The Really Stupid Excuse of "But the Philippines Isn't Singapore!"

Credit Goes to the Owner

Years ago, I found this cartoon on Facebook which I think was created by the CoRRECT Movement. Back then, I remembered a strong admiration for Singapore and called it a nation that progressed through discipline. I couldn't forget that I wrote in my Asian history essay (and journalism writings) that if I were president, I would totally discipline every single Filipino. However, such is a very unsound plan (read why here). 

Whenever I say something about Singapore, some social media gossipers (referred to sometimes as a marites in the Tagalog language), they would fire foolish comments such as:

1. "Singapore is too small for the Philippines to emulate!" 
2. "Singapore only opened up to FDI because it had no natural resources for FDIs to exploit!"
3. "Singapore is too strict! We're a democracy!"
   
4. "Don't you remember Flor Contemplacion died unjustly in Singapore! Trust me bro and watch The Flor Contemplacion Story as my reference!"
5. "The Marcos Years tried to copy Singapore but failed!"

In short, all the arguments I just presented (and I might end up writing a hundred if I don't stop there) are summarized as, "But the Philippines isn't Singapore!" After doing some serious research, we can see that all of those above are nothing more than pathetic excuses to stay in the status quo. The status quo they enjoy so much of mediocrity, procrastination, overspending, and just anything they believe should remain. 

I really must laugh at it especially after reading the late Lee Kuan Yew's book From Third World to First 

I bought the book From Third World to First by Lee Kuan Yew sometime after Odette struck Cebu City. I got my book and slowly read it while repairs were going on. It's a very thick book so it's best read academically than like a novel. The countries mentioned by the cartoon strip written in Tagalog has China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. (atbp means at "at iba pa" meaning "many more"). It's really funny (and irritating) how some people will quote what Lee Kuan Yew had to say about the Marcoses. However, they ignore the rest of the context of what Lee Kuan Yew had to say about the Philippines. Lee Kuan Yew even stressed these points regarding the Philippines on pages 304-305 of the same book:

Mrs. Aquino's successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippines Business Conference, I said, "I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development." I believe what a country needs is develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.

He knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philipines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work for Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of thousands of them have left for Hawaii and the American mainland. It is a problem to which the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of an American constitution. 

My question is why keep citing the part about the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. now, especially that his son, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., is now the 17th president of the Philippines, and ignore the rest? We keep getting some gossipers doing this and that. I'd like to beg to differ. The idea that talks of separation from family is just drama is stupid. Lee Kuan Yew even stressed how sad it is that millions of Filipinos had to apply as OFWs when some of my countrymen have certain skills better than the Singaporeans. I noticed how Filipinos tend to excel in art. Yet, what good has that been because of economic protectionism? Filipino architects, artists, and musicians have to go abroad to succeed globally? That should be a very serious question to ask especially in a civics and culture class! 

Reading the book, I would look at the irony of the situation. Countries bigger than the Philippines chose to emulate Singapore's economic policy. A good example is how two Communists followed Singapore. One is the late Deng Xiaoping who chose to abandon Mao Zedong's ineffective policies. The other is Vietnam's late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Do Muoi, founder of the Doi Moi policy. China is bigger than Singapore and the Philippines. Vietnam is 10% larger than the Philippines. I couldn't imagine it if Deng and Nguyen (Do Muoi) both used the same excuse, "But China isn't Singapore!" "But Vietnam isn't Singapore!" Both countries are bigger than the Philippines but they chose to follow it. Soon enough, China had its real Great Leap Forward during Deng's regime. Soon enough, Vietnam had its great economic revolution under Do Muoi. 

Right now, Vietnam is getting more foreign investments than the more democratic Philippines. Some Samsung phones from democratic South Korea are now produced in Vietnam. Jollibee is now having its 150th branch in Vietnam. Lego has built a factory in Vietnam. Don't tell me that Vietnam is now enslaved by South Korea, the Philippines, and Denmark? On the contrary, the companies mentioned all have to follow the state laws of Vietnam. Vietnam is rich in natural resources. Their story proves that a country, even rich in natural resources, can't prosper through economic protectionism. The Philippines can learn from Singapore like Vietnam did. 

The story of two grandfathers from two different nations... who will you listen to? 

Two multi-awarded grandpas, only one knew economics better!

Even funnier (or frustrating) is when these social media gossipers bring up Hilario G. Davide Jr. One meme from CoRRECT Movement used the comparison of Davide Jr. to the late John Gokongwei Jr. For me, that's a very apples-to-oranges comparison. Obviously, I'd go to Davide Jr. in regards to legalities. However, it's so unfortunate how Davide Jr. himself believes that the Philippines could become a colony of foreign investors under the proposal to lift up excessive restrictions. That's why I decided to refer them to another former UN diplomat, Kishore Mahbubani. Mahbubani is the former dean and founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. In short, both grandfathers are acquainted with public policy making. However, only one of these two grandfathers knew what he was talking about.

However, Kishore Mahbubani's own statements back in 2009 from The Singapore economic model - VRPO documentary -2009 were much different. I remembered how Mahbubani used the vulgar word rape. It was pretty much that the third-world economists said, "Accepting foreign investments is like allowing yourself to be raped." Instead, Mahbubani soon said, "Foreign investors create jobs. Foreign investors bring in capital. Foreign investors bring in markets. Foreign investors train and develop our labor force." Mahbubani's words had already defeated Davide Jr.'s statements. The proof is the nation of Singapore. Singapore used to be poorer than the Philippines but look at it now. 

If you listen to someone, it mustn't be based on nationality but on credibility. That's why I tend to question the World Bank (at times) concerning their data on the economic improvement of the Philippines. Some have ironically used data from the World Bank to justify protectionism. However, what's ignored by some is that according to Global Risk Insights, the late former Philippine president, Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III had made economic amendments regarding FDI. Later, we have former Philippine president Rodrigo R. Duterte who signed the Public Services Act of 2022. The credibility is based on the results. One needs to take a look at how Singapore is faring against the Philippines economically as a result.

Mahbubani's statements are proven true with how Singapore went from a country once poorer than the Philippines to becoming richer than the Philippines. Meanwhile, Davide Jr.'s own statements are now questionable. The Philippines has had Filipino First Policy since the late Carlos P. Garcia. The big question is, "Where has Filipino First taken us as a nation?" There should be no place for Filipino First Policy if the Philippines expects to catch up during the rise of the Asian Century (read here). Garcia signed the papers and guess what, the Philippines hasn't become the most powerful ASEAN nation or even the world. Garcia may have lost the re-election but his foolish policy persisted into Marcos Sr.'s regime and even after it. Where are the gains of EDSA if there's no economic development to go along with the restoration of freedom of speech?

Knowing the economic history of Singapore is very important. The statement that Singapore has only opened to free markets after it became a first-world country is stupid. I met some annoying overweight American who kept insisting on that blunder. He's just downright wrong. The late Lee Kuan Yew (who he calls a tyrant) proved him wrong. Right now, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can further prove him wrong. The quality of the evidence can be seen in how Singapore went from third-world to first-world. Lee Kuan Yew mentioned on page 66 of From Third World to First:

Our job was to plan the broad economic objectives and the target periods within which to achieve them. We reviewed these plans regularly and adjusted them as new realities changed the outlook. Infrastructure and the training and education of workers to meet the needs of employers had to be planned years in advance. We did not have a group of readymade entrepreneurs such as Hong Kong gained in the Chinese industrialists and bankers who came fleeing from Shanghai, Canton, and other cities when the communists took over. Had we waited for our traders to learn to be industrialists we would have starved. It is absurd for critics to suggest in the 1990s that had we grown our own entrepreneurs, we would have been less at the mercy of the rootless MNCs. Even with the experienced talent Hong Kong received in Chinese refugees, its manufacturing technology level is not in the same class as that of the MNCs in Singapore. 

Do we want the Philippines to improve? Then we should stop with, "But the Philippines isn't Singapore!" That kind of mentality has held the Philippines backward. I'd say enough is enough because bigger countries learned from it. The Philippines can learn from it too.