A Badly-Needed Visit from Mahbubani to the ADMU?

Ateneo de Manila

 

It's sad, but life can get complicated. I'm currently having a series of lessons learned from certain health problems, for taking my health for granted. Right now, I'm thinking about making a blog entry on another person that I admire in the world of business and economics, namely Indian Singaporean, and founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kishore Mahbubani. It was last October 2, 2026, when Mahbubani went to the Ateneo de Manila University, one of my dream universities back when I was younger. It was too bad I was in the middle of recovering from health issues that may kick in unawares in my 40s. When I think about it, I wonder if Hilario Davide Jr. even had the chance to be there, and I assume that the two probably met because they were both grandfathers who were once United Nations diplomats.

Insights given by Mahbubani at the ADMU

I gave thought to how Mahbubani recommends the Philippines, as a fellow ASEAN member, to deal with the US-China rivalry, as provided by ADMU:

Prof Mahbubani situated the US–China rivalry within the broader context of a great-power transition, highlighting the profound implications of shifting power relations for countries such as the Philippines and for the international system as a whole. He also discussed the limitations of international law in protecting smaller states, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine. His remarks emphasized the reality of how geopolitical developments among major powers can have far-reaching consequences for states regardless of their size and influence in international relations.

Despite these challenges, Prof Mahbubani expressed optimism about ASEAN and its potential to emerge as a successful and consequential regional organization. His perspective offered students an opportunity to consider the possibilities for regional agency amid intensifying great-power competition. 

Here are insights from the Asia-Pacific Insights and Rommel Banlaoi that I believe can be used to help understand how the Philippines can deal with why it can accept FDI without compromising its situation:

Throughout his diplomatic and academic career, Mahbubani has advanced a consistent proposition that small and medium-sized states preserve their sovereignty not by becoming instruments of great powers but by maintaining the widest possible room for independent action. For ASEAN members, this means resisting pressure to choose sides and ensuring that national interests remain the principal guide of policy.

This message is especially relevant today because the world is undergoing what Mahbubani calls as a historic great-power transition. The post-Cold War era of overwhelming American primacy is giving way to a more contested international order marked by China’s rise and the relative diffusion of power. Such transitions have historically been periods of instability, uncertainty, and strategic danger. The intensifying China-US rivalry is not merely a competition between two states. It is a struggle over the future balance of power in the international system.

Yet national security cannot be reduced to military cooperation alone. Security also requires diplomacy, economic resilience, political cohesion, and strategic flexibility. This is precisely where Mahbubani’s message deserves attention.

For decades, ASEAN has sought to engage all major powers while avoiding excessive dependence on any one of them. This approach has helped preserve regional stability and provided Southeast Asian states with valuable diplomatic space. It has not eliminated disputes, but it has prevented the region from becoming permanently divided into opposing camps.

Mahbubani also cautions against placing excessive confidence in international law as a sufficient guarantee of security. The Philippines should continue to defend the 2016 Arbitral Award and uphold a rules-based international order. International law remains a valuable source of legitimacy and diplomatic leverage.

At the same time, history reminds us that major powers often apply international law selectively. States invoke legal principles when those principles align with their interests and interpret them differently when they do not. Thus, Mahbubani contends that law alone is rarely enough. Diplomatic influence, economic resilience, military capability, and political will remain critical components of national power.

This is not an argument against international law. It is an argument against strategic complacency. His broader point is that power remains a defining feature of international relations. Nations speak the language of principles and norms, but they also pursue interests. Effective statecraft requires a clear understanding of both realities. Countries that rely exclusively on legal and moral arguments while neglecting the realities of power risk finding themselves strategically exposed.

The challenge facing the Philippines is not whether it will be affected by the China-US strategic contest. Geography ensures that it will. Located at the center of one of the world’s most consequential maritime regions, the Philippines sits on the frontlines of a major geopolitical transformation.

History offers a cautionary lesson. During periods of great-power transition, smaller states have often borne the highest costs. Across regions and eras, rivalries among major powers have frequently evolved into proxy conflicts in which weaker states became battlegrounds for contests not entirely of their own making. The circumstances vary, but the pattern is familiar.

The lesson is not to abandon alliances but to ensure that national interests never become subordinate to the objectives of external actors. Strategic partnerships should enhance sovereignty, not diminish it. They should expand policy options, not narrow them.

This is why Mahbubani deserves a hearing in Manila. The Philippines should strengthen its defenses, deepen its diplomacy, protect its maritime rights, and maintain productive alliances. But it should also preserve its capacity for independent judgment.

People might still have the Flor Contemplacion Crybaby Syndrome. However, given the evidence-based records, Flor was indeed guilty. The Flor Contemplacion Story was indeed a problematic film. I wonder if Makabayan Bloc or Migrante International staged a protest, given Mahbubani is a Singaporean. Regardless, I'm glad Mahbubani came to give some lessons to the Philippines. 

Applying these lessons regarding how to regulate FDI

This is where FDI kicks in. Many Filipinos tend to get their understanding of FDI based on gossip. Mahbubani said, "But no, Singapore will be different." Mahbubani 

In this case, I thought about Mahbubani's guidelines on how FDI can be a tool that can help develop the Philippines:

1. Remove all the economic protectionism from the constitution and make it legislative. Developed countries used tariffs, not ownership restrictions, to protect the infant industries. Protectionism is usually a temporary stopgap to slow down the economy when needed. This makes it easier to restrict and release the local economy when needed.
2. We can allow 100% FDI ownership. However, the FDI is still bound to alliance rules like, "We follow your rules in your country. You follow our rules in ours." This sets clear boundaries. 
3. FDI isn't solely a China vs. American dichotomy. The Philippines can have investments from Chinese and American private firms like Xiaomi (China) and Apple (America). However, it can also attract investment from other countries, such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Singapore. 

Mahbubani didn't only speak words; he also provided evidence from people like Davide, the Monsod couple (Christian and his wife Solita "Winnie"), and people from the Makabayan Bloc (like Atty. Neri Colmenares, Teodoro "Teddy" A. Casiño, Atty. Renee M. Co, Sarah Jane Elago to name a few) about FDI. The evidence is seeing Singapore turn from a third-world country to a first. That's why I decided to read the book From Third World to First. I decided to see for myself and quote straight from the pen of the late great Lee Kuan Yew, after whom the public policy school was named after in the National University of Singapore.

That's why I often tell people who insist on Pinoy Pride Economics, "Tell that to Singapore!"