Philippines' Obsession with Symptoms vs. Singapore's Obsession with SYSTEMIC Solutions

Lawrence Wong's Facebook Page

Happy 60th anniversary to Singapore. I could remember the first time I went to Singapore. It was when I experienced a city far better than Cebu City. It was a fine city because you get fined a lot if you refuse to keep the place, clean and orderly. It's that fine that makes Singapore a fine city. As Singapore hits 60, it reminds me that Singapore was once an impoverished country, as documented in the late Lee Kuan Yew's book From Third World to First. What truly sickens me, though, is how often LKY's words on the Marcoses are held high, all the while his useful economic advice is often ignored (read here). In fact, we have stubborn Filipino boomers who can quote LKY in one moment, then they would choose to listen to Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. instead of the more proven Kishore Mahbubani (read here).

The Philippines' obsession with symptoms (short-term)

I was thinking about the logic of Facebook pages like Silent No More PH. Do the administrators in such pages bother to do more research? One could go to Google Scholar or search for various sites. Instead, we've got such pages repeatedly parroting the words of Davide, the Monsods, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Makabayan Bloc senators, Butthurt Philippines (and the humor of its founder, Lico Reloj, is really unwholesome to me), etc. as their "valid sources". What's the use of attacking me for using Blogspot to communicate my ideas when these people operate within an echo chamber? They could go ahead and attack issues. These pages, like Silent No More, reveal one fatal flaw in the Philippines' problem-solving--the obsession with treating symptoms without attacking the main cause. 

It may be more than 20 years ago. I was only 15 years old when I wrote that essay in the Asian History exam. Right now, that Asian History teacher of mine is a university professor. One of my "grand plans" for a better Philippines was to discipline every single Filipino (read here). I looked at how Singaporeans' discipline excelled over the Philippines. I had to deal with a lot of Flor Contemplacion crybabies. In fact, Flor Contemplacion crybabies have been spreading fake news for three decades (read here). However, I was soon hammered with the question, "But America (USA) is full of undisciplined people, why is it still richer?" It was during that time that people took courses to go abroad. In fact, the bigger reason why I wanted to take Information Technology, even if it's a mathematics intensive course, was to go abroad. In Tagalog, it was often said, "Abroad na lang ang huling pag-asa." I had no idea how economics worked. In fact, not even having an economics teacher as stern as the late Miriam Defensor-Santiago, helped. Not even my college economics teachers helped me with the bigger picture. The problem wasn't with the teachers--it was with the system itself! Teachers are just made to do their jobs, not design the system they're required to follow! 

I would look at the Facebook whiners. I won't keep naming them unless they hit the news. Some people address that the Philippines isn't "investor friendly", citing some stuff like (1) a devaluing PHP (never mind Vietnam and Japan have weaker currencies), (2) corrupt officials (and Vietnam's under a totalitarian regime), (3) high costs of utilities (which is also a supply and demand problem),  and (4) crime rates, just to name a few. However, the same people would have the mentality of "No to constitutional reform!" The same people end up whining about wanting to find greener pastures abroad. The picture above shows the problem with the Philippines--complaining and never addressing what they're complaining about. The complaints about corruption, high costs of utilities, etc., are productive. The real problem is that such people prefer to only do virtue signalling, than address the root cause. If they do propose solutions, it can be nothing more than stroking their ego. 

Raissa Robles' Twitter

I've noticed solutions for a better Philippines are always linked to ridiculous solutions. The late Raul Roco said we need a change in people, not a change in the constitution. Please, the same argument has been there. People say, "It's common sense that the problem is the one running the system, not the system in itself." However, this is pretty much short-term. Corrupt officials are like flies and rats. Flies and rats need to be gotten rid of. However, if a place has an abundance of pests, it shows that there's a much deeper problem. If the city is plagued with so much flooding with dirty water, there's a much bigger problem. Practices like post-flood cleaning and pest control are good. However, they become short-term solutions when the root cause isn't addressed. Corrupt officials come out of corruption within the system, not the other way around! That's why to say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is perfect the way it is, is just stupid. It's like the place continues to have pests and floods, while saying the place is perfect the way it is.

This reminds me of the hype surrounding the late former president, Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III (read here). Not all supporters of Noynoy can be considered Noytards, like not all Duterte supporters are Dutertards. Back on topic, it's really something when people use Noynoy's economic legacy as an excuse not to amend the constitution. The problem is like how Nokia refused to evolve from standard cellphones to smartphones. Back then, I had a couple of Nokia phones, but now, who still wants a Nokia? If Nokia just adapted earlier, they could've probably still remained. The same goes with people who still want to "be so beholden" to Noynoy, like he's some miracle worker. In reality, Noynoy's economic legacy still has flaws, like any economic program. What held Noynoy back was that our economic restrictions are enshrined in the Constitution, when they shouldn't be. The big question is also, "How much can be done in just one term of six years?" Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad ruled for more than six years and left Malaysia with more stability. The same goes for LKY, who ruled Singapore for 31 years.

In fact, it doesn't matter if a politician will one day pass a law preventing the Dutertes, Marcoses, Arroyos, etc. from running. It doesn't even matter if the anti-political dynasty bill will be passed. The real problem is that the fat dynasties are thanks to name recall. Even if all the political dynasties will be tossed into the Pacific Ocean, the corruption can still return much higher. 

We should also look at the Philippines' ridiculous plans to get FDI is pretty obsessed with just symptoms, without looking at the root cause

The Philippines doesn't prohibit FDI, per se (read here). However, the problem is that the 60-40 arrangement is practically overpriced rent (read here). The comment above from Reddit is just laughable. The person doesn't understand the economic restrictions in the countries he just mentioned vs. the Philippines. No country should operate without economic restrictions. However, the problem isn't economic restrictions but equity restrictions. The person proposes that the MNC should get two Filipino partners to become the majority shareholder. However, that can be compared to renting a space and giving the building owner and the landowner 30% each. It's still not the majority share. That's just having the most number of shares, under plurality.

The plan to "attract more FDI in the Philippines" would be:

1. Removing corrupt officials through the tedious process of impeachment. This was even emphasized by the Makati Business Club, that delays in Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio's impeachment may "turn off FDI" (read here).
2. Campaigning #ItsMoreFunInThePhilippines, which sadly is an excuse for toxic positivity. Maybe, it's more than time to advertise why it's more fun to invest a 60-40 split in the Philippines?

Is it because they're mistaking profits for revenues (read here). Regardless, they try to address everything except the real main cause of having less FDI in the Philippines, compared to other countries like Vietnam. If I'm not wrong, Cathy Yap Yang tried to address that the Philippines is "freer than Vietnam". The Philippines is a democratic country, while Vietnam is a Communist country. However, the real issue is that Communist Vietnam doesn't have the ridiculous FDI restrictions within their constitution (read here). Vietnam still has a few sectors under economic protectionism. However, all it takes is a legislative act from the Communist Party of Vietnam to ease that restriction! The Philippines would still require 2/3 vote, even before any part of Article XII is amended!

Meanwhile, Singapore was obsessed with systemic fixes (long-term)

Did you know that the Philippines was once richer than Singapore? Some people can keep blaming the Marcoses, never mind that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. is already too dead to do anything (read here)! Venezuela used to be a promising country before it became a cesspool. Meanwhile, Singapore was once a slum before it became a model to follow. The difference was that LKY focused on systemic fixes compared to the Philippines. Why did the Philippines ignore LKY's economic advice? Was it because of Flor's "wrongful execution" in 1995, never mind that the Singaporean courts are better than the Philippines? 

Now, let's define what systemic solutions mean. The Thwink Org gives this definition:

Systemic means affecting most or all of a system rather than a small portion of the system.

In medicine, systemic means affecting the entire body, rather than a single organ or body part. In systems thinking, systemic means arising from the structure of the system and affecting the general behavior of the entire system. In social problems, systemic means originating from the structure of the system in such a manner as to affect the behavior of most or all social agents of certain types, as opposed to originating from individual agents. The last of these definitions it the one that applies the most to the sustainability problem.

This is where the difference between Noynoy and LKY will be contrasted. Noynoy campaigned, "Kung walang corrupt ay walang mahirap." It means, "If there's no corruption, there will be no poor people." However, the problem lies in what kind of corruption we are dealing with. Corruption within the system is what tolerates or even allows corruption to go unchecked. Sure, there are rules against corruption in the present 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, the real problem is that corruption (or errors within the system) has prevented them from being fully implemented. You can never fully enforce a program if it has several mistakes to be debugged! Why do you think Windows updates exist? Why do you think Microsoft made many versions of Windows? 

As I read through LKY's book From Third World to First, the great statesman was focused on long-term solutions. The same goes for Malaysia's Mahathir, a man who says to never stop learning. LKY ruled Singapore from 1959-1990, which means he ruled for 31 years, much longer than Marcos! However, LKY made Singapore a better city. It was because with LKY not being subjected to term limits for the sake of term limits, LKY was able to do a long-term solution. Noynoy was stuck with the six years no more no less. I was even laughing at how Loida Nicolas-Lewis said, "Six years under Noynoy. Six years under Mar. Six years under Leni." Why not simply, "As many terms as possible under the Liberal Party?" Well, sorry to say, but we're stuck in the presidential system. Under the presidential system, any political party can implement more longer-lasting reforms! 

A good example is how Singapore deals with the garbage problem. Singapore also creatively used converted garbage to generate energy. Singapore has been focused on long-term solutions, such as actually setting fines against littering and other environmental violations. To say that Filipinos just need education so they will not litter is stupid. Should people wait until college so they will learn not to litter? If there are no rules against littering, then why should schools teach children not to litter? I would see no reason for schools to teach children not to litter if there are no rules against littering. 

This also reminds me why it's more practical to listen to Mahbubani than Davide. Mahbubani understood that as a policymaker, policies have consequences. Mahbubani saw the real problem was with the Third World economics thinking. Mahbubani founded the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, something Davide can only dream of doing. Then again, even if Davide created the Carlos P. Garcia School of Public Policy, Mahbubani's words are backed up by proof. Davide's statements on inviting MNCs to invest in Singapore, to prioritize FDI, are backed up by Singapore's results. 

This is why I ask, "When will Filipinos learn that the problem is more systemic than symptomatic?" In medicine, there's always "If symptoms persist, consult your doctor." Sometimes, the cough is but a symptom of the bigger problem. The COVID-19 pandemic wouldn't end if people were just obsessed with treating the symptoms associated with the disease. What was needed was immunization against COVID-19, to all people who didn't have any excuse not to get vaccinated. Developing herd immunity was that stopped the pandemic, not treating the symptoms of COVID-19. That's where Singapore excelled over the Philippines--in its approach to how to address the problem! If the Philippines starts a more systemic approach to the problem, they would actually see better results.