What could've happen in Philippine history, after Ramon Magsaysay survived that crash in Cebu? What would be the butterflies in the economy, society and politics? Any other possibilities?
Let's discuss.
The Philippines will be seen as a reliable nation state in holding the region secure against China in the future, since the Philippines would have a much better military.
Though I would see that the Philippines with Magsaysay survival would be bilateral between the USA and the PRC.
- I also imagine the Philippines having more expatriates, and foreigners. And also the cultural, and political heart of Southeast Asia.
- Would immigration to the United States and other countries be much less with a better Philippine economy? (This also possibly butterflies my existence...)
- Would religion in the Philippines still have a high importance or will its power fade and become more of a secularized nation?
With Magsaysay's survival though, how could his alternate successors still deal with the oligarchy and the landowner-dominated Congress that are well entrenched.
It wouldnt only be a reliable nation but it retains the regional power status in South east Asia.
With regards to migration, instead of OFW Filipinos, you will probably have migration going into the Philippines.
It is a secularized nation. I think the issue is if the voter is easily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. It probably be different the OTL present day. OTL Philippines has a very high elementary/high school undergrads which can easily be swayed by the Church. A better economy would mean this will butterfly away due to higher education requirements of a better economy in present day.
The last two presidents, Quirino and Magsaysay, from the PoD arent even part of the oligarchy. Oligarchy and landowning dominated Congress will only matter the poorer a country is due to its lower educated populace just like OTL present day Philippines. Back in those days, you can be a successful politician as long as you are qualified regardless of your background if you are part of the oligarchy or not as proven by Magsaysay or Quirino. Just like the USA though, you got to be member of 2 party system, in Philippines case, Liberal and Nacionalista.
1. I agree. A middle power.
2. And Filipinos to with dual citizenship. Also large number of expatriates, with the Americans the largest.
--
Hm, would we be able to get Sabah back with Magsaysay surviving? Not expert upon in but I do know that OP Merdeka resulted in the Jabidah Massacre which resulted in the Moro Insurgency.
I am not an economic expert but would Singapore still have its status from OTL to this althist. Singapore does sit in an important position.
Would the other Asian Tigers such as SK, HK, ROC and Singapore I mentioned above become Asian tigers...but at a different date?
--
Not to divert the discussion for that long but I just found this political party (or group?)...
Actually, OTL the literacy rate for the Philippines is 97.5%, so actually not that uneducated. Remember, having degrees doesn't stop people from voting in populist candidates (see Argentina). And remember, most Americans historically did not have a college education either. What is much more salient is the wealth per capita and the social inequality. Plenty of college-educated people back home who can't get a job, which is fertile ground for demagouguery - call it the Egypt effect.
1. I agree. A middle power.
2. And Filipinos to with dual citizenship. Also large number of expatriates, with the Americans the largest.
Hm, would we be able to get Sabah back with Magsaysay surviving? Not expert upon in but I do know that OP Merdeka resulted in the Jabidah Massacre which resulted in the Moro Insurgency.
I am not an economic expert but would Singapore still have its status from OTL to this althist. Singapore does sit in an important position.
Would the other Asian Tigers such as SK, HK, ROC and Singapore I mentioned above become Asian tigers...but at a different date?
It would also be possible that a surviving Magsaysay may also dampen the rise of JoMa Sison and the pro-Maoist CPP and its militant arm, the NPA.
It would also be possible that a surviving Magsaysay may also dampen the rise of JoMa Sison and the pro-Maoist CPP and its militant arm, the NPA.
Pretty much this, considering Magsaysay took counter-insurgency lessons from Lansdale.
The country had realize that time that the Parity Rights expiration in 1974 was fast approaching and for the Philippines to be the main destination of foreign investments, they should have repealed the 60/40 equity restriction provision on natural resources and public utilities under the 1935 constitution.
It would have made little difference.
That includes long-term business ownership security issues.Investors local or foreign prefer sound business environment.
Giving foreign investors a legal security to own fully of their investments will assure that local dummies will not bankrupt them, thus giving incentives or framework of investing in the country regardless of infrastructure and peace and order deficiences.Total Ownership is a small matter when you have issues ranging for peace and order, rebels burning businesses, Marcos confiscating private property, bad and unequal regulations, good business infrastructure.
Nigeria will disagree with that it is an unstable infested with rebels and yet, with lesser investment restrictions, still attract foreign investments in hydrocarbons industry.If you have foreign ownership and haven't solved that those mentioned, philippines would be poorer.
Just ask foreign investors who forced to leave the country because they were bankrupted by the local dummies.The insistence that Lack of total ownership unattracts investment and is misinformed.
The country needs much MNC companies to give local conglomerates who are dominating the economic and political sector a run of money. The country needs large-scale job generation to uplift the country from poverty.The theory of total ownership may hold true if business rely on multinational companies and large companies as the only investor.
Nowadays, SMEs had to go a joint venture with conglomerates or die.But we all know successful economies rely on small and medium enterprises on economic activity.
The problem right now of the Philippines regarding the impending ASEAN integration is that the country is in slow-paced in implementing structural economic reforms like constitutional amendment on removing the 60/40 forced equity sharing, reforming labor laws like getting rid of 13th month pay, and others. The current administration of pandering the economic elites of his family does not help the goal of the Philippines to integrate with the ASEAN economic community by 2015.
Namayan, are you for the maintenance of the 60/40 forced equity sharing in the constitution per se despite of the clamors from the business community, local or foreign, to amend it?
We are not taking about otl present day. We are talking about ATL 1957 pod.
The Philippines was of course growing with double digits as it was still recovering from the devastating effects of WWII, Parity Rights for American investors, Japanese reparations, and neighboring countries have yet opened themselves to foreign investments. Basically the country is growing from the low base. Had WWII never happened, double digit growth would have been impossible.With regards to foreign ownership, philippines was growing double digits under the 1935 constitution. The major difference between slow growth in the philippines present day otl and past otl is implementation of the laws which lead you back a sound business environment. This means the executive department is not doing there job which is about implementing laws.
It has something to do with faulty presidential system in the country by the Americans wherein the executive and the legislative cannot agree in implementing laws because they are separate, if we have a parliamentary system, it would have been easier for the fused executive and legislative government to implement laws.There is a big difference between the executive and legislative. In the west, when there is a law you implement it. In the philippines it's not always the case.
Let say otherwise, the peace and order is fine and yet foreign investors are still reluctant from investing in the country due to regulations like ownership restrictions. There are complex reasons on why foreign investors never invest in the Philippines than peace and order as you think.A perfect example would be peace and order, if there is foreign ownership but my business office is being threatened, me and my employees are being threatened by the rebels or criminals this leads to less investment, foreign or domestic.
We disagree here. History has proven that 1935 constitution works. Do not connect ATL with present PoD. This is not a present OTL discussion so don't put The current speaker of the house for a 1957 pod because the propel exist now may not exist nor be in power in ATL present day.Of course, it would have a repercussions for good had the country repealed the 60/40 forced equity sharing in the 60s or 70s instead of proposing for abolition right now by Belmonte. Once the Parity Rights expire in 1974, the country will be shut down from attracting foreign investments unless the 60/40 forced equity sharing was abolished after 1957 to anticipate the expiration of the Parity Rights.
The Philippines was of course growing with double digits as it was still recovering from the devastating effects of WWII, Parity Rights for American investors, Japanese reparations, and neighboring countries have yet opened themselves to foreign investments. Basically the country is growing from the low base. Had WWII never happened, double digit growth would have been impossible.
It has something to do with faulty presidential system in the country by the Americans wherein the executive and the legislative cannot agree in implementing laws because they are separate, if we have a parliamentary system, it would have been easier for the fused executive and legislative government to implement laws.
Let say otherwise, the peace and order is fine and yet foreign investors are still reluctant from investing in the country due to regulations like ownership restrictions. There are complex reasons on why foreign investors never invest in the Philippines than peace and order as you think.
.
We disagree here. History has proven that 1935 constitution works. Do not connect ATL with present PoD. This is not a present OTL discussion so don't put The current speaker of the house for a 1957 pod because the propel exist now may not exist nor be in power in ATL present day.
This growth was also before the war. All other countries benefited for post war. Mismanagement or good management leads to good growth not a good constitution. Both Japan and Philippines benefited from. The only difference is Japan was able to sustain that during the 1960s while Philipoines wasn't. This is more of an implementation issue than a law issue.
American presidential system is not faulty. Only people who implemented are. People has always been the problem not the law. You can have no constitution and still be successful. This leads to implementation failures not law failures.
Like I keep on saying, if you want only large corporations to become your only investors. Then well and good that system would work.
But you should encourage small enterprises more than large investors. Large foreign investors will only give a few thousand jobs while small enterprises collectively will give millions of jobs. Encouraging small investors are not based on total ownership but implementation.
Change of constitution doesn't equate prosperity but strict implementation of the current law does.
Like I keep on saying this is an alternate history forum not a current events political propaganda forum since you are trying to impose the OTL current speaker of the house of the philippines in ATL discussion.