The Insanity of Quoting the Late Lee Kuan Yew About the Marcoses While Ignorning the Rest of His Helpful Advice for the Philippines

It may not be Singapore day yet, it's still July and that event is in August. However, some people are now raising placards all over again because the 17th Philippine president is none other than Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. Som people tend to quote from the book From Third World to First. I did buy the book last year and started reading it slowly. I did get a slow read when it came to the late Lee Kuan Yew meeting the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. The description of Marcos was anything but flattering. I read the book and LKY mentioned that he was not confident that Marcos Sr. could pay back the money. The Philippines wasn't in the "golden years" as some would like to make it out. Yet, it seems that the only time LKY is ever mentioned is whenenver it's about the Marcoses and tends to be ignored when it's about how the Philippines can improve.

Parliamentary system is often viewed in the wrong way

Whenever Singapore is mentioned, I tend to talk about the parliamentary system. However, some people are still prone (mostly boomers) believing that it was a real parliamentary system (read here). Their "evidence" is in the fact that there was a prime minister named Cesar Virata. Virata would be going 93 this year. LKY did meet with Virata who was nothing more than an executive assistant, like a royal vizier is to a sultan, or a presidential adviser to a president. The late Benigno "Ninoy" Simeon A. Aquino Jr. even mentioned how there was a "parliamentary without a parliament". In January 17, 1984, Marcos Sr. admitted that the Philippines was still a presidential form of government. What's worse is that when I ask for empirical evidence--they appeal to the MARITES pyramid of learning (read here).

Some people can say that whenever I talk about LKY or former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, it's just about leadership. What might be ignored was that the late Jesse M. Robredo also said, "It's not enough to have a good leader. We must have a good system that will force them to be good." Hopefully, Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo will take that into note and encourage the Liberal Party to be pro-reform. They should've taken down notes from the late Charles Edward P. Celdran, a pro-reform Liberal Party supporter. Economist Andrew James Masigan, a blatant supporter of Mrs. Robredo, was also in favor of charter change if done right. They say that character change, not charger change, will be better. What they don't realize is that charter change done right will bring character change. 

I was laughing at how someone criticized former Philippine president Rodrigo R. Duterte while calling Mohamad as president. I was laughing at it because how in the world can Momahad be a president when he's in a parliamentary government? I laughed at how the person can't tell the difference. I guess such people never realize that parliamentary and presidential are operated very differently. I'd agree that Mohamad is more admirable than Duterte. I can agree on that with Duterte critics. What I can't agree on is if the Duterte critic can't see the big difference between presidential and parliamentary. 

The Philippine Star from 2006 during the reign of Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo also wrote an article called "Scrutiny". It's so easy to whine about why the Philippines doesn't have a LKY or a Mohamad. One can argue whether or not the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III or Duterte was better all day long. However, the Aquino III vs. Duterte arguments tend to lead nowhere but a food fight. Now, it's time to raise what Mohamad said in the article by Alex Magno:

Always forthright in his views, Mahathir was not shy about his opinions on the Philippines, even as he qualified those views with a polite disclaimer about non-interference in our internal affairs.  

He bluntly told de Venecia that the "Filipino people need a break." 

In the context of their conversation, that "break" is understood as a respite from the hyper-politicking that has plagued our country of late. That hyper-politicking has gotten in the way of our efforts to improve our economy, raise productivity and build a better future for our people.

Hyper-politicking has produced gridlock, endless bickering and neglect of urgent policy actions. It has undermined investor confidence in our economy and prevented willful leadership from being exercised – the same sort of leadership that Mahathir himself deployed in bringing Malaysia up from backwater economy status to that of an "Asian tiger."

Mahathir agreed with de Venecia that a parliamentary system of government could work better in the Philippines because it ensures "continuity in policy and the faster pace of approvals of development programs."

A major factor explaining Malaysia’s success story under Mahathir’s leadership is a responsive government enabled by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in a parliamentary system of government. The dominant role played by the major party UMNO ensured continuity of policy perspectives independent of the fates of individual power-wielders.

When Mahathir retired from politics, there was no uncertainty about the policy architecture that brought Malaysia to tiger-economy status. That policy architecture is not a personal legacy of Mahathir. It is the fighting faith of his party, UMNO, which continues to command the support of the Malaysian people.

If Malaysia had a presidential system of government, Mahathir might have never become its leader. Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive, this man could not win a popularity contest.

Even if, hypothetically, Mahathir was elected president of a Malaysia under a presidential system, the man might not have accomplished what he did in a parliamentary setting. The legislature would have obstructed his most dramatic innovations. His team might have spent precious time and energy attending endless congressional investigations. Other aspirants to the top-post might have constantly conspired to cause his failure or smear him in the public eye as a means to undercut his base of public support.

The phenomenon of a Mahathir – or a Lee Kuan Yew, for that matter – would be difficult to imagine outside the framework of a parliamentary system of government. That system of government encouraged the full development of political parties that, in turn, built public support for innovative policies. The parliamentary form, along with the strong party system it fosters, ensure the cultivation of an ample supply of prospective leaders ready to take over and provide a consistent and reliable quality of leadership,

After all, the emergence of strong nations and strong economies is a process that requires generations of leaders. It is a process that takes longer than a single political lifetime.

People can go ahead and say, "(Insert foul expression), that person should just leave us alone because he's not a Filipino." All the while, the same people might start hypocritically crawling over to the US government, the European Union (EU), the International Criminal Court (ICC), or any foreign organization asking for help when things go south. Mohamad would know how a real parliamentary would be ran. I don't think any sound-minded statesman in Malaysian, if ever, will believe that the 1973 Constitution was a parliamentary government under Marcos Sr. 

Speaking of popularity contests, I'm reminded of why movie star Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada won the presidential contest. Estrada was a highly charismatic person. The slogan "Erap Para Sa Mahirap" or "Erap For The Poor" became very popular. Aquino III was prodded to run for president because his mother, Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino, died of natural causes. Mrs. Aquino only became president because her husband, Aquino Jr., was a very charismatic orator who exposed the corruptions of the Marcos Sr. administration. De Venecia himself, though highly brilliant, was often viewed as a "boring person". Some people can know a lot and lack the charisma to do things. Estrada himself won because he was a big-time movie star. It was a waste when de Venecia himself was another best president the Philippines never had. Under a parliamentary system, maybe Estrada (as prime minister) himself would've had to face off against de Venecia as the leader of the opposition. If Estrada fails to uphold confidence, he can expect a vote of no confidence against him.

Some people kept talking about, "Ituloy ang Daang Matuwid." or "Let's continue the straight road." There are some infrastructures finished by Duterte that were purchased late during Aquino III's term. Some critics of Aquino III failed to realize that those projects can't be done hurriedly. Sure, one can talk about the economic growth during Aquino III's term However, the six-year time period makes most of whatever the Liberal Party planned, end in a grinding halt. The plan of six years under Aquino III, another six years under Manuel A. Roxas II, and six years under Mrs. Robredo is rather flawed. It's because term limits have caused us to really set things up. One can argue that Aquino III would be too dead to sit as prime minister if he never had a second term. However, the party-based politics of the parliamentary system will mean, that anything related to Daang Matuwid for a better Philippines, doesn't live or die with Aquino III. It will have to do everything with what the Liberal Party does as a political party in the parliamentary Philippines. 

That was also the problem with what hit the late former Philippine president, Fidel V. Ramos. It's sad that Ramos was often demonized because of his desire for charter change as if nothing was wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. That's why I even wrote if can diehard defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines can prove their claims to the LKY School of Public Policy. Ramos had huge plans for the Philippines. However, any move to amend the Constitution got demonized by critics. It was said, "If we have a parliamentary system, we'll have a president that will rule for more than six years! Please no more! Six years is enough!" Did they even read that LKY ruled Singapore longer than 20 years and look at it now? It's not because Marcos Sr. ruled for 20 years. It's because of poor policies that caused Marcos Sr.'s regime to be regarded as a mockery by LKY. LKY started his rule in the 1960s and even was still sitting as prime minister during the early 1990s. 

Under a parliamentary system, it wouldn't matter anymore to which party or family sits. It's because a parliamentary system doesn't care too much about political dynasties if competency succeeds competency. Singapore's current prime minister is Lee Hsien Loong. LSH himself already entered office while his father was prime minister. The big difference in the parliamentary system isn't dynasties based on name recalls but a meritocracy. In short, every political family can't just get into the party without having to prove themselves first. The lousy family members can't get their clearance to be part of that party. If Ferdinand A. Marcos III and Paolo Gerardo Z. Roxas can prove themselves even while their fathers are in office, then why not? Marcos III and Paolo Roxas, if they show that they can serve, them being part of a political dynasty shouldn't be an issue It should only be an issue if both Marcos III and Paolo Roxas are freeriding on their fathers.

Wanting to have a Singapore-like economy but ignoring what LKY advised for better economics

After reading about the Marcoses, it's really sad to reach the part where LKY mentioned OFWs. Before that, LKY also shared his insights on how to make a better economy. What can be so irritating is how often is it that I'd ask, "Who wants the Philippines to become another Singapore?" A lot of people will raise their hands. The moment I'd say something like, "Who wants to amend the economic provisions?" I could expect to hear a lot of nonsense talk like, "Are you selling us to foreigners?", "Only foreign investors will get rich!", "The 60-40 arrangement is in every country! Trust me bro!", "Singapore only opened to FDI after it became a first-world country." I guess they never read the book as a whole and only quoted bits and pieces to talk about the Marcoses. Sure, I agree with what LKY said about the Marcoses. However, that's not the whole of the book.

I wonder if they ever realize that LKY did talk about the problem of third-world mentality economists. These are my favorite portions to quote from his book about the need to amend the Constitution:

Pages 57-58

After several years of disheartening trial and error, we concluded that Singapore's best hope lay with the American multinational corporations (MNCs). When the Taiwanese and Hong Kong entrepreneurs came in the 1960s, they brought low technology such as textile and toy manufacturing, labor-intensive but not large-scale. American MNCs brought higher technology in large-scale operations, creating many jobs. They had weight and confidence. They believed that their government was going to stay in Southeast Asia and their businesses were safe from confiscation or war loss.

I gradually crystallized my thoughts and settled on a two-pronged strategy to overcome our disadvantages. The first was to leapfrog the region, as the Israelis had done. This idea sprang from a discussion I had with a UNDP expert who visited Singapore in 1962. In 1964, while on a tour of Africa, I met him again in Malawi. He described to me how the Israelis, faced with a more hostile environment than ours, had found a way around their difficulties by leaping over their Arab neighbors who boycotted them, to trade with Europe and America. Since our neighbors were out to reduce their ties with us, we had to link up with the developed world-America, Europe, and Japan-and attract their manufacturers to produce in Singapore and export their products to the developed countries.

The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials to and buying consumer goods from the advanced countries. MNCs controlled technology and consumer preferences and formed alliances with their host governments to exploit the people and keep them down. Third World leaders believed this theory of neocolonialist exploitation, but Keng Swee and I were not impressed. We had a real-life problem to solve and could not afford to be conscribed by any theory or dogma. Anyway, Singapore had no natural resources for MNCs to exploit. All it had were hard-working people, good basic infrastructure, and a government that was determined to be honest and competent. Our duty was to create a livelihood for 2 million Singaporeans. If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs. 

Page 66

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. 

Pages 68-69 

If I have to choose one word to explain why Singapore succeeded, it is confidence. This was what made foreign investors site their factories and refineries here. Within days of the oil crisis in October 1973, I decided to give a clear signal to the oil companies that we did not claim any special privilege over the stocks of oil they held in their Singapore refineries. If we blocked export from those stocks, we would have enough oil for our own consumption for two years, but we would have shown ourselves to be completely undependable. I met the CEOs or managing directors of all the oil refineries-Shell, Mobil, Esso, Singapore Petroleum, and British Petroleum on 10 November 1973. I assured them publicly that Singapore would share in any cuts they imposed on the rest of their customers, on the principle of equal misery. Their customers were in countries as far apart as Alaska, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, besides those in the region.

This decision increased international confidence in the Singapore government, that it knew its long-term interest depended on being a reliable place for oil and other business. As a result, the oil industry confidently expanded into petrochemicals in the late 1970s. By the 1990s, with a total refining capacity of 1.2 million barrels per day, Singapore had become the world's third largest oil-refining center after Houston and Rotterdam, the third largest oil trading center after New York and London, and the largest fuel oil bunker market in volume terms. Singapore is also a major petrochemical producer. 

To overcome the natural doubts of investors from advanced countries over the quality of our workers, I had asked the Japanese, Germans, French, and Dutch to set up centers in Singapore with their own instructors to train technicians. Some centers were government-financed, others were jointly formed with such corporations as Philips, Rollei, and Tata. After 4 to 6 months of training, these workers, who were trained in a factory-like environment, became familiar with the work systems and cultures of the different nations and were desirable employees. These training institutes became useful points of reference for investors from these countries to check how our workers compared with theirs. They validated the standards of Singapore workers.  

Eventually, Vietnam a nation rich in natural resources also followed. Vietnam had the late Nguyen Duy Cong who learned from Singapore. Vietnam has more natural resources for unscrupulous companies to exploit. Instead, even as a Communist country, Vietnam had become a stronger tiger than the Philippines (read here). Vietnam had established itself with better economics. Let me remind you growth rate alone isn't the best indicator but long-term performance. 

I'd like to quote Masigan from Business World on the need for economic charter change. This really speaks volumes why the Philippines has a long way to go:

The restrictive provisions of the constitution have held back the country’s development for more than 30 years. From the 1980s up to the close of the century, countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand leapfrogged economically on the back of a deluge foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines share of regional FDIs was a paltry 3% in good years and 2% in normal years. The flawed economic laws of the constitution are largely to blame for this. Lately, Vietnam has taken the lion’s share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines in the dust.

See, embedded in the 1987 constitutions is a list of industries in which foreigners are precluded from participation. These industries include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, and education, among others. (For those unaware, these industries are collectively known as “the negative list”). Apart from depriving the country of forex investments, technology transfer and job opportunities, the lack of competition from abroad has created monopolies and oligopolies owned by a handful of families. These families earn scandalous profits even though they are inefficient.

Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment and production capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong, and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards have remained embarrassingly behind the rest of the world.

The constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40% equity share in corporations. In addition, foreigners are barred from owning land. These provisions have caused us to lose-out on big-ticket investments which would have made all the difference in job and revenue generation. Not too long ago, we lost a multi-billion dollar investment from a US auto manufacturing company which instead went to Thailand. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung which went to Vietnam. Limiting equity ownership to a minority stake and prohibiting land ownership is a great disincentive for companies investing in large manufacturing plants with a useful life of more than 50 years. Land is used as equity for business financing and to take this away from the business model is enough reason for investors to take their business elsewhere.

If LKY were alive, I wonder how he'd respond to the claim of Hilario G. Davide Jr. about FDIs. I'm sure he'd laugh. That's why I even wrote a post whether people would listen to Davide Jr. or Kishore Mahbubani. Growing old wise is one thing. Growing old without wisdom is another. I get reminded by some old people that not all old people are wise. It sounds harsh but warm advice from a wise old person is very much needed. Mahbbubani, the other former United Nations (UN) diplomat grandfather, knew what he was talking about. Unlike Davide Jr., Mahbubani didn't only speak it out but the evidence of Singapore is there. Mahbubani himslf in The Singapore economic model - VPRO documentary - 2009 spoke it out loud. Mahbubani dismissed the development economists who always thought of FDI as evil. Mahbubani shot it down and Singapore is the proof. That's why I'd listen to him over Davide Jr. 

Do we even forget the speech of LKY? LKY gave painful lessons for the Philippines such as saying Filipinos need more discipline than democracy, that the Filipino press is unfortunately rambunctious, and that there need which LKY pretty much blasted the late Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First Policy" with this part of his speech:

Second : Concentrate on economics not politics or more accurately, politicking . Lift restrictions on trade and investment. Dismantle the web of measures which keep out foreign companies and make Philippine companies compete to survive, not thrive at the expense of ordinary Filipinos.

Hopefully, this will be to get more people to read LKY and not just quote him about the Marcoses. More people should read through From Third World to First cover to cover and not just obsess over the Marcoses. That also means Marcos Jr. and his cabinet and Mrs. Robredo and her fellow Kakampinks should all study the book too. Marcos Jr. should really rethink his priorities if he wants to get out of his father's shadow. Mrs. Robredo should also work harder to make the Liberal Party follow the views of Celdran and Masigan to become a real opposition.