Inter-island Bridges Are Not Always the Answer: Why Train Ferries Make More Sense for an Archipelago
By Karl Garcia
Whenever congestion worsens and ferries back up, the instinctive solution is familiar: build a bridge. Fixed links promise permanence, speed, and economic integration. For island nations, they are often framed as symbols of progress.
But in a storm-battered, earthquake-prone archipelago like the Philippines, bridges can also be symbols of fragility.
Inter-island bridges may decongest ferries, but they create a different problem: they lock mobility into immovable infrastructure exposed 24/7 to typhoons, seismic faults, storm surges, and long-term climate stress. Once damaged, a bridge does not detour—it fails.
There is a quieter, less glamorous alternative that deserves serious attention: cargo train ferries and rail ferries, where freight—and even passengers—cross seas without leaving their trains.
The Problem with Fixed Links in a Dynamic Environment
Bridges work best where nature is predictable. The Philippines is not.
Long-span bridges in tropical seismic zones must be designed for:
- Extreme wind loading
- Strong currents and wave action
- Liquefaction-prone seabeds
- Active fault lines
- Accelerated corrosion from salt and humidity
This pushes costs dramatically upward—not just in construction, but in maintenance for decades. And when something goes wrong, the consequences are binary: open or closed. There is no flexibility.
Climate change only sharpens the dilemma. Higher design standards mean higher costs. Ignoring them means higher risk. Either way, bridges become high-stakes bets.
Rail Ferries: Floating Bridges with an Off Switch
Rail ferries flip the logic.
Instead of forcing nature to accommodate infrastructure, they allow infrastructure to adapt to nature.
Rail ferries carry:
- Freight wagons
- Container flats
- Fuel cars
- Even full passenger coaches
Cargo rolls on at one port and rolls off at another—no unloading, no rehandling, no cargo exposure. When seas are rough, operations pause. When storms pass, service resumes. Damage is limited to ports and vessels, which are far quicker to repair than collapsed spans.
In disaster management, this distinction matters.
You cannot “turn off” a bridge during an earthquake.
You can delay a sailing.
This Is Not a New or Experimental Idea
Rail ferries are proven technology.
- Italy still runs train ferries across the Strait of Messina, choosing them over a mega-bridge in a highly seismic zone.
- Germany once carried passenger trains directly onto ferries across the Fehmarn Belt, with travelers remaining in their coaches.
- Japan, before the Seikan Tunnel, relied on rail ferries in some of the world’s roughest seas.
- China operates high-capacity rail ferries across the Bohai Sea to reduce logistics costs and emissions.
- Russia uses them to connect isolated rail networks in extreme climates.
These are not poor countries avoiding progress. They are pragmatic states managing risk.
Why Rail Ferries Make Sense for the Philippines
First, freight matters more than cars.
Most inter-island congestion is not caused by tourists—it is caused by food, fuel, construction materials, and consumer goods. Every time cargo is unloaded from trucks, transferred to ships, then reloaded on the other side, costs rise and delays multiply.
Rail ferries eliminate this inefficiency.
Second, they scale gradually.
A bridge must be fully funded and completed before delivering any benefit. A rail ferry system can start with one route, a few vessels, and basic port upgrades—then expand as demand grows.
Third, they support redundancy.
One bridge serves one alignment forever. A ferry fleet can be rerouted, reassigned, or doubled during peak demand or emergencies. Redundancy is not a luxury in an archipelago; it is survival infrastructure.
Fourth, they integrate naturally with multimodal transport.
Rail ferries connect ports to inland logistics hubs, dry ports, and industrial zones. They support cleaner freight movement and reduce dependence on long-haul trucking—a major source of congestion, emissions, and road damage.
Bridges vs. Rail Ferries: A Strategic Comparison
Bridges offer speed and symbolism—but little flexibility.
Rail ferries offer resilience, adaptability, and system efficiency.
In a country regularly hit by typhoons and earthquakes, the question is not which is more impressive, but which fails more gracefully.
A Smarter Infrastructure Conversation
This is not an argument against bridges. Some crossings will justify them. But treating bridges as the default solution reflects a continental mindset, not an archipelagic one.
A smarter strategy would ask:
- Where does freight dominate over private vehicles?
- Where are fault lines active or waters deep?
- Where would flexible routing reduce disaster risk?
- Where can rail, ports, and industry be integrated instead of isolated?
In many cases, the answer will not be concrete and steel fixed to the seabed—but steel wheels rolling onto a ship.
The Bottom Line
Infrastructure is not just about moving faster. It is about recovering faster.
For the Philippines, rail ferries offer a way to decongest routes, strengthen supply chains, and adapt to a volatile climate—without betting everything on structures that cannot move when the earth or sea does.
Sometimes, the most resilient bridge is one that floats.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Infrastructure should be built in order of capacity weighed by difficulty.
For example: Rail infrastructure is complicated where the rail lines must transverse discontinuous routes; more complicated by complicated terrain and/or lack of right-of-way. The Philippines is unfortunate here since even if the major islands are counted considerable distance separates each major island and each major island themselves have difficult terrain to pass through. All these greatly complicate and increase the cost of rail infrastructure. I think that rail infrastructure would be important for the Philippines, but be limited initially to carrying bulk cargo to further integrate the internal Philippines economy. In addition ferries have fallen out of favor in most of the world because they just don’t make sense in an era of panel vans, semi-trailer trucks, and light passenger vehicles, all which are more flexible.
Instead, consider a combination of RORO ferries and LOLO ferries. RORO are mixed use and can carry both passengers and cargo. Some RORO ferries can carry standardized containers as well, either the containers upon detached trailers or loaded via crane. LOLO ferries are for cargo purposes and are essentially small container cargo ships for regional use. LOLO ferries would use port-side cranes to load and unload containers, just like an ocean-going container cargo ship.
When I approach problems that need to be solved, I tend to stick with as simple a solution as possible to reasonably accomplish the goal. The goal here is to further integrate the regional, domestic and export economies with infrastructure. I just think that train ferries are too complicated. Much of the complication is actually not in the train ferry itself, but due to the fact that rail infrastructure needs to be built out beforehand on land, and that rail infrastructure needs to be interoperable, on the same gauge, and on the same standards. If trains and containerized rail owned by various groups and corporations are transversing a given section of rail, it would also make more sense for the government to own such rail infrastructure as privately owned tracks may not give access to rivals. Given these risks, and given the fact that rail ferries and dockside rail depots are usually *extensions* of existing rail infrastructure rather than rail infrastructure existing because of dockside rail depots, and given the additional fact that road infrastructure is more flexible for mixed-use, it would make more sense to build out the national road infrastructure for general use first. Important to remember that the transnational rail networks of countries that went through the First Industrial Revolution were purpose built for specific connections between industrial and labor centers. National level rail networks back then, and now, were built to carry cargo and passengers along known and fixed destinations, which in some instances can greatly increase efficiencies but when used generally becomes a quick money sink. Rail is inherently inflexible.
Hi Joey!
I missed your comments.
You can back read anytime, though it is same old same old. And you csn comment here.
Anyways your KISS presription
should be prescribed even to monday morning quarter backs figurong out WHICH came frst or Who is on third.
Well I think rail infrastructure is a must for the Philippines, but rail is more useful for point-to-point connections contained within a region or land mass. So it is of utmost importance for a trans-Luzon and (probably even more so) for a trans-Mindanao rail system to transport goods. Leyte-Samar would also be a good candidate for a trans-Leyte-Samar rail system as well. These rail systems should be connecting industrial centers (factories and raw material extraction/processing sites) with import/export/cargo centers (ports mainly, secondarily cargo airports which don’t currently exist).
For inter-island connect rail is less useful. Train ferries have largely fallen out of favor long ago for the reasons I opened in my previous comment, chiefly the greater flexibility of road transport. We must remember that the heyday of rail being the main form of mass transport AND cargo was during the period prior to the proliferation of automobiles and trucks. And even then cargo was the original reason for rail transport. I consider light rail to be more of an extension of urban mass transport, and would be in a different category.
Inter-island bridges (which would not preclude bridges that also carry rail) would still be more efficient for transport, though of course the island topology of the Philippines and the sea depth of the channels separating major island groups is a problem. But not as much as a problem as the consistent lack of funding and engineering capacity.
But either inter-island bridges and rail are more complicated to achieve. It would make more sense in the short-to-medium term to improve and build out road infrastructure which sucks in most parts of the Philippines, and connect islands using RORO and LOLO ferries. When crafting a solution one must be wary of seemingly “perfect” solutions that require ideal situations. I always tell my engineers: aim for good enough while covering known risks. Energy should be saved to tackle new risks that emerge later. More complicated solutions can be built atop completed projects. Being able to finish something comparatively “simple” builds momentum and confidence to be able to do bigger things later.
***
Yeah thanks Karl. Interestingly internet connectivity in a war-torn country such as Ukraine was better than cellular signal in rural Philippines. I gave up on trying to connect after a while and fell back to getting the news through the “tita network” aka chika. Apparently my 5+ year old iPhone does not support certain common cellular bands used by Smart and Globe. Philippine telcos barely got onto the eSIM bandwagon last year to begin with. Our work here was largely a success. A few dozen solar irrigation pumps installed, tied to a microcontroller of my own design, bringing drip irrigation to hundreds of calamansi in the hills and mountains of Zamboanga Sibugay and Zamboanga del Norte.
My thinking was Minda goods to Luzon.
Hoping that importing would no longer be cheaper if we can get goods from Viszmin cheap
Even transport within a relatively small island like Cebu is terrible. If I were infrastructure czar I would fix local issues first before national integration. Until then inter-island links need only to be “good enough.”
Take for example Cebu island. The rural seaside municipality of Boljoon is a producer of high quality vegetables and seafood. Boljoon is 104 km (64.6 mi) from Cebu City, yet it takes over 3 hours to travel between Boljoon and Cebu City on a good day with no traffic. In the US 100 km can be traveled in less than an hour, even with traffic. As a consequence any perishable goods produced in Boljoon would be greatly reduced in quality by the time those goods reach Cebu City. I have hitched rides in the back of panel vans and box trucks, including from Boljoon to Cebu City, sitting alongside vegetables actively withering in the heat while stuck in traffic. Cebu province is probably too small for a rail network, so improved road infrastructure is more appropriate here. Possibly Cebu and Bohol can be linked by rail via an inter-island bridge which has been proposed from time to time for decades now.
But yes, Visayas and Mindanao can be a producer of agricultural goods for NCR if high speed ferries with refrigerated cargo holds (or refrigerated containers) are used. Remember that ferries are extensions of transport infrastructure and are largely useless if not connected to land-based road/rail infrastructure. The rapid loss of Luzonian agricultural lands is alarming, while the assumption of “we will just make new agricultural land in Mindanao” is unrealistic as much of those theoretical Mindanaoan agricultural lands are still virgin forest/jungle.
Many thanks for your inputs.
we in cebu are quite well hydrated! below is from AI.
Yes, inter-island ferries in the Philippines, including those serving Cebu, regularly transport various cargo, including perishables like seafood, fruits, and vegetables, often in specialized sections or under specific arrangements with ferry operators like Island Shipping and Super Shuttle or Oceanjet. While common ferries carry general cargo, dedicated cargo services or specific arrangements for temperature control might be needed for highly sensitive perishables, but standard transport from port to port is routine.
How Perishables Are Transported:
Key Operators & Services:
Oceanjet: Serves routes from other regions to Cebu, handling both passengers and cargo.
Island Shipping & Super Shuttle Ferry: Common for routes like Cebu to Bantayan Island, carrying passengers and various goods.
Many thanks KB,
But are you in favor of the inter island bridges?
I’m neutral about inter island bridges.
Instead of rail ferries which are more complicated (one of the reasons rail ferries went out of favor), how about:
1.) Better road infrastructure that can handle semitrailer trucks without excessive traffic
2.) Containerize everything. One major reason why rail ferries were popular 100 years ago is because the modern standardized ISO shipping container was not invented yet. ISO containers are designed to move containerized cargo from rail rolling stock, truck, semitrailer, RORO/LOLO ferry, container cargo ships, cargo airplane without needing to unload/load cargo. One of the biggest causes for cargo delay in the Philippines is the need to unload/load cargo manually with literal human labor. For refrigerated cargo, containers with self-contained refrigeration systems exist and are commonly used in North America and Europe
3.) Containerized cargo being standard sizes also maximize internal cargo space as well as makes the cargo carrier (truck, ship, aircraft what have you) be able to handle any container as long as it is of standard
4.) Unload/load needs to be minimized aside from initial or destination unload/load instead of unloading/loading at every stop. How many processes and “common sense” in the Philippines involves substituting cheap human labor rather than following long established standards and inventions? I sent an air cargo from the US to the Philippines to give as gifts upon arrival before Christmas, yet somehow my two parcels took a week to get from Manila to Cebu, even after paying 35k in cargo fees. So my gifts were late to hand out before Christmas
Well my family happened to own a small trucking/transport firm for about 2 decades with a fleet of about 2 dozen semitrailers and tractor trucks as my dad’s “sideline” outside of his government job, so logistics is an area of some knowledge to me.
Great ideas from Joey to complement Karl’s essay. Many years ago I read Lee Kuan Yew’s Memoir and I was impressed by his common sense approach to make Singapore significant in world commerce (as opposed to irrelevant). He observed that in th 1960s, international ocean shippers took 5-7 days to unload cargo at a port. Main cause of delay was paperwork processing.
Lee set a goal of 24 hours for Singapore.
Thanks to AI, I found this excerpt from the memoir:
“We had to create a new kind of economy, try new methods and schemes… We had to build up a reputation for efficiency, for reliability, for being a place where things worked.” — Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First
Can you imagine a Filipino leader with that kind of attitude?
One of his strategies, I recall from his book, was to put all offices for the required paperwork in ONE BUILDING!
AI reminded me of these steps: >>Eliminating “Idle” Time
Lee Kuan Yew pushed for:
I can see Joey appreciating this attitude judging from his experience and that of his parents in the cargo moving business. Lee did push for container ports which was still in the infancy stage in those days. Experts advised him against it, probably because of cost. But Lee decided to gamble on container shipping. He (and Singapore) won that gamble!
Another thanks, Salud!
My thoughts on the Singapore comparison is that Singapore’s population and territory is much smaller than the Philippines; even more so in 1960 a year after LKY took power. So while yes, inspiration may be gained from any success story, including Singapore, how those lessons are ingested and replicated is also important. It is of my belief that Filipinos often take the wrong conclusion from Singapore’s success rather than the applicable points. Not saying what you’re saying here in your comparison is wrong. Just something to keep in mind.
That being said, smaller population and territory aside, Singapore is bereft of natural resources and had a large-for-Singaporean-size unemployed population in the 1960s. Singapore solved those problems by taking lessons elsewhere and applying it *consistently.* Consistently is the operative word here, something that even the highly educated class of Filipinos have often have difficulty with.
“It is of my belief that Filipinos often take the wrong conclusion from Singapore’s success rather than the applicable points. Not saying what you’re saying here in your comparison is wrong. Just something to keep in mind.” – Joey
Yes I agree. I always keep that in mind.
“Singapore solved those problems by taking lessons elsewhere and applying it *consistently.* Consistently is the operative word here, something that even the highly educated class of Filipinos have often have difficulty with.” – Joey
Yes, Karl G. has recently pointed out in his essays that our planning and execution lack *integration.* He pointed out how when an administration changes, priorities AND funding also change. No continuity, hence no consistency. But then again I think your point is that even the educated class of Filipinos struggle with the CONCEPT of consistency. Am I right on that? If yes, I am not surprised. My doctor acquaintance would call that part of PinoyThink.
Lee Kuan Yew was able to maintain consistency partly because he himself was consistent AND his political party maintained control for I believe decades. I’m sure that helped and that was planned by LKY. Karl G. might call that luck. I don’t.
I don’t think it is necessarily a requirement for a political party to maintain control over the period of a decade or more. The US post-war consensus domestically lasted until Nixon across both parties, 25 years. The US post-war consensus in foreign affairs lasted nearly 75 years again across both parties. For much of this period both American major political parties were effectively center-left and center-right arguing over essentially how much money to dedicated towards certain policies rather than the core policy itself.
Of course having a party maintain control helps, such as in the Singapore example. But how far have parties swung back and forth in the Philippines based on the person of the movement leader? PDP and Laban are most famous recent examples, both being the vessel of opposition against Marcos Sr., holding center-left policy, until Duterte remade the PDP-Laban into an eclectic syncretism of far-left and far-right populist grievances.
National consensus is important to consistency, as well as gate keeping against the extreme fringes. In the Philippines, I see little consensus, so it is unsurprising that there is no consistency. Most things operate at an ad hoc level, a “YOLO” attitude, plans dropped for new plans that are subsequently dropped for new-new plans. Philippine political parties in former and current iteration, it seems to me, are more vehicles for dynastic coalitions, readily reconfiguring like Voltron when various power centers deem convenient.
National consensus requires national identity. Singapore had no national identity upon independence, so they built a national identity around a multi-ethnic state that opened stakeholdership to all groups. So a start would probably for the Philippines to find her own identity.
“I don’t think it is necessarily a requirement for a political party to maintain control over the period of a decade or more.” – Joey
Specifically in the case of Singapore in the 60s you don’t think so?
“Singapore had no national identity upon independence, so they built a national identity around a multi-ethnic state that opened stakeholdership to all groups. “ – Joey
My impression is that Lee Kuan Yew chose a national identity for Singapore and used state power to make it happen over time.
“So a start would probably for the Philippines to find her own identity.” – Joey
Not sure what that means. Philippines has been around for quite a while. No identity? Aren’t we known around the world for being domestics and care givers? That is a start.
My opinion of the Singapore comparison as oft-used in the Philippine context is that Filipino thinkers fundamentally misunderstand how Singapore developed, focusing more on one man (LKY) than the collective effort of a nation that included multiple ethnic groups who ultimately agreed on a national consensus. Focusing on one man, going so far as to describe LKY who was democratically elected until his retirement as a “benevolent dictator” is simply a wrong interpretation. LKY was elected MP by his local constituency his entire career, and the Singaporean parliament elected him PM.
Anyway I think putting all the impetus and responsibility on one man is a main cause of civic disengagement and a populace’s authoritarian tendencies. It is also lazy thinking and a failure of basic civic duty. Americans are often guilty of the same exact lazy thinking of “the president must fix this” just as Filipinos are guilty of the same, while completely ignoring that most politics that influence daily lives are closer to home at the state/provincial or municipal level. Which is the main way completely incompetent Republicans in the US and dynastic cutouts and scions get elected over and over again in the US and the Philippines.
So no, in actuality the strict enforcement of the laws and regulations in Singapore is not the expression of one man’s power, but a societal consensus, reinforced by electing members of parliament who legislate those policies from Singapore’s founding to this day. Framing Singapore’s successful development as the works of one strong man disregards the collective will of an entire society that came together.
National identity requires social consensus first. That’s just how things worked since the days of tribes forming proto-identities marked by things like “my tattoo is jagged, your tattoo is squiggly.” I do wonder sometimes what the Philippines’ identity is to be honest. Ask any average Filipino and a fast mental block usually pops up, switching to defenses along the lines of empty pinoy-pride stuff. Amusing as a “foreigner” I can identify plenty of things a Filipino may be proud of that can form the basis of a national identity. But that is not my place to decide. For I merely observe.
“Anyway I think putting all the impetus and responsibility on one man is a main cause of civic disengagement and a populace’s authoritarian tendencies. It is also lazy thinking and a failure of basic civic duty.” – Joey
One thing I learned from reading LKY’s Memoir was that he was not an advocate of lazy thinking. He was the anti-thesis of “PinoyThink” which I define as an inclination to make choices that end up shooting one’s self in the foot, or cutting off one’s nose to spite his face.
“So no, in actuality the strict enforcement of the laws and regulations in Singapore is not the expression of one man’s power, but a societal consensus, reinforced by electing members of parliament who legislate those policies from Singapore’s founding to this day.” – Joey
Was it a societal consensus from day one, or was it the expression of one man’s power until over time it became a societal consensus which was LKY’s long term plan? I think it was the latter.
“Framing Singapore’s successful development as the works of one strong man disregards the collective will of an entire society that came together.” – Joey
The question I am proposing is that if there was no LKY, would the collective will of the entire Singapore society have emerged as it did? Or would it have emerged more like a Bangladesh, or worse a Philippines? My suggestion is “no” it would not have emerged as well. In truth, LKY says even he was surprised about how speedily Singapore went from 3rd world to 1st. LKY built the team that built Singapore. I doubt any of his peers could have done the same, but of course we can only guess at that. But one can make an educated guess.
“National identity requires social consensus first.” – Joey
I think what LKY did was determine the national identity he wanted for Singapore, then worked towards getting a consensus for Singapore society if they liked what the national identity he had in mind. Being the pragmatist that he was, he did not wait for society to decide on a national identity from a myriad of choices, and then reach a consensus on what it would be. In fact, that approach to me does not make sense.
I recall in an interview he had with I believe it was Barbara Walters, when Walters pressed him on his authoritarian style of rule, LKY confidently and yes arrogantly suggested that Walters ask any Singaporean on the street if he approves of his authoritarian style of governance or not. He was confident the answer would be a resounding yes.
“Ask any average Filipino and a fast mental block usually pops up, switching to defenses along the lines of empty pinoy-pride stuff.” – Joey
I think that if you asked the average Singaporean back before LKY began his nation building you would have gotten a similar response.
there would have been someone else from the group supported him to do it. And without such a dedicated group, LKY might have just built malls like Henry Sy. Cynical I guess to think that way, but he might have thought why try to teach such unteachable people anyway?
I have always asked why not much remained of the nation-building of Manuel Quezon, inspite of his efficiency in building institutions that exist until today (the present PH government structure is 85% Quezon era legacy), his school-building program, his defining Tagalog as the basis of Filipino.
Or even of the great accomplishments of Magsaysay? I know a Filipino based in America who told me that he suspects that the Filipino is a tabula rasa, a blank slate that just is rewritten during whatever present there is, retaining little. I wonder if that point of view is right.
“there would have been someone else from the group supported him to do it.” – Irineo
Is that wishful thinking, or do you have specific people from LKY’s group in mind?
I would refer that question to Joey – or Joe whose first wife was I think in LKY’s political party – but I do think it is similar to how Konrad Adenauer had the Christian Democratic Union behind him to rebuild post-WW2 Germany, or Bavaria had the Christian Social Union to do the same for Bavaria. Like-minded groups that had a common idea for how to move forward. Quezon for instance was unable to form ANYTHING like that and I ask why. Was the spirit of the ilustrados who had ideas already completely dead by then, or did nobody really understand their ideas? Was Rizal mostly read wrong?
Thanks for your response, Irineo. I don’t think reference to Adenauer is appropriate. He was not rebuilding a former colonial outpost way out in Asia.
I hope you don’t mind, but I submitted your post to ChatGPT as I am not that familiar with the circumstances surrounding Adenauer in detail and I was fishing for details to shed more light on it. Let me paste it here. We don’t have to take it as Gospel Truth, or even as my personal position on issues or a criticism of your views (that can come later, hehehe). Just look at what makes sense to you and what doesn’t and we can go from there. It includes comments on your reference to Quezon and even Rizal (who is dear to my heart).
For context, this was my question to ChatGPT after showing it your reply to me:
“My initial thoughts: You can’t compare someone from a defeated empire like Adenauer with LKY and his group who must raise Singapore up from remote outpost status. Separate topic is Quezon and the Philippine experience.”
Here is ChatGPT:
>>Your instinct is sound, and you’re already circling the key weakness in Irineo’s analogy. Let me try to sharpen it without flattening the nuance.
1. “Someone else would have done it” — mostly wishful thinking
Irineo is gesturing toward structural support rather than personal genius: the idea that LKY was an expression of a cohort, not a singular historical accident. That is partly true but dangerously overstated.
was not evenly distributed.
History gives us many capable deputies who never become LKY. The claim that “someone else would have done it” is counterfactual and unprovable, and it underestimates how often history hinges on outlier personalities.
So yes—there is an element of wishful thinking, especially from those uncomfortable with admitting that some nations were rescued by rare, almost authoritarian figures.
2. Why the Adenauer comparison is weak
Your objection is exactly right, and it goes deeper than “different contexts.”
Adenauer:
Adenauer was a consolidator and moral restorer, not a civilizational founder.
LKY:
almost from scratch.
So your intuition is right:
Adenauer ≠ LKY, and using Adenauer to normalize LKY’s success smuggles in institutional advantages Singapore did not have.
3. The real question: Why no Philippine “like-minded group”?
This is where Irineo’s argument becomes interesting—and where it actually collapses.
Quezon’s problem was not lack of intelligence or talent.
It was lack of shared moral discipline among elites.
A “like-minded group” is not defined by ideas alone. It requires:
That did not exist as a group ethic.
4. Was Rizal misunderstood? Probably—and inconveniently so
The last question is the most important:
Was Rizal mostly read wrong?
I would say:
Rizal demanded:
This made him:
So no—Rizal wasn’t misunderstood in an intellectual sense.
He was understood and then set aside because he was too demanding.
5. Why Singapore had a cohort and the Philippines did not
This may be the uncomfortable bottom line:
The Philippine elite:
Existential pressure produces discipline. Comfort does not.<<
Thanks CV. Enjoyed the read. It aligns with what little I do know about all three countries back then.
My first wife’s mother was a health minister under LKY. Her father was an ardent communist who split for China young and may have written propaganda for China. That part was sketchy. My wife’s sister, a concert pianist, married an Australian diplomat. My wife, a television personality there, eventually married and supported an American drifter in Los Angeles. LKY was idolized and respected for how he masterfully handled conflicts arising out of new social constructs there, like birth control, which my ex mama-in-law devoted a lot of effort to.
I guess it’s hard to explain LKY without the listeners understanding the fundamentals of Confucianism (and its extension the Confucian state) which is central to East Asian thinking. While LKY was a Hakka, a group that is smaller than the prominent Hokkien in Singapore, adoption of the Confucian state does not necessarily mean the culture is “Chinese” in the sense of being Han-proper. Vietnam and South Korea are Confucian states for example, and a large part of Japanese statecraft follows the Confucian model. All these things, discipline, determination, moral certainty, etc. are hallmarks of Confucianism. By the way, Confucius did not invent these concepts in ancient East Asia but he is the face of the concepts once collected.
So no, I suspect LKY himself would not have cared if he was the “Main Character” or not, shaping Singapore in a godlike fashion. If there was no LKY, there probably would’ve been another. At the time period moral societies and benevolent associations were common and through these leaders were developed.
Consensus takes both a leader to advocate for, and a people to consent to. Again I think it a mistake to singularize around one person. If the Philippines was a Confucian-style state, maybe that would work, but waiting for singular heroes hasn’t worked out well for the Philippines since BEFORE the Revolution.
“I think that if you asked the average Singaporean back before LKY began his nation building you would have gotten a similar response.”
CV, if you have been to Singapore or understand Singapore society along with its connections to other SEA countries, I would still think this is a wrong understanding.
“Again I think it a mistake to singularize around one person… If there was no LKY, there probably would’ve been another.” – Joey
I think we may simply be talking past each other. When you caution against singularizing around LKY but also suggest that if it wasn’t him it would have been another individual, I still see decisive weight being placed on a single leader—even if hypothetical. I take your broader structural point and actually agree with it, but specifically in the case of Singapore, I continue to give more weight to individual leadership. I think that’s probably a good place to leave it.
Meanwhile, I believe that the Philippines needs a similar scenario, i.e. a strong head of state that can whip a society into shape. Waiting for consensus on things like national identity are to me not an option for the Philippines if it wants to pull out of the mess it is in before it goes the way of countries like Venezuela.
How would you propose for such a strong head of state to emerge in society with weak national identity? Are not leaders products of the society they come from?
I’ve done quite a bit of Catholic and NGO work in Latin America. Back in the day we would’ve never thought about going to Venezuela for humanitarian work as it was simply not needed. Venezuela actually had an advanced economy and the one of the highest if not the highest standard of living in Latin America for a long time. Venezuela also had a strong national identity, being along with Colombia the central states of Gran Colombia. Before that Venezuela was a Captaincy General, a main colony of Spain in the New World, a position the Philippines never attained in the Spanish colonial system. So Venezuela has a greater capacity to rebound and find again her lost national identity. Something that is more murky in the Philippines.
“How would you propose for such a strong head of state to emerge in society with weak national identity?” – Joey
That is for the country to figure out.
During the Spanish era, the Philippines had a very poor education system. I think it was the German traveler Feodor Jagor who in the 19th century after a visit of several months to the Philippines commented that the education system was stuck in the 17th century.
Yet the country produced José Rizal! But his close friend the Austrian Ferdinand Blumentritt commented that Rizal was like a comet, you only see it once in a lifetime. I think it is taking longer than that.
But I imagine it can happen. Obviously a lot of times it does not happen.
As many in this forum seem to indicate, it doesn’t look good for the Philippines either salvation from external or internal threats as Karl G. recently pointed out (response w/ Magsaysay and Huk problem, etc.). But as Kasambahay points out, we cannot lose hope.
Personally, I don’t think national identity is essential. Pull the country out of its tailspin and watch a national identity emerge.
It seems to me that avoiding the root causes is what eventually comes back to bite the Philippines in the metaphorical ass, compounding the original, existing problems with additional, avoidable problems. One cannot build a house upon an unsound foundation and expect it to last stressful events.
Irineo is TSOH’s Rizal to me, smart, superb recall, great vision. but he was jailed rather than nurtured because Marcos was not interested in nurturing Filipinos. Rizal was a global gadabout with lots of people opening doors and the priests slamming the big one shut.
Yes CV
no chamba, ginagawa yan.
That us what baskeball fans of opposite teams say to each other after a spectacular shot, after supporter shouts Chamba!
This is about potential opportunities the Philippines had.
Historically, PH had strategic advantages similar to Singapore:
A geographically strategic location for trade and shipping in Southeast Asia.
Natural resources and an educated English-speaking population.
Early exposure to Western-style governance and education.
The “could have” emphasizes that PH had the ingredients to become a regional economic hub like Singapore.
Example: In the 1960s, before the Marcos era, the Philippines had a per capita income comparable to South Korea and higher than Singapore, suggesting the potential for rapid growth.
This is about what might have happened under different circumstances.
Singapore’s path shows that with effective governance, anti-corruption measures, and long-term planning, rapid development is possible.
The Philippines “would have” been able to industrialize, reduce poverty, and develop world-class infrastructure if institutions were strong and governance effective.
The focus here is more structural: policies, leadership, stability, and investment in human capital determine whether potential turns into reality.
Example: Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew systematically invested in education, infrastructure, and clean governance. The Philippines had periods where similar policies could have been implemented but were undermined by corruption or political instability.
This is more normative: what the Philippines ought to have done given its resources and position.
It emphasizes missed lessons and opportunities—not just external factors.
The “should have” reflects a moral-economic critique: the country had enough to succeed but failed to implement necessary reforms.
Example: PH should have strengthened rule of law, invested in industrialization, improved logistics and port infrastructure, and controlled political patronage systems—things that Singapore prioritized and did consistently.
Thanks, Karl….but like we used to say back in high school – “No use crying over spilled sperm!” 🙂
Good one.
Hmm, learned Filipinos often try to say I’m bashing for saying this, but the reality was that the 1960s “golden era” of economic growth was largely the result of massive infusions of American cash and investments during the Cold War and Vietnam War. GIs needed to eat and spend their salaries during R&R somehow, and it wasn’t all with the local ladies of the night. The Philippines was not unique in this, though the Philippines probably got more “attention” from the US than other SEA nations aside from South Vietnam. South Korea was probably more of a cluster-expletive than South Vietnam ever was during their respective civil wars, but South Korea had the benefit of being largely shielded from the newly emerging television war correspondent that came about during 1960s phase of the Vietnam War.
Singapore by the way did court American government aid, but was offered a relatively small sum as well, Singapore is a tiny territory and who would’ve known that Singapore would survive and thrive instead of being reabsorbed into Malaysia. Singapore mostly developed by attracting FDI and offering favorable terms for foreign companies to come in and help with development and technology transfer. That meant for a while, Singapore had to give up something (land lease rights, lesser position in the partnership, and so on.), which Singapore gladly did to gain working knowledge and technology. I can’t imagine the same happening in the Philippines in the current prevalent way of thinking by the shakers and movers. One wants to be the “bossing,” having others do all the work, but retaining the glory and credit. Simply not how the world works sadly outside of open-handed charity.
The Philippines for nearly 130 years has had the greatest benefactor in the world, though that benefactor at certain early periods was a bit let’s say “condescending compassion.” The Philippines just failed to use that benefit unlike South Korea and many other countries did better with. But that benefactor is still around. The Philippines still has potential to use that advantageous relationship to her great benefit.
Add the often-scorned Parity Rights for US enterpreneurs that expired in the mid-1970s, for instance allowing the transfer of GMA from “Uncle Bob”, the American who founded it, to the family of the present owners. The ABS part of ABS-CBN was also founded by an American before CBN was founded by the Lopezes of Negros who were hacienderos and poiticians and eventually bought ABS. Both BLTB and Philtranco bus companies were founded by American enterpreneurs.
OK, the 1960s probably also benefitted from Magsaysay having stopped the Huk rebellion – with American help as no one will seriously deny.
One thing I always thought was quite odd is that a typical German or a Japanese would readily acknowledge the great help the US gave in order to rebuild their respective countries. South Koreans would say the same. The French, not so much. One can acknowledge the help a friend gave during hard times without undermining one’s own potential to be seen as great as well. A lot of historical stuff that happened during the Commonwealth to present day makes me feel like the Philippines leadership class has a tendency to take without acknowledging. Which is not to say regular Filipinos do the same; there are more than a few regular Filipinos I helped a long time ago whjo are still in contact and still remember the relatively small help I assisted with, even though it wasn’t my money to begin with (charity), and I only gave my personal effort as a teenager in high school. Then if a connection is made from many present dynasties, whether literal blood lineage or lineage of authority, to past datus and rajahs where many were “foreign” Bruneians or other Indo-Malay second sons first raiding then capturing local chiefdoms possibly having a chip on their shoulders it all starts to make sense.
An argument can be made that possibly it might not be a good idea for a foreigner to control major industries, with both right and wrong attached. I think the “fear” in the Philippines is more of the elite class wanting to nationalize (i.e. “steal”) the hard work of others for themselves, and selling the rationale to the common folks by “we can’t let these foreigners control us.” Well that fear was unfounded as those key industries were so easily nationalized and capital stolen by legal and illegal means to begin with. The biggest test of undue foreign influence and whether the Philippines really has sovereign control was when the US was ordered to leave in 1992 by the Senate rejecting renewal of the base treaty, and the US really just got up and left. I bet few Filipinos at the time had expected that to happen. Reading old newspapers, if one reads between the lines of nationalistic renewals against “colonial domination,” the real play by the Philippines seemed to be a persistent, bordering on pestering, repeated requests for aid.
Remember that Video shared by Gian about the secret of Thai success and it was also GI spenfing and I said we too had GI spending during the Vietnam war.
The institutions’ crutches were made of reinforced steel but without the crutches the so called strong institurions had a very bad fall and and all the king’s horses…
GI Spending and Divergent Asian Growth Paths
U.S. GI spending during the Cold War provided significant economic stimulus across several Asian economies, including Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Yet only some converted this external shock into sustained development. The difference lay not in the presence of American dollars, but in how domestic institutions, state capacity, and development strategies responded to them.
In Thailand, extensive GI spending during the Vietnam War era—centered on airbases and logistics hubs—boosted domestic demand, infrastructure, and foreign exchange earnings. Unlike the Philippines, Thailand used this period to deepen state capacity, expand export-oriented manufacturing, and maintain macroeconomic discipline. Military rule paradoxically provided policy continuity, while technocratic agencies integrated U.S. inflows into long-term industrial planning. When U.S. forces withdrew, Thailand had already diversified into tourism, electronics, and agro-industry, allowing growth to continue.
South Korea presents the most successful case. During the Korean War and its aftermath, U.S. military spending, aid, and procurement were immense relative to the size of the economy. Crucially, the Korean state aggressively channeled these inflows into industrial upgrading. Aid was subordinated to national development plans, domestic firms were forced to export, and capital was disciplined through performance-based incentives. GI spending functioned as seed capital for industrialization, not as a consumption subsidy. By the 1960s, South Korea had shifted decisively toward heavy industry and exports, locking in long-term growth.
Vietnam, by contrast, received enormous GI-related spending during the war years, but the structure of the conflict prevented developmental spillovers. Much of the spending was transient, enclave-based, and war-oriented, with limited linkages to domestic industry. Postwar isolation, central planning, and sanctions erased whatever economic gains might have remained. Vietnam’s sustained growth only began decades later, after Đổi Mới reforms in the late 1980s opened the economy, integrated it into global value chains, and rebuilt state-market relations.
The Philippines sits between these cases. GI spending supported growth and stability during the 1950s–60s, but weak industrial discipline, elite capture, and consumption-led growth prevented structural transformation. When external support waned and governance deteriorated, growth stalled.
The lesson is clear: GI spending accelerates growth only when states convert temporary foreign inflows into permanent productive capacity. South Korea and Thailand did; Vietnam did not until much later; and the Philippines failed to sustain the transition.
Here is a tight short essay suitable for an op-ed or academic note: GI Spending and the Philippine “Golden Age”
The Philippines’ postwar “Golden Age” in the 1950s and 1960s was not an economic miracle in isolation; it was significantly reinforced by U.S. military spending and GI consumption tied to America’s large base presence in the country. Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base were among the largest U.S. overseas installations, injecting substantial dollar inflows into the local economy through wages, procurement, housing, and everyday spending by American servicemen.
This steady stream of foreign exchange strengthened the peso, eased balance-of-payments pressures, and stimulated domestic demand. Businesses around the bases flourished, infrastructure expanded, and employment opportunities multiplied, particularly in Central Luzon and nearby urban centers. GI spending also generated strong multiplier effects, circulating income through services, manufacturing, and construction, while supporting the rise of a growing middle class.
Crucially, these external inflows coincided with relatively strong domestic institutions. The establishment of the Central Bank in 1949, prudent fiscal management, and investment in education and industry allowed the Philippines to convert foreign dollars into real economic growth. U.S. military spending did not create prosperity on its own, but it amplified the effectiveness of existing economic capacity.
The model, however, proved fragile. Growth was geographically concentrated, overly dependent on external support, and insufficiently diversified. As governance weakened and global conditions shifted in the late 1960s and 1970s, the foundations of this prosperity eroded.
In sum, GI spending was a major contributor to the Philippines’ Golden Age—but it functioned as a catalyst rather than a substitute for sound institutions. When those institutions weakened, the benefits of external support faded with them.
Great outputs here Karl, thanks.
I think it would be unfair to say Magsaysay and other early Third Republic presidents failed to take full advantage of the capital infusion during the early Cold War. They are but “one man” after all. One can argue as Irineo pointed out that Magsaysay was also busy with the Huk Rebellion. Too many things going on at once, while as is the usual too few people helping out with most others just standing around yapping their opinions. I experienced that over various handa and inuman in the past weeks to my great annoyance. Everyone thought it was amazing that the American caught from the baboyan, slaughtered, cleaned the pig and also became the lechonero and the server, but it would’ve been nice to have a bit of help along the way instead of people standing around telling me I should do it this way or that way.
That Insurgency problem of Magsaysay persists.
During the timeof FVR his multitasking icluded peace talks pardoning coup plotters, reintegratikn of rebels, afp modernization civilianizing police and coast guard
Our internal security is worse
Chinese with fake docs circumvented land ownrership maybe others did too but they are the most notorious. Then the infiltration ala pulang araw and similar and analogous eventd that preceded and exceded and succeeded.
What to do
Archipelagic defense instead of trade external and internal
Whole nation efforts in this fragmented Ph
I’m actually optimistic about the Philippines. In many ways it is easier to build something new rather than to rebuild something that was lost and broken.
I guess a problem in the Philippines is that plans are not really thought through, and when plans are set into motion there are abrupt stops and starts along the way.
A big problem in my estimation is looking back to a past that was exaggerated, or simply did not exist. Take in point Rizal. I’ve met even Political Science and History graduates of UP who completely misinterpreted Rizal’s plain meaning. The early nationalistic rationalizations following Rizal’s death never went away. Somewhat like a “Christian” who claims to not need a pope or even a pastor because he can read the Bible on his own, yet at best cherry picks verses or at worse is dependent on an un-trained pastor who cherry picks verses. It’s hard to reach a conclusion by trying to force facts to fit a narrative, as it eventually necessitates inventing or misinterpreting facts. When all along the allegorical meaning and moral teaching was the more important point.
Another way I think about things when someone proposes fixing stuff at the top is that when a building is being erected, one would not build the top floor first. No matter how fancy and strong the upper structures are, if the lower structures and foundation is weak eventually everything will collapse. Which is why I espouse for fixing the Filipino foundation so that once people develop more agency, they may develop their own identity that melds together into a national identity.
Now agency is a hard thing I guess. The best way it seems to me to develop agency is to give people greater power through personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is difficult when a people are dependent. How many of the vaunted super high election voter participation actually voted because they got a cash vote bribe or wink-wink-nod-nod ayuda as encouragement to vote for certain politicians and party lists? The real way to personal autonomy to give room for agency development is through economic means. In the recent weeks going through Mindanao I’m reminded again about the vast pool of available labor just idling. Even in Cebu City there is a relatively unseen underclass in tucked away squatter settlements. If those people had access to jobs to improve their personal situation, surely by the time of their children’s generation, their children would’ve developed more agency.
OMG, Joey. Your first two sentences have the words “optimistic” and “easier.”
Then the rest of your post documents how herculean of a task it would be for Filipinos to succeed.
If problems are always made out to seem insurmountable, might as well give up and not even try. It’s easier that way.
The Philippines is often seen as a country of abrupt starts and stops—plans conceived with promise, then stalled, reshaped, or abandoned. A contributing factor is a persistent focus on an idealized or misinterpreted past. Even figures like José Rizal, whose work contains enduring moral and allegorical lessons, are frequently reduced to simplified nationalistic symbols. When facts are forced to fit narratives, the deeper purpose of history—guiding reflection and informing action—is lost.
This misreading of the past mirrors a broader challenge in national development: the tension between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Hierarchies and rule-making structures matter. Without them, governance risks disorder. Yet, hierarchical structures alone are insufficient. Policies imposed from above without consideration of local realities often fail, while development that relies solely on grassroots initiative can lack coordination and coherence.
True progress depends on cultivating agency—the ability of citizens to act autonomously and improve their own circumstances. Formal participation, such as voter turnout, can be misleading when influenced by incentives, patronage, or short-term aid. Real autonomy grows from opportunity: access to education, meaningful work, and economic resources that enable individuals to shape their lives. When citizens develop this capacity, they can participate effectively within hierarchical structures, making governance more responsive and sustainable.
The lesson is clear: the Philippines must focus on strengthening its foundation before building ambitious upper-level reforms. Policies should enhance citizen capability, expand economic opportunity, and cultivate critical engagement. At the same time, institutions must be capable of coordinating, enforcing rules, and sustaining coherent governance. Only when foundation and structure are aligned can national identity, institutions, and policy outcomes rise reliably.
The Philippines does not need grand gestures or top-down fixes in isolation. It needs a deliberate, dual approach: empowering people while maintaining effective governance. Build the foundation first, and the rest will follow.
Solid ideas, Karl. But until we actually grow up politically (including our leaders)—citizens taking responsibility, institutions doing their jobs—none of what you suggest is likely to happen. You are right, we need to get the foundations right first. But I would not be surprised if even Pres. Marcos, Jr. has no idea what these foundations are and how they function as foundations.
I suspect the way towards building that foundation AND the collateral benefit of possibly gaining a national identity, is through RULES. You recently wrote about “Power over Rules.” I see rules as a tool. Mature Political Power that has good visions, will find rules a good tool to bring such visions to reality. Here in the US I have seen rules work, therefore I am not so jaded by their lack of effectivity when they are overruled (pun intended) by irresponsible power.
Was it uncle Henry Parker who told Peter Parker that with great power comes great responsobility. From Sk to way up there are many positions of power, if all are responsible, all are accountable, all will be cohesive and conducive to have a national identity no mater if no single language or no mother tongue pre school to primary.
Joey,
Great ideas, I was anti truck when it comes to traffic but without them we would shut down.
My friend just started a logistics business and no way will I tell him that he is causing traffic. Hehe.
trucks and heavy haulers usually operate at night when roads are not that busy. though there are firms that operate 24/7 specially during yuletide season.
we really should have ring roads, so trucks and heavy haulers can bypass crowded cities to get to their destination.
Another good catch kb.
Traffic during yuletide is 24 by 7
Expansion of highways and roads would be a great improvement. Definitely containerized trucking is more flexible. Even in Australia which is a relatively flat land mass went for super-sized semitrailer trucking (they call those “road trains”) rather than rail which is more suitable for fixed point-to-point connections.
Germany which already had a lot of rail has built what is called “Umschlagbahnhöfe” (interchange freight stations) where containers are offloaded from trains into trucks. Freight trains do make sense in spatially congested countries like Germany, as trucks put a heavy load on the roads, but being able to easily reload containers from ports into freight trains and then from freight trains into regional Umschlagbahnhöfe (usually at the edge of major towns like Munich, see picture below, and close to major Autobahns so the trucks can take care of the last kilometers) is key for logistics over here. So a container might automatically be moved from a huge ship in Rotterdam, the biggest container port in Europe, take its way down to Munich-Riem Umschlagbahnhof and then go all the way to Burghausen along the Inn river on a truck, for instance to supply the Wacker silicon wafer factory there with stuff it needs. I never worked for Wacker in any way, so this is just speculation, but it can work that way. For major supplies like for instance iron ore or coal, Germany does use barges on rivers or canals a lot, also because water-based transport is most cost-efficient for stuff where time doesn’t matter.
my personal equivalent to what Otis Redding sang about in “Sitting On the Top of the Bay” was smoking and watching barges go up and down the Rhine river in Bonn in my youth, often in situations similar to the famous song, sometimes just enjoying the hot and humid summer in that part of Germany. For perishables BTW matters are entirely different. A truck with for instance halves of cows just slaughtered have to go straight into a frozen container, often very early in the morning which is when a lot goes on in some slaughterhouses, and the truck driver has some hours to take the meat to other major hubs were it undergoes further processing until it reaches the freezer section of a supermarket somewhere. As for the Munich wholesale market (fruits and vegetables) it is beside a freight train station, but most supplies come via container trucks, with retailers buying from wholesalers usually before 6 a.m. to fill their shelves with fresh stuff. The trucks often come from as far as Spain, with drivers sometimes taking the wrong route and ending up under old bridges that are too low for them. The worst case is you fit under the 3 meter 6 bridge (4m is the modern European standard clearance) fully loaded and get stuck under it when you leave unloaded. But I digress.
Technically transference of cargo (containerized or not) between modes of transport would be called “multi-modal transfer,” while “interchange” is the changing of cargo from one cargo handler (company) to a receiver (company) who will continue on the next leg of the transport chain. Interchange was originally a rail term but now applies to truck-to-truck or ship-to-ship transfer as well.
That big thing in the attached pic is a gantry crane which are commonly used at transfer points/depots. There are very big gantry cranes for container ships, medium-ish versions for trains, and small cranes for trucked containers.
Railroads were a key development that enabled the rapid expansion of the First Industrial Revolution, which is why cargo rail networks still exist in countries that industrialized early on. In China, most trains are more of the passenger type similar to European high-speed passenger rail, while the bulk of cargo goes by barge.
Of course, railroads preceded the automobile (and the truck extension thereof). Animal-based transport existed alongside sprawling railroad lines back then, and animal-based transport was the common mode of transportation up until the exponential growth of the automobile, as seen in old pictures of main streets from a little over a century ago.
For all intents and purposes though, I think it would be vastly expensive and complicated to build an extensive rail network in the Philippines, though Philippines rail would be useful for example to transport raw materials from extraction sites to factories, then onward to export points. Bulk materials might be things like nickel, iron, coal, etc.
A real problem in the Philippines is the regular folks don’t have the wherewithal and prerequisite knowledge to effectuate change, while the intelligentsia and political classes “want all the things” without first doing the obvious things right in front of them. I can’t remember how many times a Filipino friend had shared with me about some new fancy project some fancy politician proposed. It sure looked futuristic, yet was never *realistic.* I tend to lean towards practicality that improves quality-of-life, of which enabling more economic activity via improved transportation would be one of them.
the German Mitteland canal is probably as important as the Erie canal in the USA – it was built in “Imperial” times to link the industrial heartland of the Ruhr area with Berlin (via another canal) and also connect major rivers like the Ems and the Elbe, even other canals leading to Hamburg harbor. The Volkswagen main plant is directly along that canal and I believe they do get a lot of raw materials or processed stuff like steel via the canal. Pulling stuff along canals or even rivers via animals was common in so many countries before industrialization, and as in Russia it was even via people, as a famous song of Volga boatmen shows. 19th century Upper Bavaria had rafts not for joy rides like today, but to bring logs down from the mountains to Lower Bavaria. An old guild rule of river boatmen for instance along the Inn river was not to be able to swim so they wouldn’t literally jump ship but watch out for the load they carried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelland_Canal#/map/0
ack. The MRT3 issues of some years ago made me compare what kind of maintenance urban railways need over here and it is the same. Wheels can “square out” and need to be re-rounded, doors (similar to elevators) can be damaged by people pulling them too much or pushing them open (which is why people are conditioned not to do it over here, and big stations have people to make sure it doesn’t happen), the pantograph for the electricity has to be well-adjusted to not spark too much. Even the stairs of stations that are outside need regular maintenance because they wear out – they allowed that to happen on some MRT stations – and escalators also need regular maintenance because they break down if they don’t get it.
Not to mention how catastrophic it is that even in Metro Manila, the different lines have incompatible rolling stock in terms of size and current supply. That kind of issue is understandable in classic metropolitan railways like London, Paris and New York, even Hamburg or Berlin, but not in a system started in the 1980s.
That is the theoretical-practical gap I have long noticed in the Philippines. The regular folks are tinkerers par excellence, think of talyer shop folks or those who put jumpers on electrical cables to get electricity for slum areas. Those who are college-educated over there are too disdainful of blue-collar details to know what is realistic or not – and systems thinking is something EXTREMELY few have over there. Dr. Mahar Lagmay has it – for flood control matters.
I have met Filipinos who were major execs in international software firms over there but they couldn’t conduct a convo about software architecture I could conduct with most average senior IT professionals here in Germany. I tried to explain to a chat group of batchmates back in 2009 (Ondoy) what preemptive water release was when it comes to dams (I suspected then based on water flow that most of the floods were because of Sta Mesa dam just overflowing) but it seemed they didn’t get it – and we are graduates of Philippine Science High School. Sure, that would be a higher level issue than the low reading comprehension in the Philippines, or maybe they are just tongue-tied and not as bold when it comes to opinions as Westerners and knew all of that, but I somehow doubt it, seeing what happens there and that NO preemptive release happened in Cagayan valley when typhoon Ulysses struck late 2020, hell barely even early warning as the water flowed down the big river.
EDIT: maybe those who would have the conceptual strength to grasp systems in the Philippines mostly don’t care about anything except their comfortable lives, their freaking Fortuner SUVs and their consumerism. The few who do care like Dr. Mahar Lagmay might be exceptions to that.
Yes, canals being used as animal-drawn towpaths are an old technology which was used in the Erie Canal back then as well. Throughout human history societies have figured out new things to leverage labor to accomplish more work due to lack of human labor or to free up humans to endeavor in other things. I do know of any similar towed-barge or transport canal system in the Philippines. Human labor is cheap there, such was the experience of a farmer kuya friend who took my proposal to obtain loans in order to mechanize but had his neighbors not come on board to share the investment burden. Philippine farms still use sweat labor provided by plenty of idle workers. Philippine warehouses and docks still largely use manual loading/unloading rather than forklifts. I once asked a foreman why he hired laborers to move stuff rather than using manual pallet jacks. He replied that the company did not want to invest in a pallet jack when they could just hire workers. Blows the mind.
The reality is much of the development in recent decades has been driven by capital infusion from OFW remittances, and more recently BPO workers. I shudder to think of what will happen when one or both revenue streams gets damaged.
Education the general population would be a long-term fix. In the near-term people can be taught with hands-on experience to upgrade themselves. It is appalling for an outside “foreigner” like myself the compatriots on my current trip to be the ones bringing improvements. Private and charity means do not have capacity beyond small projects. Whenever I do one of these projects it is my hope that those helped would learn something about what we are doing, and be able to replicate it. In the Philippines, that has never happened though I had old project participants in Africa and Central America report later they were able to copy the initial work. Aside from preferring to do things “the old way,” I can’t help but think that the powers that be (and which keep get voted for due to name familiarity) do not want their countrymen to become upgraded. After all the cardinal sin in the Philippines is for the lower person to “look better” than the higher person.
that reminds me of the story in the now defunct Antipinoy blog where a gardener refuses to use a lawnmower and cuts the grass with a big scissors instead, and told FilAm BongV aka the Antipinoy “ser this is what I am accustomed to”.
The highest person over there has to look like Rajah Mangubat in Amaya, like a somehow magical ruler. Otherwise the followers will not “bilib” in him as the “magic” is gone. Duterte was the embodiment of that. Marcos Sr. is somehow even more modern in that he has specialist people like Transport Secretary Dizon and doesn’t mind if they look “magaling” also. Still he knows well enough never to appear weak, given how Philippine culture is.
I think a lot of Philippine organizations get blindsided by that culture of not wanting to “shaim” (that is how Mocha Uson spelled shame, it was a DDS demo accusing yellows of exposing Duterte to ridicule) a higher-up. Japan at least has a culture of giving feedback to bosses as long as done POLITELY. The consequence of PH culture is that bosses have to micromanage, check stuff onsite in the Philippines, as subordinates often dare not tell the truth. Sure that exists to some degree worldwide, like in the infamous Dilbert comic where Dilbert tells his boss the status of a task is red, his boss reports upwards that it is yellow and that level reports it to the top as green. Stuff held in check by reality in capitalism and democracy, hehe imagine the Philippines as a communist state, it would be more delusional than Eastern Europe was when it was close to collapse in the late 1980s, or North Korea in these days..
To be fair I do sympathize with Filipinos being recalcitrant to change. Familiarity is more comfortable after all. But I also believe and have done informal observations that when even an uneducated Filipino is shown how a new way of doing things is beneficial to his time and more importantly his wallet, more people will be open to change. The problem I think, is there are not enough “teachers” in the Philippines. By teachers I mean mentors or people who can show by example, rather than a teacher in a formal educational institution. Personally I think developing some kind of actual mentorship program pipelining to job training would be really helpful. Sure there will be lazy bums sitting around asking their mothers for money even into their 40s and 50s, but those people can’t really be saved. Gotta focus on those who can be saved.
I’ve spent enough time around Philippine-side BPOs and just general observation to see the prevalence of deference to the higher up being somewhat fake and masking disdain. I’ve seen on numerous occasions the lower person professionally knifing their immediate superior in order to advance. It’s just echoes of the base culture and would be hard to change. I had thought before that perhaps the Philippines could be compared to the former Viking lands, but amusingly for all their ill repute of being crazy and disordered warriors, Vikings back home were quite organized and peaceful. Instead, probably better to extract immediate lessons from other Austro-Malay societies such as the Indonesian and Malaysian cousins to the south perhaps.
The difficulty is that at a high level with modern technology, globalized economy and necessary know-how, differing cultures need to be able to operate on the same playing field so to speak. But while let’s say the tools may be the same, and the end result may be more or less the same, one can utilize the positive aspects of his base culture in order to get to the solution by a different route. After all there are often multiple ways to solve a mathematical problem, which has a fixed, objective result. How many more ways are there to solve subjective problems? Many, I’m sure.
I find Netflix Vikings (the series) funny because they all speak English with an accent like modern Scandinavians who are not wild at all. But what I know of Viking village life from exhibits for instance in Northern Germany was that they were a lot like North Sea farmers of today in behavior.
A definite difference between Germanic/Viking cultures and Philippine culture is how loyalty is valued or not. Treachery is a huge violation of cultural codes in Germanic and Viking cultures, and I vividly recall the curse upon the oath-breakers in Lord of the Rings, whose core is Germanic mythology. How Filipino politicians etc. smile at people who committed major betrayals shocks me, the way it is just taken in stride as somehow “normal”, but well..
Filipino culture values loyalty as well — as long as he who displays loyalty gets something out of it. How about as soon as the flow of benefits from he who is to receive loyalty to he who gives loyalty is broken? The difference in Germanic cultures seems to be that when one makes an oath, one is expected to go as far as dying for that oath (figuratively, but in the past, literally). Back in my youth there were some Indochinese refugee gangs that accepted members from “the outside.” Most “outsiders” were either Cantonese/Fujianese, but occasionally there were Fil-Ams who joined as hangers on. Guess which group would snitch out a “brother” to the authorities once caught? I know ex-gang members who committed let’s say crimes which might put a person in prison for decades who have kept their mouth shut to this day decades later.
But I mean the acceptance of betrayal and possibility for renewed friendship in Filpino culture is to my mind actually a big positive. I’ve seen Filipinos who intensely hated each other for years up to the point of dangerous intent come to be able to forgive past wrongs and inuman as if nothing happened. Gotta build on a culture’s strengths while figuring out a way to minimize the negatives. So the Filipino ability to kiss, make up, and forgive is a superpower that I find hard to understand sometimes but recognize has the capacity to move things positively.
All this brings me back to my previous points about the Philippines does not know her true cultural identity while trying to adopt whole cloth outside cultural identities deemed “mighty” without understanding those identities either! In order to advance and update itself a culture must respect itself firstly, then identify which cultural habits are a hindrance, put those habits away in the mean time, keep those habits which are a positive, and adopt and adapt in localized fashion elements of others’ cultural habits that make them successful.
Thanks Joey and Irineo for valuable inputs.
Good to hear about your activities, more power!
I think your Comprehensive Maritime Strategy, Karl, should take priority over this. For one, the former also deals with national security, a major concern with China wanting to take over West Philippine Sea.
Thanks and I think you are right. I guess we need to learn how to prioritize and sequence without the need to do chicken and the egg debates.
Karl, I believe your Comprehensive Maritime Strategy actually covers some (if not a lot) commercial applications. If that aspect is implemented (big if), then the problem that train ferries may seek to solve may be smaller, perhaps much smaller.
Thanks CV , the current DOTR Usec for maritime once told me in a viber forum that they have something similar planned. It may not be during his time or our lifetimes but that is good enough.
“It may not be during his time or our lifetimes but that is good enough.” – Karl G.
Lee and Singapore certainly did not have that “good enough” attitude, else they would not be where they are now.
In tagalog pwede na yan.
Those great ones like LKY also had luck by their side.
We too had luck but bad luck.
Because I could not say we did not try at all
We do short cuts, we have wrong sequencing and actually everyone is in charge.
“Those great ones like LKY also had luck by their side.” – Karl G.
Really? Like what? I saw they had a lot of what you preach – integration, focus, discipline, systems governance. Often when you have that, luck follows.
That was what I meant, magaling na swerte pa. Others with promise stay at potentially great through some twist of fate. PH can not even get an A for Affort.
Yeah…what motivational speakers teach – your effort is within your control, luck is not. So you do your best in what is within your control, and hope God or luck come through on their end.
Of course motivational speakers also speak of influencing your luck. Its funny how people who we can give an A for effort also seem to be so lucky.
Thanks for this CV.
On National Identity
https://www.philstar.com/nation/2007/11/28/30027/why-national-unity-so-hard-achieve
Why National Unity in the Philippines Is a Jigsaw Puzzle
The Philippines is often described as a nation of islands, cultures, and languages. At first glance, it seems almost impossible to imagine unity in a place where over 7,600 islands, 170+ languages, and countless local histories coexist. Yet, national unity remains both a pressing goal and a persistent challenge — not because Filipinos lack a desire to be “one nation,” but because the pieces of the puzzle are incredibly diverse.
The Language of Unity: A Double-Edged Sword
In 2007, a Philstar article explored why national unity is so hard to achieve. At its core, it highlighted a central question: Can one language create unity? Filipino, based largely on Tagalog, was designated the national language, but the imposition of a single linguistic standard has often been met with resistance, particularly in regions where Cebuano, Ilocano, or other languages dominate daily life.
Language, while symbolically powerful, cannot alone unify a nation. True unity is less about enforcing sameness and more about creating shared understanding — a sense that everyone, regardless of dialect or island, belongs to the same national story.
Fragmented Geography: The Physical Puzzle
The Philippines’ geography is both stunning and challenging. Mountains, seas, and remote islands create physical barriers to infrastructure, governance, and social cohesion. Even the best national policies can fail if they cannot reach communities far from Manila or major urban centers.
Yet, fragmentation does not mean impossibility. Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle: the islands themselves are pieces that must fit together. Roads, bridges, ferries, and digital connectivity are the “edges” that allow disparate pieces to interlock. Investment in transportation and communication infrastructure is not just economic—it is a civic glue.
Fragmented Governance: The Institutional Puzzle
Local autonomy in the Philippines allows provinces, cities, and barangays to manage their affairs. But autonomy without coordination can create gaps, duplication, or conflicts. Political dynasties, corruption, and uneven governance capacity further complicate the picture.
The solution lies in functional interlocking:
Subsidiarity: Allow local governments to handle local issues while coordinating national priorities.
Inter-governmental councils: Platforms for negotiation, resource-sharing, and conflict resolution.
Transparency tools: E-governance and citizen feedback ensure that local actions reinforce, rather than undermine, national goals.
Unity, in this sense, is not centralized uniformity but a coordinated mosaic, where each piece retains its shape but contributes to the larger image.
Fragmented Citizens: The Social Puzzle
Perhaps the most challenging pieces are people themselves. Filipinos identify strongly with local communities, languages, and traditions. National identity often comes second, and in some cases, regional pride can feel at odds with a broader sense of belonging.
Bridging this divide requires inclusive strategies:
Civic education that highlights both local heritage and shared national history.
Community-led projects that connect local success to national progress.
Recognition of cultural diversity in festivals, arts, and public life.
The goal is functional unity without erasing difference—a society that celebrates diversity while working toward shared objectives.
The Jigsaw Puzzle of Unity
National unity in the Philippines is not a simple straight line. It is a complex jigsaw puzzle, with pieces of geography, governance, and citizen identity all interlocking in unique ways. Some pieces are irregular, others fragile, but when designed and connected thoughtfully, the pieces form a coherent whole.
Key principles for this “puzzle” approach:
Edges must align: Laws, infrastructure, and institutions must allow diverse pieces to fit together.
Interlocking mechanisms: Institutions, shared projects, and civic participation tie regions and communities together.
Shared picture: Common goals—resilient communities, equitable growth, and disaster preparedness—give meaning to unity.
Flexible fit: Unity does not require uniformity; diversity strengthens cohesion when respected.
Conclusion: Unity as Functional Integration
The Philippines will never be a nation of identical pieces. And that’s okay. National unity should not be a forced uniformity; it should be functional integration — a system in which diverse parts, though different in shape and size, fit together to create a nation that is resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking.
In the end, unity is not just a political slogan; it is the art of putting together the Philippine jigsaw puzzle — one island, one community, one citizen at a time.