Popular social media personality and considered as one of the most influential personality on Facebook with over a million followers, Thinking Pinoy shared something unusual about the story of former President Ferdinand Marcos and the late Senator Ninoy Aquino.
According to Thinking Pinoy the story about Makoy vs. Ninoy is not really complete because of the fact that the winner will always be the storyteller of the incident that transpired during the late 60's and early 70's.
Thinking Pinoy or RJ Nieto in real life revealed that during the first four years of former Pres. Marcos starting in 1965, under a constitution that allows for one and only re-election, that's why in 1969 he won again for another term that would end in 1973.
However, in 1972, Pres. Marcos pre-empted regular constitutional process by declaring Martial Law, preventing opposition leader Ninoy Aquino to run against Marcos successor in what would have been a 1973 Presidential Elections.
These are just some of the facts happened and written by the victors but based upon the investigations of TP, Pres. Marcos was still incredibly popular among the electorate at least until mid-1973, or when the 1973 Oil Crisis began, so instead of declaring Martial Law, Marcos could have just asked one of his dummies to run and he could still have been the "power behind the throne," but Marcos did not do so.
Thinking Pinoy also released some pressing questions of something missing in the story about Marcos and Aquino.
Here's the Complete Statement of Thinking Pinoy:
MAKOY VS NINOY: BUNGI-BUNGI ANG ISTORYA NG MARTIAL LAW KASI KUNG SINO ANG NAGKUWENTO, SIYA LAGI ANG BIDA.
Marcos' first 4-year presidential term started in 1965, under a constitution that allows for one and only one re-election. He won again in 1969 for another term that would end in 1973.
In 1972, however, he pre-empted regular constitutional processes by declaring Martial Law, preventing opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino to run against his successor in what would have been a 1973 Presidential Elections.
Marcos' otherworldly desire for power is undeniable, and I believe he should have let go of his hold of Malacañang back then.
Marcos wanted power way too much. Now what I need to understand is WHY.
But from what I have learned, Marcos was still incredibly popular among the electorate at least until mid-1973, or when the 1973 Oil Crisis began, so instead of declaring Martial Law, Marcos could have just asked one of his dummies to run and he could still have been the "power behind the throne".
But he didn't, so did Marcos perceive a pressing need to remain at the forefront of Philippine Politics, and if so, is this perception of a pressing need based on empirical data or merely a product of a Messiah Complex?
In 1972, Marcos accused Ninoy of, among others, conspiring with Communists to topple the government. For one, several accounts show that Ninoy had a line of communication of the Communist National Democratic Front chief Jose Maria Sison.
Sison, according to some sources, informed Ninoy of the Communists' plan to bomb the Liberal Party campaign program in Plaza Miranda. As to why Ninoy didn't tell his LP friends about it thereby exposing to mortal danger, I still do not know.
But I think there's something missing in the story here:
1. If Marcos was supposed to step down in 1973, why would Ninoy need to "conspire" with Joma?
2. And if, for the sake of argument, a conspiracy indeed existed, was this before or AFTER the declaration of Martial Law? Because that would have made a world of a difference.
3. If there was no Ninoy-Joma conspiracy, what business does Ninoy have in maintaining a line of communication with the Communists?
But more importantly, I was brought up in an education system that painted Marcos as a ruthless dictator and the opposition as a bunch of peace-loving patriots who initially had no fighting chance against the strongman.
But the history books I grew with never mentioned the fact that the opposition engaged in Urban Terrorism. The books never mentioned the Light-A-Fire Movement, a group of upper class Filipinos who decided that violence was the solution against abuses of Martial Law.
A Kahimyang blog post recounts:
"On September 12, 1980, bombs went off in Metro Manila, one badly damaging Rustan's mall in Makati. The explosion at Rustan’s injured 70 people and killed an American tourist. On the night of October 4, 1980, more blasts rocked the Philippine Plaza, Century Park Sheraton, and Manila Peninsula hotels."
Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles, as we were talking about this last night, told me that it was one of Light-a-Fire's terrorists bombings that caused famed singer Nonoy Zuñiga to lose a leg, literally.
Light-a-Fire's members were tried and sentenced to death by electric chair in 1984 but the sentences were never carried out. Corazon Aquino then PARDONED them after she became president after the EDSA Revolution.
In 1989. Cory's government even awarded Light-a-Fire leader Psinakis a Presidential Citation "for outstanding service to Philippine democracy".
So Cory condoned terrorism? Cory saw terrorism -- e.g. blowing up Nonoy Zuñiga's leg -- as a legitimate and acceptable method?
Moreover, a declassified CIA memo even detailed how Ninoy in 1980 claimed to have a private army that he intends to send to Muslim insurgent leader Nur Misuari in Mindanao for training.
So why does it seem that history books have been sanitized to provide an extremely one-sided account of the 1970s and 1980s when the matter of fact is that both sides appear to be guilty of perpetuating atrocities that they accuse each other of?
There is something terribly, terribly wrong here somewhere...
BUNGI-BUNGI ANG ISTORYA NG MARTIAL LAW KASI KUNG SINO ANG NAGKUWENTO, SIYA LAGI ANG BIDA.
Source: Thinking Pinoy FB Page
According to Thinking Pinoy the story about Makoy vs. Ninoy is not really complete because of the fact that the winner will always be the storyteller of the incident that transpired during the late 60's and early 70's.
Thinking Pinoy or RJ Nieto in real life revealed that during the first four years of former Pres. Marcos starting in 1965, under a constitution that allows for one and only re-election, that's why in 1969 he won again for another term that would end in 1973.
However, in 1972, Pres. Marcos pre-empted regular constitutional process by declaring Martial Law, preventing opposition leader Ninoy Aquino to run against Marcos successor in what would have been a 1973 Presidential Elections.
These are just some of the facts happened and written by the victors but based upon the investigations of TP, Pres. Marcos was still incredibly popular among the electorate at least until mid-1973, or when the 1973 Oil Crisis began, so instead of declaring Martial Law, Marcos could have just asked one of his dummies to run and he could still have been the "power behind the throne," but Marcos did not do so.
Thinking Pinoy also released some pressing questions of something missing in the story about Marcos and Aquino.
Here's the Complete Statement of Thinking Pinoy:
MAKOY VS NINOY: BUNGI-BUNGI ANG ISTORYA NG MARTIAL LAW KASI KUNG SINO ANG NAGKUWENTO, SIYA LAGI ANG BIDA.
Marcos' first 4-year presidential term started in 1965, under a constitution that allows for one and only one re-election. He won again in 1969 for another term that would end in 1973.
In 1972, however, he pre-empted regular constitutional processes by declaring Martial Law, preventing opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino to run against his successor in what would have been a 1973 Presidential Elections.
Marcos' otherworldly desire for power is undeniable, and I believe he should have let go of his hold of Malacañang back then.
Marcos wanted power way too much. Now what I need to understand is WHY.
But from what I have learned, Marcos was still incredibly popular among the electorate at least until mid-1973, or when the 1973 Oil Crisis began, so instead of declaring Martial Law, Marcos could have just asked one of his dummies to run and he could still have been the "power behind the throne".
But he didn't, so did Marcos perceive a pressing need to remain at the forefront of Philippine Politics, and if so, is this perception of a pressing need based on empirical data or merely a product of a Messiah Complex?
In 1972, Marcos accused Ninoy of, among others, conspiring with Communists to topple the government. For one, several accounts show that Ninoy had a line of communication of the Communist National Democratic Front chief Jose Maria Sison.
Sison, according to some sources, informed Ninoy of the Communists' plan to bomb the Liberal Party campaign program in Plaza Miranda. As to why Ninoy didn't tell his LP friends about it thereby exposing to mortal danger, I still do not know.
But I think there's something missing in the story here:
1. If Marcos was supposed to step down in 1973, why would Ninoy need to "conspire" with Joma?
2. And if, for the sake of argument, a conspiracy indeed existed, was this before or AFTER the declaration of Martial Law? Because that would have made a world of a difference.
3. If there was no Ninoy-Joma conspiracy, what business does Ninoy have in maintaining a line of communication with the Communists?
But more importantly, I was brought up in an education system that painted Marcos as a ruthless dictator and the opposition as a bunch of peace-loving patriots who initially had no fighting chance against the strongman.
But the history books I grew with never mentioned the fact that the opposition engaged in Urban Terrorism. The books never mentioned the Light-A-Fire Movement, a group of upper class Filipinos who decided that violence was the solution against abuses of Martial Law.
A Kahimyang blog post recounts:
"On September 12, 1980, bombs went off in Metro Manila, one badly damaging Rustan's mall in Makati. The explosion at Rustan’s injured 70 people and killed an American tourist. On the night of October 4, 1980, more blasts rocked the Philippine Plaza, Century Park Sheraton, and Manila Peninsula hotels."
Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles, as we were talking about this last night, told me that it was one of Light-a-Fire's terrorists bombings that caused famed singer Nonoy Zuñiga to lose a leg, literally.
Light-a-Fire's members were tried and sentenced to death by electric chair in 1984 but the sentences were never carried out. Corazon Aquino then PARDONED them after she became president after the EDSA Revolution.
In 1989. Cory's government even awarded Light-a-Fire leader Psinakis a Presidential Citation "for outstanding service to Philippine democracy".
So Cory condoned terrorism? Cory saw terrorism -- e.g. blowing up Nonoy Zuñiga's leg -- as a legitimate and acceptable method?
Moreover, a declassified CIA memo even detailed how Ninoy in 1980 claimed to have a private army that he intends to send to Muslim insurgent leader Nur Misuari in Mindanao for training.
So why does it seem that history books have been sanitized to provide an extremely one-sided account of the 1970s and 1980s when the matter of fact is that both sides appear to be guilty of perpetuating atrocities that they accuse each other of?
There is something terribly, terribly wrong here somewhere...
BUNGI-BUNGI ANG ISTORYA NG MARTIAL LAW KASI KUNG SINO ANG NAGKUWENTO, SIYA LAGI ANG BIDA.
Source: Thinking Pinoy FB Page
Thinking Pinoy: "Makoy vs. Ninoy, The Winner Will Always be the Storyteller"
Reviewed by Phil Newsome
on
June 06, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Phil Newsome
on
June 06, 2018
Rating:
