as Labour Party leader. On Tuesday 11 May, Brown finally announced his resignation[3] as Prime Minister, marking the end of 13 years of Labour government.[3] This was accepted by Queen Elizabeth II, who then invited David Cameron to form a government and become Prime Minister. Just after midnight on 12 May, the Liberal Democrats emerged from a meeting of their Parliamentary party and Federal Executive to announce that the coalition deal had been “approved overwhelmingly”,[4][5] sealing a stable coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

    None of the three main party leaders had previously led a general election campaign, which had not happened since the 1979 election. During the campaign, the three main party leaders engaged in a series of televised debates, the first time ever in a British election. The Liberal Democrats achieved a breakthrough in opinion polls after the first debate in which their leader Nick Clegg was widely seen as the strongest performer. However, on polling day their share of the vote increased by only 1%, and they suffered a net loss of five seats. Still, this was the Liberal Democrats’ largest popular vote since the party’s creation, and they found themselves in a pivotal role in the formation of the new government.

    The share of votes for parties other than Labour or the Conservatives was 35% and was the largest since the 1918 general election. The Green Party of England and Wales won its first ever seat in the Commons, and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland gained its first representation since 1974.”

  26. anonymous · ·

    Yes, the 1935 Constitution wasn’t a pure parliamentary form of government, it was a mix between the two. Now that you have posted this, just what is your point exactly? The point still remains, a one party system is dangerous in a society such as ours because it monopolizes power within government and the oligarchs/political families that have ruled for generations can use this to their advantage. It won’t matter what democratic form of government our society has, if the problem lies within society itself then it is our society that needs fixing.

    Out from the frying pan and on to the fire.

  27. i must be missing something, – am just wondering how you came to a conclusion that parliamentary form will lead to a one-party state – given that seats are assigned based on proportion of votes garnered.

    ahem ahem – may I invite you to read – http://antipinoy.com/philippineprogress/ – will save both of us time. after you are done reading then let’s have this conversation again.

  28. anonymous · ·

    It’s a statement of fact. For parliament to vote on a single head of government means that either they vote based on political alliances (ie their party) or none at all. It makes sense that in the exercise of political elections, oligarchs will consolidate into massive power blocs and encourage voters to vote for individuals that are members of the party. The cycle thus just perpetuates itself.

    And regarding your article, ahem, opinions are just that – opinions. Come back to me when you stop “begging the question” that a parliamentary form of government will get rid of people like Estrada and the likes and will instantly solve the problems plaguing our government.

  29. In that case our opinions differ.

    While people like Estrada can do get elected under a parliamentary system – he is also held accountable through a vote of no confidence – in contrast to the much tougher impeachment process.

    The Parliamentary System, on the other hand, gets the trait of popularity playing second-fiddle to competence and responsiveness to a constituency’s (district’s) needs. Because the ballots do not involve choosing who will be the Prime Minister and instead force the electorate to choose between parties – represented by their respective local candidates for “Member of Parliament”, the electoral dynamics are drastically different as top-level party leadership is not determined by how those leaders can fare in a popularity contest, but rather, party leaders rise through the ranks largely because of merit: initiative, achievement, quality of output, and competence.

  30. I am still wondering how a parliamentary system – which has multiple parties in play – become a one-party system.

    If there is only one party – as in the case of the Chinese Communist Party – where’s the other party? I am so lost

  31. Miriam Quiamco · ·

    IRRI is a UN-funded program and it was confined in UP Los Banos, there was really no serious implementation in the country of a rice sufficiency policy due to the influence of landlords in the senate and congress. Those who do not have land-holding clouts can get elected only on the support of oligarchs to their campaigns, the rest are actors who know nothing about policy-making. This is why a parliamentary system works because, it will not be based on popularity alone and the money of the oligarchs can only go so much to assure victory. With a shift to parliamentary system comes electoral reforms like limiting television commercials for specific candidates, party platforms will be the center, not personality, politicians then are forced to articulate in concrete terms their programs of government, not the family pedigree of particular personalities. This, in itself will bring to an end the cult of personality politics that has kept us an ineffective country in terms of policy-making. Parties are forced to focus their campaigns on issues and there will be limitations on funds spent on television ads. The mass media also are forced to cover the elections highlighting only the policy proposals of parties to solve current problems, not the emo-political arguments of electing an Aragorn, Jesus, the past election makes it very clear why we need to shift to a parliamentary form of government and soon. Away from popularity-based politics and on to issue-oriented politics to solve our problems of governance once and for all. All countries in Asia that have had success in policy-making are parliamentary form, why are we sticking to an antiquated form handed to us by our former colonial master, Marcos’ form of government was not parliamentary, it was a dictatorship, pure and simple, let us try a parliamentary form of government that is truly democratic!

  32. anonymous · ·

    Dude, you’re missing the point. There’s no single party system in a parliamentary form of government but the tendency to have a one party majority taking seats in parliament lingers. We have seen this in many parliamentary forms of government, case in point, Britain where one party takes majority seat and the rest are shunned. You do realize that once that happens, other parties have no say. In effect you have one party controlling the government – making, passing and executing laws.

    And again, you’re begging the question. There is no proof that a parliamentary form of government will necessarily get rid of Estrada and the likes. So you actually think that people like him won’t pop up and get a seat in parliament? You’ve got to be kidding me! People vote whom they want to place in power so if your electorates are stupid and choose artistas, boxers and general nincompoops in power, then you’ll get artistas, boxers and general nincompoops in power! This is not rocket science dude, it won’t even matter whether you’re in a parliamentary form or not. Again, stop begging the question. In fairy tales, Filipino people will vote for competent men in power but I found out I was just dreaming and I live in the real world. What’s worse, if people like him gets chosen to lead, it won’t matter what the people say, you’ve got no say who gets to lead and who doesn’t, only those in parliament will.

    And regarding your line “The Parliamentary System, on the other hand, gets the trait of popularity playing second-fiddle to competence and responsiveness to a constituency’s (district’s) needs.” don’t even get me started. It seems you have no clue how politics works do you? Popularity is everything in politics, especially in societies such as ours. The Filipino concept of practicing suffrage has been bastardized. Our concept of democracy is a farce.

    Face it, the problems lie within the Filipino psyche. Your solution isn’t even attacking the root cause of the problem, it simply is another long-list of tired and band-aid solutions that never solves the root of the problem.

  33. anonymous · ·

    True, oligarchs (who also happen to be landlords) have a foothold in government. Now how did parliament get into the discussion when I was only talking about our semi-feudal agrarian economy? But I’ll bite, again, there’s no proof that parliament will solve our present ills. Realize that even if you change the form of government, the players are still there. SO you honestly think that the oligarchs who happen to be landlords will stop running for office, or that they won’t have parties under their control? Again, you lot are begging the question.

    Nothing changes if Filipino electorates are still the fcking stupid nutjobs who can’t see the big picture even if the problem stares them in the face.

  34. “Dude, you’re missing the point. There’s no single party system in a parliamentary form of government but the tendency to have a one party majority taking seats in parliament lingers”

    It was YOU who said that a parliamentary system is a single party system – so am confused – because if as you said the system has only one party – why should there be elections if there is only one party?

    saying “stop begging the question” is a strawman argument and it does not answer the issue at hand –
    true the psyche is a problem – so getting on that point – now when you have a system that is personality-centric – the psyche takes the upperhand. but when you have a system that is designed to be platform-centric, personalities are important but take second fiddle to the party – that’s the whole point.

    popularity may be a factor – but it’s not the only factor.

    we have tried the presidential system for years – to no success. Marcos had a sham parliament. We have not really tried the parliamentary option – if it fails then add another failure. given the experiences of india and malaysia which has more or less the same vacuous electorate – how come they don’t wind up with the likes of an Estrada 😉 – it;s the parliamentary system – would you like to dispute these facts?

  35. There’s no proof because we haven’t tried it. There’s only one way to find out.

    What we do know – the Presidential system as we have it – SUCKS!

  36. I disagree with the allegation about “begging the question”. The reason for choosing the parliamentary option is not based on the assumption that parliamentary is better a priori. Rather the reason for doing so, were made after considering the following supposedly advantages of the Presidential system

    If you look at Indian parliamentary system, you will understand that Indian polity totally rebuffs your analysis. India has a unique situation, unique polity. She is as or more diverse than the Philippines; more populous; a quasi-federation; a very strong & over the years an assertive Supreme Court; a weak coalition government in center (at federal level); And yeah – Indian parliament has discussed even more important issues than nuclear policy.

    While all other democracies are/were failing in developing world, Indian democracy is coming out with flying colors – mainly due to the fine balance the constitution makers have struck between unitary-parliamentary & presidential-federal systems.

  37. And on the matter of having a clue or not – here’s another clue from India –

    Like many folks who comment on this issue, you are assuming that parliamentary government means single-party majority government. Of course, it does not. And coalitions are a far more effective way of keeping one party and the head of government in check than is US-style “divided government.” Moreover, it is not the case that PMs always have the kind of sway over their own parties that you imply.

    And as pointed out by the Indian experience – who have a polity similar to the Philippines – multiple dialects, ethnic groups, (reminiscent of datu/maharlika, timawa, aliping sagigilid, aliping namamahay) –

    “The major advantage of a parliamentary system is that it prevents the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. For example, a Prime Minister cannot declare war against another nation without the consent of Parliament, and debacles like Iraq can be avoided.

    A second crucial advantage is that a parliamentary system provides avenues for disdvantaged and minority groups to represent themselves. As a result it is better able to manage the balance of power in a diverse society.

    Finally, parliamentary systems can differ and provide potentially more flexibility than a presidential system in their ability to balance federal and state rights (although a parliamentary system can still maintain a very strong federal government).

    As pointed out earlier, India is a very large country, and has a parliamentary system. I doubt India would be able to manage her diversity as well within a presidential system like in the US.”

    On another note, some additional comments from the Indians:

    1. “the American system offers a decent chance of divided government and thus greater limits on the executive.”

    ??? As GeorgeII (Noynoy/Arroyo/Estrada) is now being constrained??

    2. In a Parliamentary system, the PM & the Cabinet are all MPs. Therefore they have to face daily questions & scrutiny. The US president is de facto a supreme monarch: never questioned, never having to defend his policies before legislators. His advisers & servants — the Cabinet — may be summoned before legislators, but the monarch himself is above all this.

    (remember executive privilege memo?)

    3. The US is the only Developed Country (DC) with an American-style Presidential system. All other DCs have variations on the Parliamentary model. Equally only the Latin American Less Developed Countries have a US-style Presidential system. Elsewhere LDCs have Parliamentary systems.

    What happens in the American system — would it happen in a Parliamentary system where the head of govt is also a member of the legislature? No. PM would have the absolute unrestricted power, for example, to declare certain people untermenschen with no possibility of habeas corpus.

    Therefore, the argument of begging the question does not hold water because:

    1) there are no prior assumptions made about each of the systems

    2) the reason for concluding parliamentary is better is based on the experiences and comparisons of different countries – India being most culturally similar to the Philippines – Bollywood and ABS-CBN/Regal – and the respective bakya crowds.

  38. Miriam Quiamco · ·

    But the players can be changed if the system so wishes it, take for example a parliamentary form of government which discourages personality cults to overrun democratic ideals of governance, parliamentary system surely will lessen the likelihood of the current strong Filipino tendency for emo-politics. In our country, oligarchs who are also landlords have strong chances to win in elections only because they have the money to fool the masses through the use of commercials on boob tubes and by the pork barrel, through patronage politics. When we shift to parliamentary form of governance, pork barrel and patronage politics will no longer be the norm of the day. Thus, the oligarchs themselves will have to show results for their policies once elected in parliament, other talented individuals will have a chance because the funds for elections will be provided by the government, TV ads will be paid for by government, and content of ads will focus on policies and not personalities, since government will have a say on the content for paid ads. There will be objective standards that players will follow, now you say, the players may find ways to circumvent the system, but if the system is rational and good, all the ways of circumventing it will also be precluded.

  39. Dude,
    You had an expectation of an article and you were disappointed. This is because you have a bias. Let go of your expectations.

    And the presidential system… in our country is problematic. It is in no way like any presidential system in the world, and it’s a defective system. This is the thesis of the Kasuya book, Presidential Bandwagon. Better pick it up and read it. It’ll make you conclude that we have to dump the presidential system because it is the problem.

  40. Zadkiel · ·

    Efficient = masinop
    Effective = mabisa

    yes! the pinoy knows. they just don’t live by it.

  41. touchkey · ·

    can i share this on my facebook wall? thanks…

  42. @touchkey, by all means yes. also inviting you to our FB pages



    we are also on twitter – twitter.com/antipinoy

  43. anonymous · ·

    Oh please, anyone has biases. The fact that most of you here want to change to a parliamentary system and calling (borrowing from BongV) the Presidential System as akin to “IT SUCKS” speaks multitudes of bias itself. Before we even further go with the discussion, you have to prove first that

    a) The problems in our society today stems not from the system but the voters themselves
    b) You have to prove that a parliamentary system is necessarily better given the environment

    The problem here is that most of you haven’t conclusively pointed out that this isn’t just another one of those long list of band-aid solutions and that most conclusions derived here doesn’t beg the question.

  44. anonymous · ·

    A little correction here:

    a) The problems in our society today stems from the system and not the voters themselves.

    My brain cells aren’t quite working today.

  45. I’m tempted to say that they were never working. 😆

  46. Anonymous · ·

    Thanks for all comments and informations now i understand what is the different of efficiency and effectivity. not only that also the standard of our goverment. god bless all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: