Ang Alamat ng Jejemon
- Pages: 5
- Word count: 1107
- Category: Philippines Revolution
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Corazon Aquino was the 11th president and first female president of the Philippines. She restored democracy after the long dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. She was known as the “Mother of Democracy” of the Philippines for she led the revolution, the culmination of a battle for freedom that was her husband’s advocacy. It was a battle she won, and a victory that gave us back our nation’s democracy. As President, Aquino oversaw the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution, which limited the powers of the Presidency and re-established the bicameral Congress. Her administration gave strong emphasis and concern for civil liberties and human rights, and on peace talks to resolve the ongoing Communist insurgency and Islamist secession movements. Her economic policies centered on restoring economic health and confidence and focused on creating a market-oriented and socially responsible economy.
Cory faced several coup attempts against her government and various natural calamities until the end of her term in 1992. She was succeeded as President by Fidel V. Ramos, and returned to civilian life while remaining public about her opinions on political issues.
For all the things she have done to our country, for choosing to run as a president after the People Power, for all her bravery, many Filipinos showed their sympathy to the whole Aquino family when Corazon died due to her illness of Colon Cancer last August 1, 2009. It’s like the whole archipelago mourned, watched as she was laid at her last place on earth. Even though she’s not present here anymore, her presence still lasts. She is the woman that the Philippine History and future generations of Filipinos will never forget.
Ramón Magsaysay was the seventh President of the Republic of the Philippines, serving from December 30, 1953 until his death in a 1957 aircraft disaster (March 17, 1957). An automobile mechanic, Magsaysay was appointed military governor of Zambales after his outstanding service as a guerilla leader during thePacific War. He then served two terms as Liberal Party congressman for Zambales before being appointed as Secretary of National Defense by President Elpidio Quirino. He was elected President under the banner of the Nacionalista Party. He was the first Philippine President born during the 20th century.
In the Election of 1953, Magsaysay was decisively elected president over the incumbent Elpidio Quirino. He was sworn into office wearing the Barong Tagalog, a first by a Philippine president. He was then called “Mambo Magsaysay”.
As president, he was a close friend and supporter of the United States and a vocal spokesman against communism during the Cold War. He led the foundation of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization also known as the Manila Pact of 1954, that aimed to defeat communist-Marxist movements in South East Asia, South Asia and the Southwestern Pacific. During his term, he made Malacañang literally a “house of the people”, opening its gates to the public. One example of his integrity followed a demonstration flight aboard a new plane belonging to the Philippine Air Force (PAF): President Magsaysay asked what the operating costs per hour were for that type of aircraft, then wrote a personal check to the PAF, covering the cost of his flight. He brought back the people’s trust in the military and in the government.
His administration was considered one of the cleanest and most corruption-free; his presidency was cited as the Philippines’ Golden Years. Trade and industry flourished, the Philippine military was at its prime, and the Filipino people were given international recognition in sports, culture and foreign affairs. The Philippines ranked second in Asia’s clean and well-governed countries. Does Laissez-faire style of leadership effective in family leadership and school setting? For me, the laissez-faire style is not applicable in family and school setting. Not everyone is knowledgeable of what they have to do, some still need a leader that will show them the ways to make a task properly. In family setting, the parents must always guide their children, set themselves as an example and lead their child into a good way of living.
They cannot just let their children alone and be independent in a very young age. The parents must give their full attention; implement some rules for them to discipline the children. In school setting, the students should not let them do what they want. That’s why the teachers stand as the parents of the students for them to guide also the children while in the school premises. And the reason why there is a school principal is that he or she serves as a leader of a big group and will be the one who implements the school rules and regulations and to guide the students as well as the teachers. The school itself cannot fully give their power to the teachers or to somebody. There’s still a need of a leader to show what and how will they accomplish their certain goal. Pros and Cons of Laissez-faire Leaderdship Style
Laissez-faire leadership can be effective in situations where group members are highly skilled, motivated, and capable of working on their own. Since these group members are experts and have the knowledge and skills to work independently, they are capable of accomplishing tasks with very little guidance.
This autonomy can be freeing to some group members and help them feel more satisfied with their work. The laissez-faire style can be used in situations where followers have a high-level of passion and intrinsic motivation for their work.
While the conventional term for this style is ‘laissez-faire’ and implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group members for consultation and feedback.
Laissez-faire leadership is not ideal in situations where group members lack the knowledge or experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. Some people are not good at setting their own deadlines, managing their own projects, and solving problems on their own. In such situations, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members do not get enough guidance or feedback from leaders. Laissez-faire leaders are often seen as uninvolved and withdrawn, which can lead to a lack of cohesiveness within the group. Since the leader seems unconcerned with what is happening, followers sometimes pick up on this and express less care and concern for the project. If group members are unfamiliar with the task or the process needed to accomplish the task, leaders are better off taking a more hands-on approach. Eventually, as followers acquire more expertise, leaders might then switch back to a more delegative approach that gives group members more freedom to work independently.