Each time I travel to Singapore to see my son and his family, I find myself pondering why this tiny island, roughly the same size as Metro Manila yet holding only half its number of people and lacking natural resources, manages to thrive as a developed economy. Meanwhile, our own nation, rich in resources, still struggles with half of its populace living below the poverty line.
Some attribute this difference to Lee Kuan Yew’s authoritarian governance style versus our own free-wheeling American-style democracy. However, I disagree since we experienced over two decades of Marcos’ rule, including fourteen years under martial law, during which he wielded nearly identical dictatorial authority as LKY did. Despite these similarities, things unfolded differently here; instead of stability, unchecked power accelerated the country’s economic downturn due to rampant abuse from presidential allies who took advantage of their favored positions granted by Marcos.
Perhaps it has more to do with the individual traits of LKY, the Cambridge-educated attorney known for his unwavering integrity and profound patriotism.
In our situation, we experienced a series of presidents, none of whom were as visionary and upright as LKY. Perhaps our boisterous democracy is also constrained by the societal inequalities left behind by colonial rule.
During her address at the 18th Philippine Business Conference, LKY stated, "I am convinced that democracy does not automatically result in development. In my view, for a nation to progress, discipline is more essential than democracy."
LKY is correct only to an extent. Simply imposing discipline, often seen as autocratic governance, isn’t sufficient, as our history during martial law illustrates. With the benefit of more than seven decades spent in this nation, perhaps the real issue lies in the fact that we have yet to elect genuine patriots who genuinely care for their homeland.
Our political leaders, with the exception of Ramon Magsaysay and possibly Fidel Ramos, lack sufficient patriotism to prioritize the nation's welfare and the well-being of its people. Instead, they tended to focus on their personal and familial interests.
Therefore, this is who we have become today.
LKY stated: "It was unfortunate because they possessed numerous capable individuals who received education in both the Philippines and the United States. The workforce spoke English, particularly those based in Manila. There wasn’t any logical explanation for why the Philippines shouldn't have thrived as one of the leading nations within ASEAN. During the 1950s and '60s, it stood out as the most advanced nation due to America’s benevolence in rebuilding the country post-war. However, something essential was lacking—a unifying element to bind society."
The individuals at the pinnacle of society, the elite mestizos, exhibited a similar aloofness towards the indigenous farmers as did the mestizos managing their estates in Latin America with regard to their laborers. These groups belonged to distinct societal structures; those atop the hierarchy enjoyed immense opulence and ease, whereas the farmers barely made ends meet, struggling even more for survival in the Philippines.
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, who won this year's Nobel Prize in Economics, concentrated on how societal institutions influence a country's economic success. It's clear that economics and politics are deeply intertwined.
What causes certain nations to thrive while others struggle? Could this be due to geographical location and natural assets? Alternatively, could it stem from the type of government and organizational structures they have?
Terrence Ho, who serves as an associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), penned an article for Channel News Asia analyzing the elements contributing to Singapore’s achievements.
Ho attributes the British colonial era with providing Singapore a parliamentary system, the rule of law, and an efficient public administration. Additionally, he notes that "the transition to self-governance and complete independence led to even more comprehensive progress, as the authorities focused significantly on societal investments in areas such as education, housing, and healthcare."
The lack of natural resources allowed Singapore to sidestep the destiny common among nations rich with resources, where extracting these materials becomes the cornerstone of economic activity. Typically, this kind of focus benefits only a select group instead of society at large since gains mainly flow towards tycoons and those politically connected individuals managing the oil or mineral reserves. Frequently enough, funds from resource exports meant for enhancing education and public welfare end up squandered due to graft, tax avoidance, and poor financial management.
Isn't that just how we are?
In contrast, Singapore placed significant emphasis on developing its populace as its sole asset, allocating substantial funds toward education which was one of the biggest parts of the national budget... This laid down the groundwork for consistent income growth fueled by advancements in human capital.
That is also Japan’s story. Japan became a developed country despite its lack of natural resources by: Investing in human resources, Importing the resources it needs for its industries, becoming efficient and using the latest technology.
Returning to Singapore, Ho highlights that "owning a home was a key part of Singapore's social goals. The country's public housing initiative provides most residents with assets that increase in value alongside economic progress, enabling citizens to participate in the nation's wealth."
BBM declared that his administration aimed to construct six million homes over six years but this plan was halved down to three million units. There’s currently no sign indicating they’ll achieve even this lowered objective.
Ho mentioned that Singapore focuses on inclusive growth.
Throughout the last twenty years, the administration has implemented various initiatives and strategies aimed at bolstering social security and promoting social inclusion. Among these measures are comprehensive healthcare coverage and long-term care insurance, ongoing social welfare distributions... and more recently, financial assistance for those who have lost their jobs without fault of their own.
While some might view this as favoring social equality over economic development, the truth is that upcoming economic advancement depends on social unity and inclusion. Without these elements, public backing for open economics and policies aimed at boosting growth could swiftly shift towards populist isolationism.
Continued emphasis should be placed on investing in human capital as the key catalyst for economic advancement. This is particularly crucial nowadays, with artificial intelligence and automation increasingly capable of taking over jobs previously done by people.
These are valuable insights from Singapore. Sadly, our leaders seem more interested in lining their own pockets at our cost. Take a close look at all the self-serving allocations in the recent budget; it could bring tears to your eyes thinking about what this means for our nation.
Boo Chanco’s email is bchanco@gmail.com. You can follow him on X. @boochanco