Will the two Koreas truly unite afterwards?

Will Korea truly unite afterwards?

(Or "How rivals suddenly chose
to amicably settle differences in Panmunjom")

Source: Firstpost.com

Starting with a several steps from the Demilitarised zone in Panmunjom, Kim Jong Un, filled with courage, personally crossed a territory once called "hostile", breaking away from decades of hostility and distrust since 1953.

From that historic event, it marked a new beginning: After 65 years in a technical state of war that has periodically descended into real conflict, news from all over the world sought how North Korea's leader shaking hands with his counterpart, promising an era of peace and eventual reunification.

It may appear strange, knowing that Kim Jong Un be at first appeared as following his father's and grandfather's footsteps of preserving Socialism, he chose to promote a new kind of development that uplifts the well-being of each and every North Koreans, and this time, promoting peace instead of the usual saber-rattlings that affect not just South Korea but also its neighbours.

For as according to Rodong Sinmun, it declared: “Historic summit opens new history of national reconciliation, peace and prosperity."

Source: VoA News

Joint agreements as a basis for peaceful reunification

True to its desire for reunification through peaceful means, an agreement was brought by the leaders of both North and South Korea wanted to "reconnect blood relations" and "bring forward the future of co-prosperity and unification" through:

1.) Full implementation of all existing joint-agreements and declarations;

2.) Agreeing to hold dialogue and negotiations in various fields including at high level, and to take active measures for the implementation of the agreements reached at the Summit;

3.) To establish a joint liaison office with resident representatives of both sides in the Gaeseong region in order to facilitate close consultation between the authorities as well as smooth exchanges and cooperation between the peoples;

4.) Encourage more active cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts at all levels in order to rejuvenate the sense of national reconciliation and unity;

5.) Swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation;

6.) Actively implement the projects previously agreed in the 2007 October 4 Declaration, in order to promote balanced economic growth and co-prosperity of the nation. 

Besides that, another portion of the agreement focuses on "joint efforts" in order to "alleviate the acute military tension" and "practically eliminate the danger of war" on the Korean Peninsula via:

1.) Agreeing both sides to to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict. In this vein, the two sides agreed to transform the demilitarized zone into a peace zone.

2.) Agreeing both sides to devise a practical scheme to turn the areas around the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea into a maritime peace zone in order to prevent accidental military clashes and guarantee safe fishing activities.

3.) Both sides taking various military measures to ensure active mutual cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts.

And lastly, both North and South Koreans will actively cooperate to establish a permanent and solid peace regime on the Peninsula by:

1.) reaffirming the Non-Aggression Agreement that precludes the use of force in any form against each other, and agreed to strictly adhere to this Agreement.

2.) Agreeing to carry out disarmament in a phased manner, as military tension is alleviated and substantial progress is made in military confidence-building.

3.) Pursuing a trilateral negotiation involving the two Koreas and the United States; or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China, with a view to declaring an end to the War, turning the armistice into a peace treaty, and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.

4.) Both North and South Koreans confiming the common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

With this agreement, what more of its meeting, somehow reminds of the late leaders Kim Jong Il and Kim Dae Jung met, followed by agreements which involves resolving nuclear tensions and an active promotion of inter-Korean cooperation especially those of economic projects. 

Source: Russia Today

How about the Conservatives?

On the other hand, that historic moment has its opposition.

Especially in the south wherein conservatives, driven by Cold War nostalgia, chose to protest that event citing the past agreements as going nowhere if not assailing the "doves" as subservient to the interest of the North.

For according to groups such as "Liberty Korea Party" and other "hardliners", they criticised the agreement for being "too vague", if not describing the entire negotiation as a "show of fake peace" led by a "tyrant".
Furthermore, these groups favoured to retain the controversial "National Security Act" that made communism illegal, and that includes recognition of North Korea as a political entity, and a potential restriction on freedom of speech as the law not only regulates activities that directly threaten the safety of the State, but also punishes those who praise or incite an anti-state group.

Worse, it favours the interest of the Americans, whose military bases continue to remain despite opposition. The existence of US military bases served as deterrent against possible North Korean as well as Chinese attack, making the United States remains a major regional actor and a force for peace and stability in the far east.

However, not all conservatives aren't as hardline as those who stubbornly protest, some would would even favour some semblance of "peaceful coexistence" alongside the usual birksmanship, but that "coexistence" requires reciprocity that includes denuclearisation and market liberalisation, that according to critics it rather favours the south despite latter's promise of economic assistance to its northern neighbour. Others, such as then-president Park Gyun-Hye, first attempted to balance coercion and engagement in her “Trustpolitik” policy, which emphasized trust-building between Seoul and Pyongyang.

Still, there's hope

Amidst criticism and possible threats endangering the unity of North and South Koreans, it is worth admissible that reunification will still happen.

For after 65 years of armistice, saber-rattlings, and stalled negotiations, the recent meeting between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae In shows that there are chances of reconciliation, dialogue, and agreement that may benefit each and every Korean. Critics, especially the hardliners, may still insist that the negotiations will go nowhere due to its past ones if not still clinging to their hawkish tendencies as self-proclaimed "fighters for freedom" when in fact they stood on the side of interests.

Perhaps, in looking back at the late Kim Il Sung's "10-Point Programme of the Great Unity of the Whole Nation for the Reunification of the Country" made a decade ago, Kim Jong Un would had looked this as a basis in his desire for a peaceful reunification with its southern neighbour as it follows:

1.) A unified state, independent, peaceful and neutral, should be founded through the great unity of the whole nation.

2.) Unity should be based on patriotism and the spirit of national independence.

3.) Unity should be achieved on the principle of promoting co-existence, co-prosperity and common interests and subordinating everything to the cause of national reunification.

4.) All political disputes that foment division and confrontation between fellow countrymen should be ended and unity should be achieved.

5.) The fear of invasion from both south and north. and the ideas of prevailing over communism and communization should be dispelled, and north and south should believe in each other and unite.

6.) The north and south should value democracy and join hands on the road to national reunification, without rejecting each other because of differences in ideals and principles.

7.) The north and south should protect the material and spiritual wealth of individuals and organizations and encourage their use for the promotion of great national unity.

8.) Understanding, trust and unity should be built up across the nation through contact, exchange visits and dialogue.

9.) The whole nation, north, south and overseas, should strengthen its solidarity for the sake of national reunification.

10.) Those who have contributed to the great unity of the nation and to the cause of national reunification should be honoured.

Because of these and possible succeeding agreements to come, may everyone pray and struggle to upheld peace, unity, and freedom over that "land of morning calm."

"When faith is itself subversive"

"When faith is itself subversive"

(Or "Notes after seeing Panday Sining's Lenten artworks
 and Kalbaryo ng Maralita")

At first, it seems that religious imagery has again becoming an object of protest. Driven by faith and the struggle, artists utilised religious symbolism in the most creative — and at times — most questionable ways as a form of struggle for both national and social liberation, especially in a time of national repression.

Usually shown during protest marches during Lent, these artworks shown below feature religious figures, usually blended with political messages trying to make an appeal to the people about the recent events under the present Duterte regime. Most of which bear red flags if not revolutionary sentiment, and others which captures the heart of a religious especially those questioning the state of human rights, social justice, and the need for religious participation in socio-civic affairs.

However, there are some people who rather ridicule, if not describing those artworks as blasphemous as it features personages like Christ and the Blessed Virgin.

For merging religious iconography and political sentiment has always been a controversial mixture. Often considered a sign of disrespect, or used as a way to create dissent, artists tend to look at faith as well as those of reality as means to invoke hopes of justice-especially in a time of contrary. Offending indeed but the reality brought by the present order hath made a concerned religious look at faith as a tool of liberation, and by those artworks it reflected the passion of the commoner who really yearned for salvation.

Strange isn't it? In fact, even the clergymen sought the relevance of today's faith in a time of turmoil especially through their homilies invoking justice and compassion, due processes and the rule of law, some are even "hardcore" to invoke their statements to the extent that their calls be deemed "radical" or "subversive" in the eyes and ears of the people; and hence, did tolerate the merging of religious iconography and political sentiment- especially when they themselves are aware of the fact that the leaders whom supposed to be guided by law and morals turned out to be tyrants.

What more that there events which feature both religious and political iconography entwined together- such as the yearly "Kalbaryo ng Maralita" which did show the passion of the poor be like similar of the passion of the Christ. Not as exactly same but the agony seemed to be "endless" as the three basic ills of Philippine society- the cause that brought corruption, poverty, and various forms of social injustice hath brought immense hardships especially to the Filipino poor. For sure the so-called "well off" who afforded to make a heck on their protest would still cling to their stupidity that these have-nots deserved the pain and suffering, if not describing their plight as "fate".

What more that the attack dogs of the present order are acting like centurions, of Duterte as if a fusion of Herod and Pilate, and his clique, apologists like Pharisees pointing fingers to the common Filipino if not washing hands as if assuming to be absolved from their actions.

Perhaps as time goes by and still seeing various forms of social injustices continue to prevail, then expect a militant faith that can "move mountains" with actions in various forms. The Bible that served as the basis of their preachings as well as their actions, including those of artworks abounds with hope as one writeup says that drives those who sought inconveniences in the spirit of change- for from its passages bespeaks of rights, of justice. Its gospels attests to Christ’s advocacy for the oppressed, his standing up to them against an Empire and its vassals that brought him into his passion. It affirms the morality of waging a struggle that includes taking arms and drinking the bitter cup of sacrifices. It also bared the many prophets and various righteous personages who took up the cause of the exploited basic sectors of society and spread the Good News about people’s liberation.

The Kingdom of peace, justice, equality and freedom could never be actualized so long as an order perceived as "unjust", "rotten", and "repressive" continues to aggravate tensions; and only its dismantlement is one important step towards the realization of this Kingdom.

Source: Panday Sining, Liberation

Again, supporting the Nun from Down Under (amidst all threats)

Again, supporting the Nun from Down Under

(amidst all threats)

By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro

t is truly indeed that with devotion to the faith and to the people sometimes include facing the repercussions such as those from the state. For days after the arrest and questioning by the authorities, the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation hath issued an order cancelling Sister Patricia Fox's missionary visa followed by deportation after thirty days.

Quite surprising at first, for the authorities intentionally without even delivering a copy to her lawyers and instead releasing the decision to media, that order ignored the fact that her legal team had yet to even respond to the original arrest order- which most people think of it as politically motivated no matter how it is well-hidden using the law.

And because of that kind of move it makes a concerned rather ridicule the system for as far as everyone knows that her actions are in accordance to the social teachings of the church particularly those of social justice. If defending and asserting human rights isn't also a Christian vocation, then how come in the Bible it stated how Christ defended Mary Magdalene from being stoned by the populace? And if supporting the interests of the poor isn't also a Christian vocation, then how come it is virtuous to feed and clothe the needy? "Sr. Pat", as everyone fondly called her, just like her martyred colleagues Frs. Favali and Tenorio, is indeed politicised because of her surroundings and from the people she dealt with; and since her fundamental beliefs and practices is itself Christian, then people should embrace her, enough to be a called as a precious asset to the Filipino, especially at her age.

With all these, alongside the growing support towards her social action, and despite the unjust order issued from the authorities, the lawyer-nun from Australia vowed to continue helping the oppressed. "I will continue my missionary work wherever I am as it is who I am" as what she said in a text message to Philippine Star. So is her legal team, whom, in spite of the limited weeks given to them, chose not to stop but instead continues to challenge the order- and even insisted that the Bureau has no right to cancel her visa without giving her the opportunity to contest the report of the Intelligence Division and to be heard on her defence. Statements from groups like the "Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines" also expressed sympathy on her cause, as it said:

"We demand that the rights of Sr. Pat be respected, and so the rights of our mission partners, foreigner or Filipino, who truly work for justice in our country. Let the government agencies, especially the BID, not hamper the prophetic work of our foreign missionaries to alleviate the lives of the poor and powerless.

Moreover, Sr. Pat is a missionary for Life, Human Rights and Justice. She can only be considered undesirable alien to those who seek to muzzle the truth and foist tyranny upon us."

Or the bluntly-stated message from Gerardo Lanuza, as he saidth from his Facebook:

"Sister Patricia Fox will be deported within 30 days. And you are asking, why the hell is she actively engaged with the farmers and the poor? The Synod of Bishops in 1971 released the statement, Justice in the World: 

“Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel.” 

By "constitutive" the Bishops meant: YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT STRUGGLING FOR JUSTICE. So if you are wondering why Sis. Pat will be deported, you might as well look at the mirror before praying: 

"As a christian, WHY AM I NOT BEING DEPORTED?" 

Have you really lived your Christianity? I smell Marx's opium."

With all the sympathies and support, it shows how these concerned find it just to defend her right to stay in the country and to continue her calling. For sure fake reports and distorters continue to churn 'reports' against the nun as well as her supporters, as part of their rally in support of that goddamn despot Duterte.
Only an insecure would believe in that 'report', and perhaps willing to distort the law enough to justify an act.

Anyway, no matter what the system may "redescribe" it as a precautionary measure such as to cut Sr. Fox's Missionary visa and hence to deport her after thirty days according to its order, it clearly shows how the Duterte Administration chose to hid the facts from each and every concerned, such as those from a foreigner. Apologists may insist that concerned foreigners shouldn't interfere at all if not keeping their mouths shut and enjoy the summer as if nothing happened; but, knowing that Duterte and his clique, being upholders of the rotten system, hath showed to the world its bloodied actions outweighing those of its developmental projects, isn't it that concerning?

Perhaps, regardless of all the threats, it is indeniable that the lawyer-nun is much Filipino out of a genuine concern to a country she adopted as her own home than the so-called "filipinos" who chose to kowtow to vested interests.

And obviously, it cannot be denied!

"An Austalian nun's adherence to faith and social concern amidst threat and imputation"

"An Australian nun's adherence to faith and social concern 

amidst threat and imputation"

(Or how Sr. Patricia Fox's radical concern for the Filipino folk
earned an ire and threat from Duterte)

By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro

"Foreigners, with due respect, should not involve themselves in the politics of the countries they are visiting such as the Philippines like joining political rallies." These are the words a commentator said in a post related to the arrest and deportation threat issued against an Australian nun known for supporting peasants and human rights issues.

To the system and its apologists, Fox's action meant interference in internal affairs, especially those of controversial nature such as human rights and the like; for theirs it meant disrespect to a country's sovereignty.

But come to think of this, is heeding the plight of the poor is subversion? Actually, her detention comes in the wake of her participation in a fact-finding mission held in Mindanao organised by the "Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas" (Peasant Movement of the Philippines). 

And despite harassments, the fact-finding mission successfully uncovered testimonies from communities affected by state repression: mostly consists of constant police harassment and lethal military actions, all on behalf of landgrabbers and exploiters. 

But still, the government sees it as hindering their efforts to curb opposition. For sure one would remember how Thomas Van Beerzum end caught then deported because of his participation in the protest, or the recent one involving a parliamentarian whom opposed Duterte's bloodied escapade. They even cited an "Immigration Operation order No. SBM-2015-025" which was signed by signed by  former Justice secretary Leila De Lima last July 2015, and it said:

"Foreign tourists are prohibited from engaging in any political activity as defined by law and jurisprudence, such as but not limited to, joining, supporting, contributing or involving themselves in whatever manner in any rally, assembly, gathering, whether for or against the government.”

“Foreign tourist who violate the provision..SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION..”

Sounds justifiable, so is the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines, which also includes the President having the power over foreign aliens residing in the country- as according to chapter 3, Title 1, Book 3 of the Code which said:

"SECTION 8. Power to Deport.—The President shall have the power to deport aliens subject to the requirements of due process.

SECTION 9. Power to Change Non-Immigrant Status of Aliens.—The President, subject to the provisions of law, shall have the power to change the status of non-immigrants by allowing them to acquire permanent residence status without necessity of visa.

SECTION 10. Power to Countermand Decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration.—The decision of the Board of Commissioners which has jurisdiction over all deportation cases shall become final and executory after thirty (30) days from promulgation, unless within such period the President shall order the contrary.

SECTION 11. Power over Aliens under the General Principles of International Law.—The President shall exercise with respect to aliens in the Philippines such powers as are recognized by the generally accepted principles of international law." 

Again, sounds justifiable knowing that for the safety and security of the country the government has to regulate its subjects inclduing those of foreigners and that includes punishing them for supporting a cause Filipinos desired for. Actually they did it at Thomas Van Beerzum after the latter, also a concerned foreigner, participated in a demonstration. The system obviously finds it interfering in internal affairs as people, be it Fox, Beerzum, or any other concerned foreigner sought the status of a country far from the usual presentation the system offers to them.

But despite all the legalisms (which mostly politically driven), people should realise that the action taken by the system against a concerned nun is driven by the idea of silencing dissent be it the Filipino or the Foreign. Duterte hath even admitted in his speech that the order for Sr. Fox's investigation was accordance to his will. All in all, as what Gerardo Lanuza said:

"Religious people, friars and nuns, can choose to live peacefully and silently in their convents. But some of them choose to live and walk in solidarity with the workers, urban poor, and farmers. The harassment and deportation threat against Sister Patricia Fox, NDS, a volunter for Unyon ng Manggagawa sa Agrikultura, reminds us of Latin America and Marcos Martial Law in the seventies when thousands of religious were liquidated by death squads of Latin American dictators. State fascism cannot silence the prophets of our society!"

And if foreigners are meant not to interfere in so-called "national interests", then wasn't Duterte's ruling PDP-Laban's engagements with the Chinese Communist Party in Manila some two months ago with Party Vice Minister Guo Yezhou present was in itself a "political activity"? If not hearing Duterte's statement claiming himself to be a nationalist, but he seemed willing to sell the country out to foreign plunderers.

Or as what Sama-samang Artista para sa Kilusang Agraryo (Artists’ Alliance for the Movement for Genuine Agrarian Reform) or SAKA, said in its statement:

"He has welcomed those who seek ownership and control of the Philippines. He continues to militarize the countryside with US assistance to maintain the export-oriented hacienda system. He peddles our natural resources to China through lopsided loans and dubious public-private partnerships. Alongside these, his regime facilitates the complete foreign ownership of domestic territory—including agricultural and ancestral land—through charter change. Duterte even literally sang a love song for Trump—a domestic fascist entertaining a foreign fascist."

Anyway, if supporting the poor in its radical form is subversion, what Sr. Fox did is as same as Fr. Favali, or any other missionary or religious whose calling, coupled by concern for their surrounding, became a drivel in their participation such as a "politicised" activity. And as a concerned citizen, this person is ought to say that the system has to invest on legality enough to justify their means to arrest and deport, otherwise will end as same as Favali, Tentorio, or any concerned foreigner who, out of their desire to help the people, made themselves in cahoota with the order whom supposed to adhere in human rights and social justice. 

"Sociological Marcosianism?"

"Sociological Marcosianism?"

(notes after observing nostalgia-driven 'Marcos Loyalism',
its "social characteristics", support for Duterte,
and the desire to reinstate Marcos in Malacanang)

It's been months passed as Loyalists rejoiced in the burial of the former Dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Heroes Cemetery in Taguig. Describing it as a "stepping stone" to redemption, the loyalists, with all their uncompromised loyalty to the fallen dictator and his family would think that as the bones been moved from Batac to its well-done grave in Bicutan, lies chances of seeing another Marcos in Malacanang- such as those of Bongbong. 

However, amidst all the nostalgia-driven sentiment, the horrifying images left by the regime continues to linger. Of course, for loyalists they would insist that the regime as the bestest-as it offers a santitised version based from their "first-hand experiences" if not bouts of propaganda, making it whether right or wrong, that the Marcos regime served as an example of stability if not development regardless of its bloodied facts.

For this, it seems to unambiguously define and therefore resist with truth. For the liberals, Marcos is plain and simple the country's dark past, imbued with repression and corruption regardless of its numerous contributions, and had been booted as democracy revived through 'People Power'; while the Revolutionary left, they sought it more as a plain and simple continuity of a repressive past, that whether it came from Marcos or not, that 'democracy' is only but a consolidated status quo, if not, bluntly speaking, a continued dictatorship that benefits the elites.

And to think that social media, particularly those of nostalagia sites has becoming hotbeds for Marcosiana, of Martial law notalgia, and its yearnings for its revival, one would say that the struggle is more than just fighting what has become a scarecrow nor exorcising a specter. At first they sought Marcos loyalism as a finge group of elders praising the late dictator, ranging from those who claim him as their messiah to those of his alleged "welath" ready to be distributed, complete with alleged documents and even videoes shown in YouTube; however, as nostalgia pages churning about Marcos's feats, of infrastructure and 'order', one would say that the sanitation process tuned each and everyone believe, while reintepreting its bloodied truths as lies if not a necessary catharsis. 

But despite the differences, both loyalists and the liberals are supporting a model of nation-building commonly advocated by neoliberal economists and the like: increased consumption, currying foreign direct investments, building infrastructures meant to stimulate development, even trying to present a lively democratic processes and some extent a semblance of a welfare state. From this structure, both may think that it  create an appearance such as a real productive democracy- although the latter find it as part of a transition out of dictatorship and the former to counter the existing oligarchy and its interests.

However, as crisis continue to prevail in an economy obviously subservient to the wishes of local elites and tailor-cutted to accommodate multinational agreements, it has been increasingly impossible to sustain a structure long been proud of by the same people carrying through a neoliberalist present, making some if not most people favoring again an authoritarian past whom they think meant stability and order- if not expressing an utter disgust towards liberalism.

That again bolsters the nostalgic appeal to order and stability similar to 1973 to 1985. Right or wrong, they find the order as necessary to curb the subversive menace be it those from the Radical Left, the separatist, or today's Liberals and other undesirables; as well as to create an economic policy that appears 'developmentalist' despite its actually-existing neoliberal leanings as said earlier. At present they sought today's president Duterte as a transitory figure, and like their idol, they find him as an embodiment of law and order, that with all his blunt interpretation of the law, getting enough blood is necessary to restore stability if not trying to compliment it with some developmental projects.

And alongside nostalgia pages yearning for another Marcos, Duterte fanpages, pseudo-news reports, and others churned hysteria throughout if not those of their views regarding development; from there, one would say that their hatred for whom they think as "subversion" if not "crime" is greatly emphasised enough to rally people to support the order.

With all these, this person adapted the term "Sociological Marcosianism". The term, which in turn based from Spain's Amando de Miguel's "sociological Francoism”, refers to describe social characteristics typical of Marcos era- especially those who lived before and during the Martial Law period, and continues up to present.

And to cite their view, it argued that the sociological character of Marcos Loyalism wasn’t inherently dictatorial nor totalitarian; but rather, it was democratic if not egalitarian, as evidenced by the economic gains as well as highlighted social satisfaction with the transformations the regime had enacted. One example was the infrastructures been made, if not the laws been enacted- which mostly made straight from Malacañang in a form of presidential decrees.

From this, it is also greatly invoked in today's Duterte administration that kind of nostalgic yearning- for according to their view they find him and his leadership skill a continuity of an incomplete aspiration if not a thermidor from an oligarch-oriented disorder, leading to a restoration of an order that is to be cherished by both past and present.

Furthermore, it shows how Filipinos chose toto cite Frank Darling's description of Sarit Thanarat's leadership in Thailand (for a reference), that his regime was authoritarian, and it took a step back from what little democracy was gained during the 1932 revolution; while Thak Chaloemtiarana suggests that Sarit's strict rule can be understood as the modern 'phokhun' style of leadership, wherein the benevolent leader would intervene to help his people whenever deemed necessary.

Come to think if not to imagine: people, as they churn their past lives in a nostalgia-filled page, would say about their childhood as 'happy' with all the nutribuns, bulgur wheat, five candies out of a single peso  coin, to those of riding in a Love Bus or buying cheap products from a nearby Kadiwa rolling store; they see stability in a form of quiet roads during curfew hours, if not reading decrees whose reformative nature be meant to ensure the country be given substantial improvement to its subjects "in the spirit of the New Society". All these nostalgic memories somehow made them yearn for another 'father figure' or an 'alpha dog' to guide, discipline, and provide them assistance to support in their developments and achievements.  

Or to cut it short, no wonder why those times people would blurt how they were grateful to Marcos as well as to see Marcos through Duterte. The notalgia of theirs turns out to be like what Spain had during Franco: a miracle in a form of "reform" and "development", despite of its bloodied nature. Perhaps no wonder that atmosphere of change these people invoked most turns out to be a reaction to what they disdained for, which was started when their idol was deposed decades ago.

Admittingly speaking, this person encountered some of those who 'benefited' from the regime. Mostly coming from the provinces and worked, lived during those times, they, with all their fanaticism, tried to inculcate its younger counterparts to equate that regime they cherished with stability- for they had lived through it with naturalness and normality.

And with the use of the internet, particularly social media, the proliferation of various groups invoked that same appeal of reliving that past, especially in a time when succeeding regimes been synonymous to poverty, maldevopment, disorder. Sites like "Duterte Today", "Mocha Uson Blog", if not groups supposed to be dealing with Philippine history or community nostalgia turns out to be churning Marcosiana especially when some of its members tend to post their idol and its contributions, alongside their childhood memories and the like- if not shoving their conspiracy theories to everyone.

However, despite the nostalgia-driven fanaticism, there are those who believe that the dictatorship should evolve by retaining a democratic system capable of recognizing the moderate opposition sectors. For sure one would undoubtedly imagined that a broad opposition party would alternate in government with the ruling KBL party. This system would leave the dictatorship’s legacy intact- but given the opposition's serious adherence to oppose if not to overthrow, it makes it impossible to happen.
But despite the overthrow and the change in the charter, it appears that there is still "respect" in the regime's acts, from the decrees brought by the Batasang Pambansa such as P.D. 21 (although it end superseded by the present Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law followed by its "Extended and Reformed" version), the (still) controversial Education Act of 1982 that commercialises and deregulates education, or on how the late Corazon Aquino chose to pay the debts left by her predecessor despite popular demands to discontinue paying and devote to ensure people's welfare.

From these situations, it showed that amidst of change, remnants of the dictatorship, be it in a form of laws or its bloodied acts (the former general Palparan for example) continues to linger the way seeing landlords consolidated their interests further by adopting western-style capitalism in a feudal agrarian setting; so are the businessmen, who as a group, being likewise not immune to economic uncertainties if not trying to remain optimistic in their version of growth and development, shift the economic pressures to the laborers, which ultimately bear the burden of the economy in a form of unemployment, undue exploitation, and high taxes, if not bluntly saying internally that those who oppose their moves deserve the bullet simply because they oppose them! Perhaps, no wonder why they justify the actions especially those deemed controversial in nature, while reforms are likewise end as scraps of paper especially in an order that is, driven by interest.