 |
| CoRRECT Movement |
It's very easy to talk about, "What's wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines? You should be glad that if Marcos Sr. wasn't overthrown then you wouldn't have your freedom?" Okay, I agree with that, no questions asked. I could blog right now without getting immediately arrested for petty reasons. I was talking about how Singapore was a very orderly place because of the strong discipline. I mentioned Singapore in my now 2000s-forgotten high school Asian history finals essay. My thoughts were that the only way the Philippines can improve is if every single Filipino was disciplined. When I talk about discipline, some Filipinos are quick to equate it with dictatorship. They tend to believe that democracy is a dysfunctional sense of freedom, like a lot of Americans today.
I was reminded of the COVID-19 pandemic. I was chastised and told to stop entertaining stupid comments. There were already comments complaining about COVID-19 lockdowns. "Give us our freedom!" "Disobedient people aren't to blame for the increase in COVID-19 cases!" Some people were even scared of the presence of the military and police. It's one thing to raise concerns about military personnel and police personnel who abuse their authority. It's another thing wanting to defund the military and police. I wonder who they're going to call to help in peace and order, especially during the pandemic? I was glad to see some soldiers here and there because it was a pandemic. What I have to fear is not the military and police but only when people in those ranks disobey their mandate. When they do, they should be considered criminals already and be relieved of their duties!
It's time to render the painful truth again, Singaporean style
 |
| Singapore Matters Facebook Page |
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 at the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, "I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that a British parliamentary-type constitution worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.He (Ramos, emphasis mine) 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 Philippines 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 in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution which has not been made easier by the workings of ta Philippine version of the American constitution.
Democracy leads to development but without discipline, it's anarchy and not democracy. The definition of democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That means a democracy still requires a government, people must still agree, propose society rules, and that it requires humane principles like the right of due process. A democracy needs rules to be followed, otherwise, those in power will end up becoming tyrants. The warning that George Orwell (real name is Eric Arthur Blair) warned that democracies can become dictatorships. Yes, it can happen when democracy becomes a mob rule or when a lack of rules can allow those in power to become dictators themselves. Orwell did write Animal Farm with that warning when the pigs became dictators themselves.
The big difference between the Philippines and Singapore isn't just about discipline. It's also about economics. Sure, I can go ahead and rant all day about how Singapore keeps fining people for offenses that mess up the environment. I can go ahead and implement much higher fines in the Philippines but that will not help the economy. Economics is all about harvesting revenues and managing revenues. Many Filipinos tend to talk more about freedom instead of how to improve the Philippine economy. To some, I mention Singapore and some call it something like, "Democracy in name but communism in practice." Well, there are times Singapore can be too strict. I think Singapore needs to ease some laws. Other than that, I think Singapore is a far better place than the Philippines because of its economic policies.
I talk about the need for the Philippines about the need for more FDIs, and I get a lot of foolish responses. They would say in Tagalog (or any local Filipino language) like, "What? Are you crazy? Those FDIs will destroy our sovereignty, they will plunder our resources, they will run away with the profits, they will destroy the spirit of the country!" Ironic if such a statement comes from the mouth of devout Filipino Catholics (or even from Filipino Catholic bishops like Archbishop Socrates Villegas) since they belong to a multinational organization itself! Some of them still believe that FDIs will ruin the "sovereignty" of the Philippines. Such a statement was also made by one of their heroes, Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr., who was once the chief justice of the Philippines was appointed by former Philippine president, Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada.
That's what LKY also highlighted in his book. I wonder if these same people who cited LKY about Marcos Sr. (and the Marcoses too) ever realized that what he said about the economists of his day, would totally backfire on Filipino developmental economists who still insist on the Filipino First Policy? From page 58 of Third World to First, we can also read the following:
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.
We keep hearing from Filipino economists (and lawmakers) that FDIs would mean colonial mentality, that they would destroy Filipino sovereignty, etc. Some even go as far as to say that FDIs are only allowed in Singapore due to the country's lack of natural resources. Yet, Vietnam a country rich in natural resources, and a Communist one, allowed FDIs to run into it. You can see that Vietnam has become a better powerhouse than the democratic Philippines. As LKY said democracy doesn't always lead to development. LKY focused on economic substance because many of the problems that hit Singapore were really caused by poverty. Reading the poverty of Singapore makes it no surprise that crime was a very rampant problem when LKY newly took over.
LKY had nothing to do with such foolish talk. Instead, LKY dumped such foolish talk, knowing that two million Singaporeans badly needed jobs. Former UN diplomat Kishore Mahbubani also founded the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). Mahbubani soon said, "But no, we will prove them wrong." Mahbubani was born into a poor family and saw the rise of Singapore. Mahbubani expressed the problems of such a mentality. That's why I challenge those people to ask themselves if they will listen to Davide Jr. or if will they listen to Mahbubani (read here). Singapore had proven such notions wrong. Vietnam accepted FDI (and it's supposedly a Communist state) and look where it took them. China also accepted FDI which made it a powerhouse. So why is a democracy like the Philippines using excessive restrictions on FDI such as the nonsense 60-40 policy? All in the name of freedom perhaps?
If these gossipers can afford to cite LKY about the Marcoses then why do they ignore the rest of what he said about the Philippines (read here)? LKY knew what he was talking about when he was running an entire slum and made it into a city. LKY saw the rampant crime caused by poverty. LKY saw the ill effects of corruption. An LKY-type leader would hardly win the Philippine popularity-based elections. LKY not only badmouthed the Marcoses but also the lack of discipline in the Philippines. Even more, a dinner speech from LKY also gave this detail:
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.
That's the reality. Singapore is a living testament that accepting FDIs doesn't mean the loss of freedom. In fact, it's all about having more economic freedom for the people. People will have their right to get a job met even more. The irony is that the Philippines' obsession with freedom while ignoring economics made it less free. So many Filipinos still fly abroad looking for jobs. They aren't conquering other nations but have become subservient to them. FDIs become subservient to the nations they invest in. For example, FDIs dealing with food would know better than to serve non-halal food in Muslim countries and beef in Buddhist and Hindu countries. But not only Singapore but any country that doesn't have the ridiculous 60-40 equity policy is a testament to that. They can have a restrictive economy, in the sense that they don't let money easily get spent without a reason. A restrictive economy, to a certain extent, may mean a country doesn't spend the federal reserves without restraint. However, it doesn't mean that they have unreasonable restrictions such as the 60-40 policy.
The Philippines can be a good place because of freedom. However, what good is freedom if the economy isn't good or properly maintained? What good is the Philippines having freedom if job opportunities are scarce, if public utility services are still bad, and if it's all because the unnecessary FDI restrictions are all done in the name of preserving freedom? If that's so the freedom without economic substance is but false freedom then!