Lessons from a Bumbay for Pinoys in This Asian Century
With EDSA 37 on the way, I'm afraid some people still use EDSA 1986 to oppose constitutional reform. Never mind the very facts that the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy Aquino, had blasted out that the first Marcos Administration wasn't even a parliament. The late Salvador Laurel challenged the legitimacy of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s position as either president or prime minister in Japan--a real parliamentary country. Some people may be using Rappler to fight any attempt to even improve the Philippine constitution. Never mind that the Philippine constitution is the very system that dictates how people from top to bottom, will behave. For example, if the constitution says you can't marry without parents' consent or can't marry at all if you're below a certain age, that prohibition restricts the person from marrying.
This interview from Rappler ran by Ayee Macaraig has an interview with a person who Filipinos should listen to instead of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. This interview is with none other than the founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) and a former United Nations (UN) diplomat for Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani. Davide Jr. was also a former diplomat to the UN from the Philippines. Reading through the interview, I will quote certain portions of the interview from Rappler. It's best to read the whole interview. Take note that Mahbubani is actually a Sindhi and Filipinos tend to call Indians "Bumbay" because most of the Indians in the Philippines are from Bombay, India. However, some Indian restaurant owners are actually not from Bombay but from other regions such as Hyderabad, which I call the Legaspi, Albay, of India.
Let's talk about the secrets of Singapore's success
What is behind the success of Singapore?Singaporeans should consider themselves the luckiest people in the world because no other human society has improved the standard of living of its people as quickly and as comprehensively as Singapore has done in the past 50 years. It’s been a remarkable achievement. There are many reasons of course why Singapore has succeeded.The first is exceptional leadership. I had the great pleasure and honor of working with many of the founding fathers of Singapore: 3 in particular, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, (former deputy prime minister) Dr Goh Keng Swee and (Singapore’s first foreign minister) Mr S Rajaratnam. In terms of the quality of mind, they are comparable to the founding fathers of America. They are as bright or in some cases much brighter than the founding fathers of America.So it was exceptional leadership. Also good governance, and in particular, 3 principles of good governance have helped Singapore: meritocracy, pragmatism, honesty. By implementing these 3 principles of good governance, Singapore has done exceptionally well.
It's very easy to say that nothing is wrong with the "beloved" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, in practice, it's been several years people have been campaigning to vote for wisely. It's that time I prefer to sound stupid and say, "Well, you keep asking me to vote for Wisely but the candidate doesn't exist!" Sure, Leni rhymes with Wisely (take note that Leni's real name is Maria Leonor Sto. Tomas Gerona-Robredo) but her name isn't Wisely either. I threw the joke to show the idiocy of the Vote Wisely campaign. How do you expect Filipino voters not to vote stupidly if popularity is the basis of elections. Just imagine you have outstanding lawyers, economists, doctors, etc. but they choose to vote for actors and athletes. What happens is the great double standard is when Senator Robin Padilla is berated because he's an actor (read here). If Padilla were anti-reform, I guess he'd get all the support. Since Padilla is calling for reforms, I guess that's why the double standard is pulled. I admire how Padilla is calling people to vote for better candidates. Padilla is taking a great risk by saying that since I definitely wouldn't vote for him if there's a better pro-reform candidate. I think Padilla can continue discussing reforms in the ads while lawyers and economists for reform do their job as legislators.
Without the parliamentary system then forget about LKY and Mahathir
Some time ago, I wrote an article where I actually raised the question of LKY and Mohamad, asking whether or not it was just about systems or just the leader. If we understood what the system meant, we would realize that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines wasn't just hurriedly written. It really didn't have a long-term plan and the Philippine Constitution is the very operating system of the Philippines.
The late LKY also recalls his moments with the late Fidel V. Ramos in his book From Third World to First. I really find it stupid that people quote portions of the book against the Marcoses but fail to get the rest of the details. This detail really would explain why the badly needed form is so delayed:
Ramos 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.
Mrs. Aquino's succesor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Confdence, I said, "I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe whaqt a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better bcause the majority party in the legislative was also in the govenrment. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.
Long reigns aren't necessarily tyrannical nor are short terms necessarily benevolent. Sure, the 20 years of Marcos Sr. were anything but benevolent. However, the late Pol Pot (who later committed suicide) ruled for only four years and Cambodia's memorial centers would send more shivers than the Martial Law Museum. LKY ruled Singapore for more than six years. Now, Lee Hsien Loong ruled as prime minister for more than six years. LSH has met Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Duterte, and now Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.
The secret of Singapore's meritocracy is in the parliamentary system. It's because becoming prime minister is no walk in the park. It's not like in the Philippines that a movie star becomes popular and then next thing you know, he's mayor, senator, vice president, and the president. Just reading this makes it very meritocratic, pragmatic, and honest:
Step 1
In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP.
But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:
- Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
- Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
- Read business or economics as an undergraduate
- Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School
Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage.
In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.
Alex Magno of the Philippine Star also presented the case of the parliamentary system and why the Mahathir types will never win the Philippine election:
One keen observer of the sometimes bizarre conduct of our national affairs is former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
Although retired from government, Mahathir keeps tabs with unfolding events in the region. Revered by his countrymen for the great economic achievements of his period of rule, he keeps office at the penthouse of the Petronas Towers – the highest edifice in the region and probably the world. From there, he observes his bustling capital and contemplates regional developments.
Last week, House Speaker Jose de Venecia called on Mahathir in the course of a five-day visit to Malaysia, swinging across from Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak and Sabah. The visit was primarily intended to conduct consultations with Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar on the future of the envisioned ASEAN Community and on de Venecia’s proposal to create an ASEAN Parliamentary Council.
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.
It is, likewise, a process that requires the reliable institutionalization of political commitment to a strategy for progress. A national project of achieving a modern economy is, after all, a task that is too large even for the greatest of leaders to undertake singularly. It is a task that requires the sustained effort that only a committed party can ensure.
Without diminishing the personal qualities of great Asian leaders such as Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew, it remains that their feats of statesmanship could not have been done without the strong network that only a stable political party could provide. The parliamentary form of government ensures superior conditions for evolving that stable network.
When Lee Kuan Yew, and later, Mahathir Mohamad, reached the point when it was best to withdraw from their leadership roles, the transition was never traumatic. The process was never uncertain. The continuity of the policy architecture was never in doubt.
When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.
Great leaders do not fall from the heavens and perform overnight miracles of national development without a stable governmental platform.
At the risk of sounding tautological: great leaders can only emerge from political and institutional conditions that make great leadership possible. The most important characteristic of those conditions is that they do not rely on the mysticism of leadership and do not fall prey to the destructive tide of personal ambitions as well as personal jealousies – both of which are in abundance in our politics today.
Why the "Filipino First Policy" will not fit in with Mahbubani's advice for pragmatism
The "Filipino First" policy of this administration received a resounding popular indorsement in the last election. Politically we became independent since 1946, but economically we are still semi-colonial. This is especially true in our foreign trade. This policy is therefore designed to regain economic independence. It is a national effort to the end that Filipinos obtain major and dominant participation in their own national economy. This we will achieve with malice towards none and with fairness to all. We will accomplish this with full understanding of our international obligations towards our friends of the Free World. We will carry this out within the framework of our special relations with the United States to whose citizens we granted until 1974, by Constitutional provision, equal rights as Filipinos in the exploitation of our natural resources and public utilities, and to whom we also granted trading parity rights under the Laurel-Langley Agreement. Under this policy we will welcome friendly and understanding foreign capital willing to collaborate with us in the exploitation of our vast natural resources preferably on joint venture basis.
It sounds pragmatic at first. However, whether Filipinos want to admit it or not, the policy has caused the Philippines to fail. The lie that Garcia's Filipino First Policy made the Philippines a tiger economy is as much as a myth as the "golden years" of the first Marcos administration. It's also as mythical as the idea that the first Marcos Administration was really a parliamentary system, never mind the evidence that both Aquino Jr. and Laurel gathered against the illegitimacy of the administration.
When I ask for the evidence, some people would say, "Let's listen to other than honorable Hilario Davide Jr." The problem is all Davide Jr. does is talk and talk. I wrote about his latest update last February 5, 2024. It's really something when old people will say, "Listen to the wisdom of the old but not all old are wise." Where do you think young people should get beauty tips from? From an old person who still looks good or from an old person who aged disgracefully? That's why I ask, "Can Davide Jr. actually prove his statements?"
The latest update that I wrote about also included this:
Foreign control
According to Davide, opening the country’s education system to foreigners could make schools vulnerable to foreign control.
“The proposal [RB6] opens to foreign control and dominance, our basic education, which is the most crucial to the development of our young,” he said.
Citing the 1987 Constitution, Davide said that having foreign leaders in the Philippines’ basic education system would undermine the “noble patriotic and nationalistic virtues,” which are constitutionally mandated to be part of the curricula of all educational institutions.
He explained that Article 14, Section 3 of the Charter provides for schools to teach patriotism and nationalism, among others, to young Filipinos.
“Can we expect foreigners at the helm or control of the educational system to seriously and healthily obey this state policy on education?” asked Davide.
As for foreign ownership of public utilities and advertising, Davide warned that it would be “extremely dangerous” if the country were to leave Congress the extent of Filipino ownership requirement in businesses in the two sectors.
“The day will not be far when public utilities and advertising industries will be under control or even under the full ownership of aliens,” he said.
However, the evidence of Davide Jr.'s statements has been long shot down. True, Mahbubani never faced off against Davide Jr. in a formal debate. Mahbubani, however, spoke from experience. Mahbubani also has a rags to riches story which Rappler also recorded some parts of Mahbubani's life story:
I was very lucky because I was born in a very poor family in a very poor Singapore. Singapore’s per capita income when I was young was the same in Ghana in Africa and my family was also very poor. I was put in a special feeding program. We lived on social welfare, and so I went through very hard times and the reason why I succeeded in my life is because of Singapore’s policy on meritocracy so throughout my school years when I did well, I got bursaries to support me. When I went to university, I got the president’s scholarship.
After I graduated with first class honors in philosophy, I was admitted to the administrative service of Singapore, which is the elite service of Singapore on the basis of merit because I had absolutely no family connections, in fact no ethnic connections with anybody in the Singapore leadership because I belong to a minority within a minority.
Singapore’s population is 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, 6 to 8% Indian but most come from South India. I come from North India and I was Sindhi so it was quite remarkable that a person was born in a minority group within a minority group in a very poor family can be so successful. And that’s the result of meritocracy in Singapore.
 |
| Listen to him and those who think alike, not the social media gossipers! |
This takes me back to when I first saw The Singapore Economic Model - VPRO documentary - 2009. Mahbubani spoke about how the economists of his day had the wrong impression of foreign investments. Instead, Mahbubani spoke frankly and said in the same documentary. People tend to have the wrong impression of letting foreigners invest in the country. However, when they were UN diplomats, Mahbubani said the words that Davide Jr. probably ignored. Mahbubani spoke from experience when he saw Singapore rise from third-world to first. Hence, that's the book title from LKY, which I ordered from Shopee.
Once again, quoting from the great LKY and shooting down the idea that Singapore self-industrialized, before opening to foreigners, from the book From Third World to First:
Pages 57-58After 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.
Mahbubani would want to fire down the idea, "But the Philippines isn't Singapore!"
Is the Singapore model replicable?I give a lecture at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and the title is: The Secrets of Singapore Success, and I give the secrets away free of charge. I always say any country in the world, any organization in the world will do well if it implements meritocracy, pragmatism. When you choose one country, the Philippines could have a GNP that is 10 times the current size if you implement meritocracy, pragmatism, and honesty. I say this because Filipinos are among the most talented people in the world today.If you travel around the world, you go to New York, California, you will see how successful the Filipino communities are, and so it shows you the potential of the Philippines’ population is enormous. There’s absolutely no reason why the Philippines should not be like Germany or France, a developed country. You have the potential. All you have to do is implement meritocracy, pragmatism, honesty.It’s absolutely not unique to Singapore. I think if there’s one country that will definitely succeed with meritocracy, pragmatism, honesty, that’s the Philippines. I’ve seen how successful the Filipino community is outside the Philippines and so the obvious question to ask is: why? Why is the Philippine community inside the Philippines not as success as the Philippine community outside? So it’s a question about which policies you implement.So the most important thing about meritocracy is your destiny is not determined at birth. Right now, if you’re born in Makati, you know you’ll succeed and if you’re born in the slums in Manila, your chances of success are very low. But you can change that. You can decide that someone born in the slums should be given the equal opportunity to prove that he has a brain as someone born in Makati.That’s what meritocracy is about. We don’t look at where they are born. We just assume everyone should be given the chance to prove they are good, and you give them the chance, you will have tremendous reservoirs of brain power in the Philippines you can exploit.
This is why I want the parliamentary system. For the Philippines to actually achieve the three areas--meritocracy, pragmatism, and honesty, a policy change is needed. This is what Mahbubani is saying on which policies are implemented. Some say it's a matter of implementation, not policies. However, policies shape behavior. For example, Singapore's very strict environment is why more Singaporeans are more disciplined than most Filipinos. Singapore has its stiff penalties--something almost non-existent in the Philippines.
A longtime supporter of Mrs. Robredo and Duterte critic, economist Andrew James Masigan, also writes this about the parliamentary system:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
The very words "It's a question of which policies you implement." is this. What policies in the 1987 Constitution need to be changed? If so, it may be time to write another constitution because in itself, the constitution isn't a car but the very school of thought and the system that runs the nation. It should also be interesting that in the same interview, Mahbubani is also willing to learn from Filipinos when he mentioned about immigration and inequality:
The first thing Singapore should learn from the Philippines how to have more babies. Philippines is a country that’s blessed with lots and lots of babies. You are replacing your population. Singapore’s fertility ratio is very low, 1.5, 1.2 and we are clearly not replacing our population so we need to do something.
For a long time, the government tried various economic incentives, baby bonuses, but people don’t have babies for economic reasons. They do it out of love, affection so you have to think much harder about what you do to create a more livable, family-friendly city. It’s a comprehensive thing. It’s not something you can just say it’s about giving 1,000 dollars more and so on. It’s a big challenge, and we haven’t found the answers so far.
Similarly, because we are not replacing our population. We have a rapidly aging society. We don’t have enough workers so we have to import foreign talent but as the last election showed, that’s politically a very difficult thing to do in Singapore.
So the government’s got to manage these tension between on the one hand bringing in foreign workers to suit the economic demands of Singapore, and at the same time reducing the number of foreign talent to meet the political demands of Singapore. Maintaining that balance is a very difficult challenge.
Pretty much, it's a give-and-take of learning. I'm glad to see that Mahbubani is more than just a teacher who can teach Filipinos about improvement. It's also about Mahbubani wanting to balance population and economics. I believe that there's no reason not to have a huge family if you can afford it. The problem is Filipinos tend to have more children when they can't afford it and Singaporeans tend to have less when they can afford it. Hopefully, Singaporeans, South Koreans, Japanese, etc. will start to produce more children because of their better economy. The pragmatic advice is, "Don't have more children if you can't afford them. But if you can, why not?"
A word of advice for the Philippines in the ASEAN?
I'd be skipping some parts such as LKY's friendship with Suharto. Now, for some advice from Mahbubani on the ASEAN:
You say Singapore should be the cheerleader of ASEAN. How would you assess regional integration set this year?
I’m one of the biggest supporters of ASEAN. My next book will be on ASEAN. ASEAN is a breathing, living modern miracle because it has taken a region far more diverse than any other region in our planet because we have greater diversity of race, language, religion, language, culture, history than any other region on planet earth, and we’ve made it a peaceful region. For that reason alone, ASEAN alone deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s performed a miracle in what it has achieved in this region.
ASEAN has been very helpful in promoting economic cooperation. One reason why the ASEAN countries are thriving is because they’ve open up their economies and they’ve also signed free trade agreements with China, India, Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, so on and so forth.
But it would be a mistake for ASEAN to be complacent because ASEAN could be left behind when China and India take off in a big way. It’s important if ASEAN wants to compete with China and India in a big way, you have to move to setting up an ASEAN Economic Community which is the goal for 2015. Singapore has been one of the biggest supporters and will continue to remain a big supporter.
How can Singapore help ASEAN be more competitive?
Singapore has been very helpful to ASEAN in many ways, either through direct assistance through the Singapore cooperation program, providing ideas for ASEAN integration but the most valuable thing Singapore can do is to be a catalyst for change.
I’ll never forget, the former Foreign Minister of Indonesia Ali Alatas once told me the story, which is very telling, he said for many years, Indonesia will send its urban planners to the best European cities, to Amsterdam, London and Paris and they will study urban planning in these cities, come back, and write a beautiful report and write the last paragraph: “But Amsterdam is in Europe, Jakarta is in Asia. We in Asia cannot do what Europe can do.” Signed, filed away.
One day by mistake they came to Singapore. They wrote a wonderful report on urban planning in Singapore, in the last paragraph they put: “Singapore is in Europe.” Singapore is not in Europe but in Asia so they said, “Hey, maybe we in Asia can build a city as beautiful as the European city.” So that’s a remarkable story. It shows you that the best thing Singapore can do is to introduce all kinds of economic, social changes that others can say, “Hey, if Singapore can do it, we can do it.”
In terms of attracting foreign investment, for many years, Singapore used to produce a wonderful investment brochure. And one day the best thing Malaysia did was to take the same investment brochure and they only changed one word. Every time it said Singapore, they changed to Malaysia. Every incentive Singapore gave for foreign investment, Malaysia gave. Malaysia got tremendous more foreign investment, and that made Singapore very happy. It’s good for Singapore if Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines get a lot of foreign investments by copying our investment brochures. That’s wonderful.
Mahbubani's brochure would totally slap his former fellow UN diplomat Davide's face as well as the face of Filipino First Policy supporters. The Philippines can learn from Singapore to actually copy Singapore's more FDI-friendly policy. I feel like any objection from groups like Migrante International has to do with the late Flor Contemplacion. It was Flor's 25th death anniversary last 2020, that's when the pandemic became global and life came to a standstill. I believe I'm fortunate to have lived through a pandemic and write about it in a post-pandemic world.
It's interesting that Mahbubani also wrote about the tensions between China and the Philippines last 2015. It would be best not to let other nations intervene, if ever. This was written during the time of Aquino III"s reign. I may want to discuss that another day though I'm not into geopolitics either. Now, for some closing remarks from Mahbubani:
What can Southeast Asia learn from Singapore, and what can Singapore learn from Southeast Asia?
I think Singapore can learn a lot from Southeast Asia. In my book on ASEAN, I speak about the 4 waves of cultural influence that came into Southeast Asia. First you have the Indian wave, and as you know it left a deep imprint on Southeast Asia culture. In Indonesia, the Wayang Kulit, the status and the Mahabharata and Ramayana, that’s an amazing impact of the Indian wave, also the Chinese wave.
One reason why Southeast Asia is successful is because it has a very strong, successful Chinese communities in Southeast Asia then the Western wave, before that the Islamic wave. Islam arrived peacefully in Southeast Asia and converted a lot of people to Islam. Then you had the Western wave, the most violent wave, which led to the colonization of Southeast Asia.
So as a result, Southeast Asia is an amazingly complex cultural environment, and Singapore is so lucky it is in such an interesting complex cultural environment it can learn a lot from.
Southeast Asia can also learn a lot from Singapore. Singapore has learned all the best practices from the rest of the world. Singapore is in some ways one of the best copycat countries in the world. Whatever Singapore has copied from the other countries, we invite the ASEAN countries to copy from Singapore. That will lead to a better Southeast Asia.
Mahbubani's last words in his Rappler interview last 2015 are really why Singapore succeeded. Singapore has foregone the whole Singapore pride. The Philippines can do the same to learn from the rest of the world. The fact that Mahbubani wants to learn from the Philippines how to have more babies is a good thing. People can be sometimes too focused on economics that they fail to replenish the population. LKY learned from Western influence and look at Singapore's economic status now. Now, the Philippines can learn from Singapore's economic policies. Singaporeans can learn from Filipinos so they can start to have a better birth rate. It's all about learning from each other, and not sticking to foolish notions of nationalistic pride like the Filipino First Policy.
