Why the Philippines Was Never Going to Become Singapore—No Matter Who Promised It
By Karl Garcia
Rodrigo Duterte was not the first Filipino leader to invoke Singapore as a model, and he will not be the last. Long before his 2016 campaign promise to “make the Philippines like Singapore,” the aspiration already existed across the political spectrum.
Ironically, many of Duterte’s strongest critics also want the Philippines to become Singapore—just without the killings. Even today, some supporters of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. quietly share the same goal: a disciplined state, efficient infrastructure, low corruption, and a functioning bureaucracy that delivers results.
The problem, then, is not who wants Singapore.
The problem is that almost everyone misunderstands what Singapore actually represents.
Singapore Is a State, Not a Style of Leadership
Duterte sold a simplified image of Singapore: harsh laws, fear of punishment, and obedience. His critics, meanwhile, often imagine a softer version—orderly, prosperous, clean, and efficient, achieved without bloodshed.
Both sides miss the same point.
Singapore’s success was never about personality, ideology, or toughness. It was about state capacity.
Lee Kuan Yew did not rule by intimidation alone. He built:
- a professional, well-paid, corruption-intolerant civil service;
- institutions that outlived individual leaders;
- long-term planning insulated from electoral cycles;
- public housing as a pillar of social stability, not charity.
Discipline in Singapore was imposed on institutions first, not on citizens.
Even Singapore Is Not Perfect—and That Matters
Recent reports show a growing number of young people in Singapore experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, often hidden from public view. Family breakdown, mental distress, rigid housing eligibility rules, and high rental costs have pushed some young Singaporeans to the margins—even in one of the world’s richest cities.
This does not invalidate Singapore’s model. It humanizes it.
It reminds us that even a highly competent state must continuously adapt, or gaps will emerge. If Singapore—with vast resources and disciplined governance—still faces inclusion challenges, what did the Philippines expect to achieve by copying only the outward symbols of order?
This is a warning for all camps—anti-Duterte reformists and pro-BBM modernizers alike.
The “Could Have, Would Have, Should Have” Reality
The Philippines’ failure is not rooted in destiny.
The country could have followed a Singapore-like path. In the 1960s, it had comparable income levels, strategic geography, and human capital advantages.
With institutional discipline, it would have industrialized earlier, modernized its ports, and reduced poverty faster—much like Singapore or South Korea.
Given those advantages, it should have done better.
This is not nostalgia. It is accountability.
Singapore Disciplined Elites; the Philippines Disciplined the Poor
Here lies the sharpest contrast.
Singapore’s model worked because it constrained:
- political dynasties,
- rent-seeking elites,
- bureaucratic incompetence.
In the Philippines, these became entrenched.
Under Duterte, discipline was theatrical and selective. Under previous administrations, it was often absent altogether. Today, under Marcos Jr., there is renewed talk of efficiency and infrastructure—but the old structures remain largely intact.
Across administrations, the pattern persists:
- laws applied downward,
- impunity upward,
- reform promised, patronage preserved.
No political faction is exempt from this critique.
You Cannot Reclaim Governance the Way You Reclaim Land
Singapore expanded through land reclamation because it possessed something the Philippines has long lacked: coordinated authority backed by trust in institutions.
The Philippines builds skyways but neglects sidewalks. It launches mega-projects while logistics costs remain among Asia’s highest. It celebrates ribbon-cuttings while governance capacity quietly erodes.
You cannot engineer a Singapore outcome on a Philippine institutional foundation that remains unreformed.
The Lesson for Everyone Who Wants “Singapore”
Whether you opposed Duterte, supported him, or now hope Marcos Jr. can deliver modernization, the lesson is the same:
Singapore is not a strongman fantasy.
It is a strong-state achievement.
It was built on:
- boring consistency,
- meritocracy enforced at the top,
- corruption treated as existential threat,
- housing and education as nation-building tools.
Until the Philippines disciplines its institutions—rather than its citizens—it will keep invoking Singapore as a dream while reproducing the same failures.
The Question That Remains
The Philippines does not lack consensus on what it wants. Across political divides, Filipinos want a country that works.
What it lacks is the courage to reform the systems that prevent it from becoming one.
The question is no longer whether the Philippines wants to be Singapore.
The question is whether it is finally willing—regardless of who is in Malacañang—to do the hard, unglamorous work that Singapore actually did.
Comments
10 Responses to “Why the Philippines Was Never Going to Become Singapore—No Matter Who Promised It”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[…] Why the Philippines Was Never Going to Become Singapore—No Matter Who Promised It Categoriespersonal AnGoL […]
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Reposting Chatgpt cut and paste
This is a deep and very Philippine question, so I’ll answer it carefully and structurally rather than rhetorically. Short Answer
Yes, both an LKY-style leader and a Rizal-inspired reform path could have changed the Philippines for the better — but in very different ways, with very different risks.
The key difference is what gets transformed:
Part I — If the Philippines Had an LKY What LKY Actually Did (Often Misunderstood)
Lee Kuan Yew was not just “authoritarian.” He was:
Crucially:
That is where most Philippine strongmen fail. What Would Work in the Philippine Context
An LKY-like leader in the PH could have achieved: 1. Bureaucratic Discipline
2. Infrastructure & Industrial Push
3. National Direction
Where It Likely Breaks
This is the hard truth: 1. Oligarchic Capture Is Deeper Than in Singapore
2. Weak Rule of Law Tradition
3. Cultural Imitation Without Discipline
Result:An LKY-style leader might have produced a 10–20 year boom→ followed by institutional decay once the leader exits Verdict on LKY Path
Better than the status quo in the short-to-medium term
High probability of regression afterward
Part II — If the Philippines Truly Implemented Rizal What “Rizal’s Ideals” Really Mean (Not the Sanitized Version)
Rizal was not a romantic idealist. He was:
His core thesis:
What Rizal Would Have Changed 1. Education as Character Formation
Not just literacy, but:
This attacks the root:
2. National Identity Over Local Loyalties
3. Law as a Moral Contract
Why Rizal’s Path Is Sustainable
Because it changes:
Countries that took this path:
Slow at first. Transformational after a generation. The Hard Reality
Rizal’s path:
But once embedded, it is very hard to reverse. Part III — Which Is Better Than the Status Quo? Status Quo Philippines
Both alternatives are better — but differently. Path Short-Term Long-Term Risk LKY-style High improvement Uncertain Strongman decay Rizal-style Modest High Political impatience Status quo Low Low Slow national decline Final Judgment (Blunt)
Authoritarian discipline without civic transformation produces brittle progress.
Idealism without enforcement produces stagnation. Sustainable Change Formula for the PH
Anything else either collapses or mutates into something worse than what we already have.
If you want, I can:
Just tell me where you want to go next.
one more chatgpt cut and paste
You’re pointing to a real structural puzzle in Philippine development, not a simple “missed opportunity” story. Let’s unpack it cleanly and go beyond hindsight into why the Philippines repeatedly advances, then regresses—even when it starts ahead. 1. Yes — the Philippines did start strong (1950s–1970s)
In the 1950s, the Philippines was:
At the same time:
So this was not a late-starter problem. 2. The key divergence: state discipline vs elite capture Philippines: Growth without discipline
East & Southeast Asian peers: Growth with coercion Country What they enforced South Korea Export targets; firms punished if they failed Taiwan Land reform + SME industrialization Malaysia State-led industrial policy + ethnic redistribution Thailand Bureaucratic autonomy + export manufacturing Vietnam Market socialism + ruthless export focus
PH protected firms even when they failed. Others forced firms to perform. 3. Marcos didn’t “ruin” growth — he revealed the flaw
This is uncomfortable but important.
Marcos did not invent elite capture. He centralized it.
Korea also had cronies.
Difference? Korea disciplined its cronies. PH didn’t. 4. The recurring Philippine pattern: “Good start, no finish”
You nailed this:
This is structural: The Philippine Development Cycle
We are good at beginnings. Bad at institutional continuity. 5. Why neighbors sustained while PH didn’t A. Land reform (or lack of it)
B. Bureaucratic insulation
C. Export obsession
D. Time horizons
6. The OFW paradox: success that enabled stagnation
Remittances:
Vietnam exports goods.
Philippines exports people.
This stabilizes politics—but removes reform pressure. 7. “Could have, would have, should have” — but what actually mattered
The counterfactual isn’t:
The real counterfactual is:
Industrial policy was not the missing ingredient.
Political will to punish failure was. 8. Why PH keeps regressing (the deeper reason) Cultural? No. Geography? No. Talent? No.
It’s the absence of a national consensus to subordinate elites to the state.
Other countries said:
PH said:
9. Beyond analysis: what actually breaks the cycle
Not slogans. Not copying Korea. Not nostalgia. What historically works in PH context:
(e.g., maritime, electronics, agribusiness)
PH fails when reforms depend on “good leaders.” It succeeds when rules punish bad behavior automatically. 10. Bottom line
The Philippines didn’t fail because it lacked opportunity.
It failed because it never locked in discipline.
We don’t need miracles. We need institutions that don’t forget, don’t forgive, and don’t bend.
If you want, I can:
Just tell me how far you want to take it.
“Singapore Disciplined Elites” – that is key. If one looks at every successful polity in history, they all had some way of disciplining elites with an ethical framework that gave respect to those who lived by it and disrespect or even punishment to those who went against it.
Decline of great countries usually started when their elites became self-indulgent and lost self-control, even if the substance and character of the culture sometimes saved them from immediate downfall.
The Philippines has decadent flood control nepo babies but never had too much character/substance.
Discipliining instotutions and elites then we will go somewhere.
This is the solid foundation CV was looking for.
Great post
Many thanks again, Gian.
This is the regulate greed part. We do discipline individual elites but the discipline part is selective and based on proximity to the current power.
I wonder if there is a systematic way or it mostly falls to we need a benevolent dictator type.
Speaking of which, never realized Jun Lozada was jailed until he got out of jail.
This reads like the skeleton of a serious op-ed or white paper section. I’ll respond in that spirit—analytical, comparative, and forward-looking—rather than as a casual explanation. Governing Space: Land, Sea, and the Politics of Order 1. Space Is Power
Land, sea, air, and now digital space are not neutral.
They are governed—or misgoverned—through rules, institutions, and elite bargains.
Who decides:
…reveals where power actually sits, not where constitutions say it should. 2. The Philippine Condition: Fragmented Sovereignty Institutional Fragmentation
The Philippines governs space through silos:
Each controls a slice of space, none control the whole.
Result:
Power defaults to:
3. Discipline Is the Missing Variable Korea and Europe Did Not “Develop” First
They disciplined first. South Korea
This was not aesthetic—it was institutional authority made visible in space. Europe
4. The Philippine Elite Problem Is Spatial
Philippine elites:
But the deeper issue:
Rules exist. Plans exist. Laws exist.
Enforcement does not. 5. Land and Sea: The Same Governance Failure On Land
At Sea
Land and sea failures mirror each other because:
6. “Power Over Rules” vs “Rule Over Power”
The Philippines is trapped in:
This is why:
Your earlier line is key:
That is a governance problem, not a cultural one. 7. So What Is the Glue? The Missing Glue = Spatial Sovereignty
Not nationalism. Not slogans. Not GDP growth.
Spatial sovereignty means:
It requires:
8. Quo Vadis, Philippines?
Three possible paths: 1. Business as Usual (Most Likely)
2. Technocratic Islands
3. Spatial State Emerges (Hard but Transformative)
9. The Real Question
Not:
But:
That is the hinge on which everything else turns.
If you want, I can:
Just tell me the intended format and audience.