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
86 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.
Karl, you have your main essay which is not short and not the sort of read that one can just browse through quickly. Then you follow it up with two cut-and-pastes from ChatGPT that are also long and require a slow read (as opposed to a quick scan) in order to do them justice. I don’t think that is helpful. Just an observation. All three offer many discussion points. Maybe you need a little “integration” hehehe 🙂
All points well taken especialy the integration. 🙂
I am for continuous improvement for that to happen someine must tell me what needs improving and I thank people who do
Though like I do to my parents, I question first before obeying.
“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.
The problem is leaders are an expression of popular support, or at the very least popular acquiescence. Even in authoritarian countries where people are afraid if the leadership gets too out of control, they get toppled. No one imagined the Iron Curtain would come down and the Eastern Bloc to suddenly collapse.
So here it goes back to my viewpoint on creating foundations: the people need to be upgraded first for them to choose better leaders.
For change to happen an outside variable that more and more people start to recognize as personally advantageous to adopt. I still believe that most natural outside variable are a cadre of returning diaspora who are sufficiently patriotic. Well, one day.
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.
I am one of those (generationally as a Voltes V kid and a bit of an anime/manga fan) who admires Japan, and what can one say, what has held Japan together was a common ethical code THAT WAS LIVED (not like most Filipinos who are just words), even as it modified to suit the times: the Japanese of the Tokugawa era (my father’s favorite period there), the Meiji restoration (Edgar Lores’ favorite Japanese period) or the post-WW2 rebuilding were different yet the core was the same.
The Prussian elite code is one I am familiar with from my mother’s family, it is has similar virtues and similar weaknesses to the Japanese elite code – it can be both highly cultured and potentially harsh. Nick Joaquin IIRC criticized Rizal’s admiration of Japan and Germany from the perspective of World War 2, BTW.
Of course disciplined elites also can be dangerous. Rizal admired Spartans IIRC and was himself extremely self-disciplined (fencing, pistols, sports) but one look at his less self-controlled friend Heneral Luna shows where that can go especially in terms of disdain for the less disciplined. Heneral Luna was killed by someone he had humiliated before.
Definitely self-disciplined elites will apply discipline but even make examples within their own family, think of how the British Royals see military service as a way to keep their own in shape and ethically sound, but also punish those who stray from their codes even with banishment from the inner circle.
Think also of Netflix’s The Crown scene where Queen Elizabeth lectures Lady Di about duty. For sure even the English loved Lady Di more – but respected the Queen.
Benevolent dictators: well think of how the Korean dictatorship forced the chaebols to push industrialization, while Marcos Sr. let his cronies do what they wanted and you have how it comes to self-discipline even in own circles. Turns out the great-grandfather of Katseye leader Sophia Laforteza founded Radiowealth which manufactured radios (tube, not transistorized) in the Philippines long before Samsung made radios, but Marcos Sr. pushed him into US exile.
EDIT: imagine the Philippines applying punishments similar to how Vietnam does, as in executing those convicted of corruption publicly. That would just be a cycle of personal and factional vengeance. Or how Filipinos were so extremely full of pity for Mary Jane Veloso and considered PNoy cruel for letting the Indonesian justice system (which seems better organized than the Filipino one) take care of her even as he had her execution commuted.
We all know how the restraint of PNoy was mocked by Pinoys. How his purchase of a Porsche on own money was criticized. You were the one who told me about SB19 initially – and how PH commenters mocked the 1000 repetitions of Go Up dance practice BEFORE they even came out with it. I have seen how Bavarians may like pig roast (the pork crust roast here is excellent) but how there is extremely hard work behind everything, even the Oktoberfest as a billion-Euro industry. What I also was partly a witness to (to young to witness everything personally but I heard the stories) was how Marcos was respected for his physical fitness and discipline in being a classic Ilocano who ate the healthy food that pinakbet is, though his showing his upper body a la Putin to weild the bolo on rice fields was iffy. The hope that he would not waste money, being Ilocano – and even loyalists blaming Imelda for Marcos Sr.’s failings (I grew up around Ilocanas and know what many think of Visayans, not very different from German traveller Fedor Jagor’s description of both Bikolanos and Visayans as “liederlich” meaning dissolute, aka fun-loving but way too horny and wasteful in the 19th century shade of meaning) – all that. So it does go back to square one that there is no simple recipe.
I am one of those who sympathize with VP Leni deciding the Philippines was too much for her to deal with. Based on what I was told by Pink volunteers about the internal chaos of her campaign, it probably boils down to her having realized that the tendency of Filipinos even WITHIN own organizations to prioritize one-upmanship over common goals even if there is a common enemy. Maybe she also realized that Filipinos will tend to sit back and let the one person in front take care of everything, a bit like Joey was left to take care of the lechon all by himself at times. I have also been there as a Filipino association leader, it sucks. Therefore her decision to work on forming an effective community in her own city is understandable, and maybe one part of the solution for the Philippines.
One cannot dictate ethics that are not yet internalized, I guess. Ninotchka Rosca says that the ungovernability of the Filipino is an advantage hahaha..
Now if we thought had all the answers, we would not be discussing here, we would be preaching as self-assuredly as GRP. In a culture like the Philippines, the danger of even a benevolent dictator falling to the Dark Side of The Force (something some old loyalists still think of Marcos Sr., that he started off good) or being controlled by the Ring of Power (which VP Leni refuses to wear now) is huge. Alright, now I can go to the bakery and have breakfast.
I asked ChatGPT to summarize some of the stuff here as well as the discussion between CV and Joey in the other article and got this:
I would add the aspect of Zen Buddhism that sweeping the floor is essential both before and after Enlightenment, the Japanese custom of students cleaning their own schools as inculcation of discipline from an early age, and the Benedictine praxis (Latin for practice) of “ora et labora” which Sonny made me aware of, where it became clear to me that St. Benedict helped tide over aspects of dying Roman civilization to not yet born Medieval European civilization. But OK..
Thanks.
I rwmember at FB my wife took exception to young ones cleaning classrooms. Hahaha so soery about that.
I never expected my wife to read my posts in FB hehehe.
we have always been told at school that cleanliness is next to godliness! we keep our work area clean specially our high school laboratory, we cannot just leave instruments lying around. after using them, we clean and return them to their places, ready for the next class to use. we were taught responsibility early on.
at recess, we have to pick up our own rubbish, the empty food wrappers and containers and not throw them anywhere to pollute our environment.
we have only one janitor at school and he is bogged down with so many things to fix like broken windows, holes on the wall, leaking faucets, mowing the school ground with his old hand push lawnmower, emptying garbage bins in each classroom, cleaning toilets, mopping floors, etc. our janitor does the job of ten, but is paid like a pahinante!
“…the Japanese custom of students cleaning their own schools …”
————
In the late 1960’s, some public elementary schools in the province , pupils used to do these tasks.
It reached the 80s that is why my wife reacted on a comment by Irineo and another fil Gerrman commenter here Pelang on their comment that it should return.
Brigada Eskuwela still exists but just for public schools. I didn’t know that when I wrote that article.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/05/09/may-9-2025-dm-042-s-2025-2025-brigada-eskwela-implementing-guidelines/
Your wife has a point that kids shouldn’t be made into janitors if you are paying a lot already for a private school.
Japanese schools are I think all or mostly public so that is a different situation and a very different society.
the link below is about cleaning as a major aspect of Zen philosophy which is part of Japanese culture.
https://www.roseparisofficial.com/post/the-relationship-between-cleaning-and-zen-philosophy
I suspect that Benedictine “ora et labora” is similar though let us wait for Joey’s take on that.
Cleaning in Chan/Zen Buddhism is related to the practice of mental purification (to bring about inner peace).
Ora et labora has a different purpose, which is to limit idleness which may bring about temptations to sin.
Both are not explicitly about having a strong work ethic, though those who practice either may have a stronger work ethic simply because they are not as idle.
Btw, the Japanese term for cleaning is “soji” (“cleaning). Japanese students usually do “soji” for 10-15 minutes each school day and amounts to light tidying up, so it’s nothing like the practice of having Filipino children be school janitors. Every end-of-school-term, there is “o-soji” (“big cleaning”) that might take a half day and includes stuff like sweeping, raking leaves, putting away stuff. Soji in Japanese schools is a team activity where everyone participates as it’s seen as a fun group activity. Soji also implicitly reminds each student not to make a mess, because he will either have to clean up his own mess or give his classmates a hard time cleaning up after him. But none of this is actually taught as these habits are a cultural one. Teachers also help out during soji, unlike in the Philippines.
the first time I noticed that Brigada Eskwela existed was because of a picture of VP Leni taking part in it herself.
In any case, I do think that successful cultures and civilizations are built on good habits.
I would never say Filipinos don’t have good habits. Filipinos have many good habits (or green flags as the kids say), but most of the good habits pertain to their person and those immediate to their person, rarely extending past their nearby social circle. For all the talk about “kababayan,” I’ve found that too often it’s just talk. Filipinos are often aspirational, not actual.
But for the good habits that Filipinos have, unfortunately those habits don’t translate into today’s interconnected world. To evolve and prosper there is a requirement to adapt to new situations.
the Tagalog concepts of “kapwa” (fellow human) and “iba” (others) – which certainly have synonyms in other Filipino languages – are usually limited to very small circles in the practice of most Filipinos. That is how they can be both friendly – and downright antisocial in practice towards “iba”.
The biggest shock is probably the one many “AFAM” marrying Filipinas experience when they realize they never were “kapwa” to their wives families or if they were totally clueless even to their wives. There are those among the “iba” who manage to feel their way into the world of Filipinos and become “kapwa” to at least some, but these are exceptions to the rule.
Fr Jaime Bulatao, SJ of Ateneo wrote about split-level Christianity. Modern social media shows that those with lofty Bible quotes on their profiles are more often than not DDS who act totally against the spirit of those quotes and the rest of the Bible. Even Constitutionality or rule of law can be split-level in the Philippines, I mean Stanley Karnow’s (the book “In Our Image”) description of the Philippines as “tribes in disguise” is provocative but partly true.
My most loyal friend (and best friend) is a Filipina and her family, even though they primarily reside in HK. Many Americans have Fil-Am family friends who are intensely loyal, helpful to the point of solicitousness, and greatly empathetic to their friends’ problems. So it’s not surprising that an American might expect a Filipino in the Philippines to be the same then be totally shocked. After all, Filipinos themselves always extol the friendliness and generosity of their countrymen. So some of that is exaggerated “advertising,” I guess.
The Karnow description probably is a lot more accurate than most educated Filipinos would want to admit. Well, you brought it up, hah! That’s what I mostly mean when I joke that the culture sometimes seems like a cargo cult that constantly adopts new things (not ideas) as new accouterments to raise social status rather than to become an impetus for social evolution. I’ve met too many Filipinos who knew every detail about the latest iPhone Pro Max or Galaxy S Ultra, yet their inability to ever buy one anytime soon does not exhaust their lust for one as a status symbol. On my current trip I was asked 3 times “Hey, you are still using the same iPhone 12 Pro Max” as last time (It’s barely a 4 year old phone). They are able to identify that my Apple Watch is a LTE cellular model, when I did not even know the watch had an 2mm anodized “red dot” on the digital crown that is the only external difference between a cellular and WiFi-only Apple Watch model. Then they ask if they can have my phone and watch if I decided to upgrade sometime, lol.
Thanks Irineo.
Just recently my wife said I was solving the world’s problems (Attempting) but can not solve problems at home Oh well.
Isk, public school students (including public university) still have members of the student council, class presidents and assistants to clean schools. Most public universities are on sembreak at the moment, and my host’s cousin just came home from her public university as she was on the cleaning crew.
In the province having students do tasks like moving hollow blocks during construction is not uncommon. Students have no choice in the matter as if they oppose the teacher, they are now targeted for lower grades.
In Japan class presidents lead student school cleaning and gardening as part of their duties. However the duty is voluntary, and besides Japanese people generally do not throw their trash on the ground or create messes for others to clean. As a result student school cleaning in Japan is mostly “maintaining cleanliness” rather than janitor work.
I think, it is good for students to be sensitive to the needs of others and lend a hand when needed. like good citizenship building activities that our teachers may enforced at their own discretion. some student even run errands to admin office with messages from teachers to the principal. students who showed potential people mover and have leadership skills are nurtured and given extra activities and responsibilities. these are the students that often come to awat students who are fighting, and break up their fight.
teachers here are sometimes too tired to be breaking up fights. some are burned out and so stressed that one of them literally dropped dead! during class observation.
I just noticed that ChatGPT reversed the stands of CV and Joey and mixed in some stuff I wrote elsewhere. Took me two rounds of prompting to have it correct and enhance the summary including my ora et labora Zen Buddhist fusion kitchen:
Haha I have skimmed the discussion between CV and Joey, and I get Joey’s doubts about AI, though it still has better reading comprehension that a lot of Filipinos which is quite unfortunate..
It would probably take at least a generation (20 years) of consistent hard work in civic society building and educational improvements to show results. So I completely understand the temptation of going for the “shortcut” of a strong leader who ignores institutions and norms to just “get it done.” Younger people who lack experience and older people who feel like time is running out are especially attracted to this temptation.
The problem with putting all the effort into searching for a strong leader, and hoping the strong leader doesn’t catch the authoritarian bug, is all that time spent searching discourages working on reachable and actionable steps. The die is cast, and if one gets a bad roll, all that time was lost when at least some progress on building permeance could’ve been made in the meantime.
Exceptional leaders often come out of unlikely situations. If an exceptional leader does arise, then that’s great, but in the meantime Filipinos should go about building the civic foundation by which that leader could more effectively exercise power. In any case, it’s in fact the Congress and Senate that hold constitutional primus inter pares, not the president. The civic muscle must be exercised there first by getting better congressmen and senators elected.
reflecting on that, Marcos Sr. indeed had over 20 years but the Philippines had lost 2 million members of the middle class to migration towards the USA – in a time when the population was only 40 million roundabout..
Quezon had 7 years but he did build schools and the generation of teachers trained then worked until the early 1970s, when according to MLQ3 they were replaced by more political teachers due to Marcos. Even if we take MLQ3’s natural bias for his grandfather into account that seems to be true.
What Quezon as a paternalistic (not dictatorial) figure did manage to create was institutions (building on what the Insular Government had created) and by the 1950s literacy had gone over 50% as a result of his school building and teacher training program (of course built on the Thomasite foundation etc.).
EDIT: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT if the war hadn’t happened or Quezon had survived to be an elder statesman guiding his successors?
OR would Quezon have been eaten alive upon Independence without the aura of having direct American backing? His legacy unfortunately wasn’t stable.
The Philippines had 48 years of direct American governance (1898-1946) and 79 years of indirect American help (1946-present). Clearly there was enough time to figure at least half of the problems.
Older Filipinos who grew up during the Commonwealth have told me that they had wished the US did not grant independence “so early” before in their estimation “Filipinos were ready.” Of course following WWII the US mandated even close allies to let go of all their colonies, which were under direct rule unlike the Commonwealth which was somewhat only indirectly ruled by the US. The British went along willingly. The French are famously bitter for losing their colonies upon American insistence and until this day still have some minor colonies.
Personally, I think the greatest mistakes of the first years of the Third Republic were trying to mandate Tagalog as the national language and making some provinces feel like they were being ruled by “Imperial Manila.” In the US even tiny states with a population smaller than my local city are treated as federal equals (at least until Trump).
Sometimes not correcting critical mistakes soon enough cause a cascade of future problems.
With the current Constitution maybe the Philippines Fifth Republic OVERcorrected, giving de jure and de facto power to LGUs, while allowing LGUs to continue to blame the national government for local problems.
Problems become harder to fix when compounded. Preventative treatment is always preferable to waiting until the illness has metastasized to the point it needs drastic intervention. I understand both the unspoken cultural preference for singular strongmen, and also the reality of frustration. Still, consolidating power into a single person has the temptation of unaccountability is always a big risk. Expecting someone else to fix everything also leads everyone below the top level to ignore their own collective, and shirk their own personal responsibility.
With in fact stages of the Philippines having a chance to learn how to walk:
– the Philippine Assembly from 1907 onwards, the Senate from 1916 onwards
– the Insular Government being Filipinized from the 1920s onwards
– the Commonwealth which the US even made a founding UN member
– parity rights for US business until the early 1970s
– US bases until 1991 so full air force and naval cover
– American call centers from the turn of the century
it was not just public officials having to travel to Manila to get even the smallest stuff in their provinces approved, it was also people in power in Manila openly mocking their Visayan (for example) accents. So it wasn’t just about Tagalog (which de facto coexisted with English especially during the Third Republic) it was about classic flexing of power so common over there.
Well most Filipinos don’t know that the US almost immediately started the process of preparing the Philippines for independence. Easier to believe a vague variation of “we were colonized” in order to avoid personal and collective accountability.
Fast forward to the current Fifth Republic, in the last couple of years I’ve come around to the belief that while the 1987 Constitution is a beautiful document as it relates to the aspirational, the Constitution actually does not really create the framework for effective institutions as the bulk of the constitution are aspirational statements of what would occur in a perfect world.
The legal regime in enacted law also gave rightful devolved power to LGUs without creating systems of accountability. The result became predictable, which is LGUs can suck up their share of tax funds while still being able to blame Manila for all of their locally created problems. The most immediate fix would probably need to change the laws where if public money is not accounted for, that money would be managed directly by the national government until such time the LGU officials are ready to govern their own spending. But that would probably cause an elite revolt and stoke popular anger at Manila, which is in my understanding why powers and funds were devolved to LGUs in the first place in the present Constitution during the convention.
During Quezon’s time and before the Marcos constitutions there were 2 big factors for local fiefdoms.
Police were in direct control by the local chief executives. That is why in the old FPJ movies the chief of police were always in cahoots with the corrupt Mayor or Governor.
Pre Marcos constitution the structure was clear. The governor can be easily replaced by the President, the mayors were controlled by the Governors and the President. Hard to really judge the Marcos stuff as governance is closer to imperial dramas. The closer you are to the president the more you have his ears and trust the more power you have no matter what official power you had.
Imperial Manila was probably almost always a scape goat.
Local elites didnt do their jobs of developing their local places.
Constitutional law professor Tony La Vina of Ateneo de Davao once posted that the powers of a Filipino President were originally derived from those of the colonial governor, with the US governors basically having similar powers to those the Spanish captain-generals had. In the diaries of American High Commissioner Francis Burton Harrison which MLQ3 put online, there are incidents of Quezon dismissing even public school principals on the spot.
Seems constitutional evolution is conservative, IIRC the executive powers of George Washington were similar to those of English King George III, and I know for a fact that the German President in the Weimar Republic had a lot of powers and was called a surrogate Emperor, allowing Hindenburg to put Hitler in power. The present nearly ceremonial role of German Presidents was since 1949, just like the COA confirmation of PH Presidential appointments is since 1987. I don’t know exactly how long governors in Mindanao were appointed directly by the President and not yet voted by the people, for sure Governor Vicente Duterte of entire Davao, the father of Rodrigo Duterte, was appointed by President Quirino. Of course Dutertes were not from Davao originally, they were a Cebuano clan related to the Duranos. But then again, Ilocanos spreading into the Cagayan Valley also happened, just centuries earlier.
I still recall how Marcos Sr. reduced local executive power by creating the INP or Integrated National Police and at some point fused them with the PC or Philippine Constabulary into PC-INP which mutated into PNP by Cory’s time. A third factor I guess for local fiefdoms was I guess that most people hardly knew the world outside their respective barangays in those days, often speaking ONLY their local language. In addition, people in Manila mostly had NOT visited any provinces outside their home regions, local tourism was something only the then few foreigners and the very rich did, Manila papers barely carried news of the provinces, even as probinsyanos tried to get battery-operated transistor radios to get news, as USAID mass electrification was only from the late 1960s onwards. Basically people and communities were more on their own out there back then than today. No Cebu Pacific “for every Juan” yet before.
One must not forget that constitutions are not self-executing, and neither are laws which are derivatives of a constitution. Even less self-executing are the norms expected within a society that depends on one having a sense of humility, shame which holds back an urge for excess, and a desire to solidify a positive legacy for oneself.
George Washington didn’t have the same de jure power as George III per the then-new US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation which preceded that document. Washington accepted the tripartite system of American republicanism where sovereignty did not rest in one man (a king), but instead sovereignty was a Sovereignty of the People, split up into three co-equal branches of government as the People’s representatives and appointed officials. Washington did however have the de facto power of George III, which Washington made a point of publicly relinquishing through actions such resigning his generalship prior to taking the civilian Presidency (establishing the norm of civilian supremacy over the military), choosing to hold power for only two terms (establishing the norms of non-hereditary power and peaceful transfer over power), then retiring quietly back to Mount Vernon after his service was completed (establishing the norm of non-interference by former presidents on the political process after their terms had ended), and so on. One must not overlook the importance of leaders setting a moral example for people to follow, as during Washington’s time there was a large minority of former American colonists who did want Washington to become the King of North America.
Clearly there are also other forms of democratic government that work well, but in each democratic system it is almost always rooted in the nation’s identity. In that absence of a national identity, there is no suitable ground from which everything else grows from in the first place. In the end a constitution and its laws are just pieces of paper, just like a Bible is a collection of books. Humility and a sense of shame require require a conviction to the society’s ideals. So perhaps the greater question in all of this is if the current political class has these elements. And if they do not, then how can a new crop of political operators be cultivated which do live up to the ideals of the society. When building a house, one does not build the roof first before building a foundation.
The problem GC is highlighting here to me goes along the lines of:
First, the Philippines as a whole aspires to be greater, yet treats herself essentially as a “big village,” and at best as a single small province. In the early US the original 13 Colonies had already developed strong independent identities, so the notion of a national government being able to reach down and fire low level local public servants would have been preposterous. Actually, in the 6 years following the American Revolution but before the ratification of the US Constitution, it was each US state that willingly transferred some of their own power *UP* when the US government changed from a confederation to a federation, not the other way around.
Second, a version of the machine politics and political cronyism that was prevalent in the US of 1898 in the Philippines overlayed on top of Spanish decentralized colonial government and pre-Spanish datu-ism. What’s interesting is definitely by 1898 the US was well on her way to reforming machine politics and political cronyism. President James A. Garfield even got assassinated in 1881 over this issue by a disgruntled office seeker (and minor supporter) *because* the bureaucracy was *already in the process* of being reformed and professionalized. The first waves of American colonial administrators, engineers, bureaucrats, and educators like the Thomasites who were brought in by the military then Insular Government were very progressive for their era and certainly understood this need for instituting a better system. Perhaps the issue to blame is not the American attempt, or even the centuries of Spanish institutions, but the root which is of datu-ism itself.
**So I completely understand the temptation of going for the “shortcut” of a strong leader who ignores institutions and norms to just “get it done.”** – Joey
I prefer the “shortcut” of a strong leader who does not ignore the institutions and norms, but rather in the case of the Philippines PAYS ATTENTION to the institutions and norms and MAKES THEM WORK FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
How many more years and decades will be wasted with Filipinos searching for such a “strong leader” who will utilize unilateral “shortcuts” (shortcuts which by the way would come close to, and likely surpass, breaking the Constitution)?
In the Philippines “modern era” since 1898, Filipinos have spent a century and a quarter searching for such a leader. A century and a quarter of wasted time.
If a strong leader comes along who can be strong while respecting the Constitution, then great. Does that mean that the Philippines should not focus the main effort on building institutions and civic society in the meantime?
Many people (myself included) thought PNoy was that strong, exceptional leader (and he was!). PNoy did so many great things while respecting the Constitution. But as there were no strong institutions, nor was civic society fortified, as soon as PNoy stepped down from power everything fell apart again. If that’s what Filipinos want, then Filipinos and the broader kababayan should accept all of the setbacks.
**How many more years and decades will be wasted with Filipinos searching for such a “strong leader” who will utilize unilateral “shortcuts” (shortcuts which by the way would come close to, and likely surpass, breaking the Constitution)?** – Joey
Well let’s see…we got our independence in 1946 and tried to build those strong economic foundations that would bring a decent amount of prosperity to a decent number of Filipinos. Seventy nine years later that hasn’t happened. How much longer until that happens?
You talk about wasting time with Filipinos searching for a “strong leader.” Why doesn’t that Filipino strong leader just step out of that haystack and show himself? Did Singapore spend any time searching for LKY and then convince him to lead the country?
I don’t believe so. He just showed up! So why do you insist that the Filipinos have to go search for this needle in a haystack?
I told you about Mar Tecson’s demand that a “Qualified” Head of State be elected to Malacañang to lead the country out of its miserable economic state. What qualifications do you think he is speaking of? Let me give you some hints:
1. Moral and Ethical Qualifications
Essentially, the person must have a mini-immune system against corruption.2. Intellectual and Cognitive Qualifications
Think of someone who can read both the landscape and the levers of power simultaneously.3. Political Qualifications
Unlike a strongman, the QHS is a facilitator of the system, not a substitute for it.4. Leadership and Administrative Qualifications
Execution is where many “visionary” leaders fail; a QHS must be both thinker and doer.5. Personal and Character Qualifications
In other words, their personal habits reinforce the public good.
Now, how long before someone like that steps forward? Well, your approach has had 79 years and still has not arrived. In fact, one can argue that it is going backwards. At the current rate, perhaps another 79 years before your approach succeeds?
So let us give the Philippines at least 79 years for a strong leader to emerge…fair enough?
I must say, it is very tiring to slog through endless AI outputs. I’d prefer if the discussion was the result of what we output from between our ears. Thinking for ourselves leads to understanding the subject better.
But, if you think this perfect leader who checks all the boxes, has unconstrained power to reshape the country yet is somehow maintains the utmost morality, I guess you may be prepared to continue waiting. If even diaspora Filipinos who have learned many things and built success abroad default to “Filipino thinking” and a preference for risky shortcuts what hope is there?
” Thinking for ourselves leads to understanding the subject better.” – Joey
And I agree. I know you feel that someone who searches the internet for information still thinks for himself, but one who uses AI as a tool to do the searching on the internet AND other resources suddenly for some reason stops thinking for himself. I don’t assume that, and I speak from my own experience. Karl had some good advice for you. Instead of downplaying AI as a source of information, just address the information it provides and show why it is good or why it is bad.
Truly, the death of expertise. I choose to use my own faculties.
“Truly, the death of expertise. I choose to use my own faculties.” – Joey
As do I. I have even gotten the chatbots to admit error.
Case in point (though minor) would be when I think it was Irineo who input our discussion in ChatGPT and the chatbot mixed up your position with mine. Irineo could have pressed ChatGPT and it probably would have corrected itself.
I have encountered many situations where the chatbot would say something that just did not make sense. I would press it, sometimes with resources that I have in my library, and it would admit error and correct itself.
ChatGPT seems to have swapped discussion participants’ viewpoints around. Maybe that has something to do with CV’s quoting style. Another caution about the unreliability of AIs being able to properly digest information without clear cut, straight-line inputs, which it just rewords as an output anyway.
In my opinion, the fundamental defect in many elite Filipino thinking can be condensed to two “schools”:
1.) Insistence on doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.
2.) Insisting on trying every new thing that is not yet fully understood, not following through, and expecting the same result as the example. Then moving on to the next new thing with the same outcome due to the same problems in follow through.
Even “highly educated” Filipinos from elite schools sometimes remind me of a student who asked a friend for the answer to the exam question, then tries to bullshit his way backwards to show his “proof” to the question. Starting at the conclusion (taking a shortcut) sometimes works out, but even if it works out one has learned nothing about how to apply problem solving to a similar or even same future problem. Turns out, the “psst, what’s the answer?” is quite common in school there during exam taking time 🙂
I read something about an exchange professor who got a huge protest wave (long before the Internet and social media) when she said that most Filipino students cheat on exams. I never cheated on exams BTW, though I did notice a difference when I got into German university where major exams are oral, meaning they check your real comprehension of the topic and not just memorization of expected answers. BTW I did get a lower grade than expected in system architecture when I failed to name the ISO layers properly, those that are important in network communication. I know it starts with data and goes all the way up to presentation layer, and there is a protocol layer somewhere, and at some point I learned what TCP/IP actually stands for but that isn’t my area so I would have to look it up. EDIT: mostly essay-type exams in German Senior High also were way more interesting than multiple choice, and more conducive to really learning, not just memorizing.
A lot is memorized there, and often students become masters of sounding like their professors expect them to. I kind of parodied that in an essay writing contest on “Science Clubs in the New Society” (Marcos Sr.’s program) and wrote that they could “usher in an age of humanistic technology”. I even won a prize, not first but still a prize, for complete BS but fortunately no one noticed yet that I hated the entire charade already.
What I have been guilty of is “copy-paste” programming as my computer science university course was highly theoretical and I was initially self-taught in that. Fortunately I noticed after a while that the later cost in terms of errors made one has to correct is too high. And being an SAP consultant exposed me to best practices that I followed as they made my working life easier.
Re schools of thought in the Philippines, there is a lack of analysis of what made things fair and measures to do it better next time.
There is often just the search for culprits to blame. Mar Roxas and Secretary Abaya for the MRT3, for example. The article below analyzing part of the misery was by a Singaporean who is no longer here as he succumbed to the MAGA virus, even as his analysis of the contractual mess of MRT3 was impeccable. There are also many Filipinos who are great in their profession but lack big picture, for instance former Lufthansa aircraft engineer i7sharp, the Bible literalist.
Heh, never say that there won’t be popular outrage about something that “impugns” Filipino honor, even if it’s true. Sometimes over there I feel like the exercise of defending honor (meaning, being the loudest shouter, might makes right, etc.) is more important than defending what is right 😉
I once had an interesting discussion with a Filipino engineer who had been 3 decades removed from the Philippines. He reflected on how he felt like he was not able to imagine entertaining different ways of doing things until he was separated from daily immersing in the culture back home.
It goes back to how I feel about the Philippines largely being a closed system. The country as a whole is a closed system. Each province is its own closed system. Even within provinces regional cities or a “bukid” are their own closed systems. There is interaction between each system, but only to the extent of passing through a sort of membrane that separates both sides.
In thermodynamics for two systems that have a difference in polarity (e.g. oil and water) to mix energy must be introduced. Oil is nonpolar while water is polar. The introduced energy may be in the form of vigorous mixing, heating, or other manner of energizing dissimilar components. In other words, how an emulsion is created. But if energy is not maintained, added energy eventually becomes lost, returning the combined emulsion to a lower and lower energy state. Eventually the two systems separate again.
In all the examples of developing countries you and I have discussed there are constant introductions of energy into the system, whether it be by their diaspora returning to introduce new ideas, working with outside partners to gain investment, all manner of ways the Philippines can pick and choose from. Something that does not happen enough in the Philippines. Whatever energy is introduced to the system, it is far from sufficient or consistent.
The archipelago was at least a week’s sail away from other places around 1521, and an acceleration of contact with abroad only has happened since around 150 years (Suez canal, faster means of transportation, modern communication) so it is not surprising that old habits are still very ingrained.
even Filipino migrant communities abroad can be closed systems – the more they are composed of older and working class Filipinos and the more closed to outsiders the “host culture” is. Thus college-educated Filipinos in for instance UK (of course the college-educated will gravitate to countries where English is spoken) will be more influenced by foreign culture than working-class Filipinos in for instance Saudi Arabia. In Continental Europe, the younger generations from 40 downward speaking more English than before and the younger Filipino migrants (nurses, IT workers) being more acquainted with the world via the Internet (and many terms and cultural references, even Netflix series, being global nowadays) makes the Filipino communities less closed in than in the 1980s or 1990s.
The more people are able to make it to a place via land, the more people get into daily contact with different behaviors and ways of doing things. Modern means of transport and communication have gotten more Filipinos to be abroad and probably there are more foreigners than ever before in the Philippines. Maybe that will eventually bring the country to a point of new realizations.
There are always positive and negative aspects of any particular practice (e.g. habits).
For example the trait of headstrongness manifests negatively into obstinacy and being ungovernable, but being headstrong can also manifest positively into resiliency and unshakable positivity. In my estimation Filipinos tend to lean more towards the negative aspects of their innate traits which manifest as bad habits. But the positive aspect of the same trait may also be used in furtherance of a person.
While living in Japan I went on a deep dive of Japanese history and culture with friends and coworkers. Of course by the early 2000s Japan was quite famous for cleanliness, orderliness, and respectfulness even where there is a large gap in position or power. I was thus surprised to learn that things were not always that way. It seems that these now-normal cultural habits were originally the social practices of the upper classes and nobility, and that Japanese commoners once lived wretched, dirty, and uncouth lives. Even samurai though being members of the lower nobility had many examples in Japanese literature of acting rudely, throwing refuse on the ground as they traveled, and generally acting like a “low class” person.
So what changed in Japan? It appears that the lower classes changed their “bad habits” to more closely emulate social practices of the upper classes, while the upper classes gave cursory respect to those lower than them. The modern example is that everyone in Japan bows, but the one of higher position bows a little less low. Poor people and rich people pick up their own trash, and tend not to make a mess to begin with. Subordinates are still addressed with the honorific “san,” which is a diminutive of the higher “sama.” People of esteem, even the boyfriend or girlfriend of one’s child, may be addressed by “dono,” which was originally a honorific for a feudal lord of the manor. I was confused at first until I understood how Japanese society evolved when the parents of a Japanese girlfriend at the time addressed me as “Joey-dono” while her younger siblings addressed me as “Joey-onii-sama,” the former being a much higher honorific.
In the Philippines I sometimes think the bad habits of the upper classes to be worse than the bad habits of the masa. Maybe there’s not that much to emulate from within. There is always the option of adapting practices outside of a society, which is often what cultures do until a firm identity is formed.
I am a classic introvert who just reads most of the time in between doing something that is my curiosity. I’ve met a few people recently that makes me to believe Filipino ambition is not as high as other people.
I remember when I was still dealing with Enterprise Software a lot of the Filipinos who could go for the System Architect of higher positions just stopped as they were already earning a lot compared to other people locally. and the those Oracle/SAP certifications would not be too useful as they are already the top certificate holders locally. If there are higher certifications they are usually servicing ASEAN wide demand.
Recent friends are doing startups and their mentors mostly foreign VCs drive them towards pushing towards higher targets or goals. Something like dont be happy with 40 percent yearly growth try 3 digit growth as you are still very small.
Exposure on ambition etc and a more chill personality is holding back a lot of talent locally.
I cant complain though as I am of the more chill variety.
Regarding “Filipino ambition is not as high as other people,” I think that is specific to Filipinos in the Philippines as Fil-Ams here in America seem to be doing well enough to quite well in relation to their other American counterparts. Similar phenomenon exists for Fil-Canadians and Fil-British. I can’t speak for Fil-Germans but I’m sure they are doing fine. So the problem likely has something to do with the system of the Philippines itself.
There is a famous Ashkenazi Jewish (Yiddish) word, “chutzpah,” that may have negative or positive connotation depending on the usage. The negative connotation is similar to the Tagalog “hambog,” while the positive connotation has no direct translation into English or Tagalog but roughly means “confidence.” I’ve often found “Filipino confidence” to be instances of “hambog.” When things go right, it’s seen as “diskarte,” but when it goes bad, it’s “hambog.” An untrained person who attempts to shoot a wild boar may hit the boar at times and consider that a great hunt; or he may graze or completely miss the boar then get gored. Chutzpah is more about having the confidence to get things moving, then being able to quickly adjust trajectory along the away for moving targets.
Something that is nearly lacking in the Philippines are fellow Filipinos who are willing to become guides and mentors. I’ve too often seen when a previously meek person attains a position they become a totally different person; domineering, authoritarian, lording their power over those who are still meek. Whether Filipinos want to admit to it or not there is a strong undercurrent of “balos” where one bides their time pretending to be meek under they can knife the other in the back. How often does a Filipino after being berated by a bank teller, a government official, or similar, walk away mumbling fantasies of retribution? No, instead guides and mentors should be cultivated. Knowledge should be shared rather than gatekeeped to preserve positions. If the one who gatekeeps their position needs to do so in the first place, he is building a personal fiefdom around himself, not learning anything new to update his skills, and undermining the next generation of Filipinos by not transferring knowledge.
I look back on my career as I am in semi-retirement now and just work when I feel like it. Yes, my dad was a rank 1 student until graduating SHS and he was in the top percentile at the military academy before graduating as a lieutenant. Yes, my mom went to the top Catholic schools in Saigon. But I also grew up in poverty due to my parents being political refugees. I’ll never know if I would’ve ended up where I am now if I had to go about it myself just based on genes, but I didn’t need to deal with that since I had plenty of guides and mentors along the way. Some mentors stuck with me for years providing guidance and advise, some others spend a few weeks or months working on me. None were formal mentors, but were coworkers, older friends, members of society who volunteered their advice gladly to help a young man find his footing. I laugh a bit about my experience stumbling into IT and business as my degrees are completely unrelated. I started off as an assistant general analyst (note taker), and when the opportunity arose to take a systems analyst role at that moment someone around me pushed me to go for it despite me lacking any knowledge. The same happened when I learned how to become a business analyst, which then made me a BSA. Again when a project manager suddenly resigned due to familial responsibility, my current manager that time suggested I try out the role despite not having formal PMP training or accreditation (got that later). Again when I went into system architecture, security architecture, started dealing with the business side of enterprises, until I reached the solutions and enterprise architect “title.” The entire way, I picked up the formal accreditations after I had already done the job. I had to put in incredible hours of non-paid extra work sitting in an empty office learning based on the initial advice I was given (most technical references were in giant tome form at the time). I had to accept mistakes I made and go back and redo my work until I delivered a good product. I can’t stress and acknowledge how invaluable having mentors and guides was in my career, which is part of my personal project in the Philippines to teach young poor Filipinos I think I can make a difference with basic skills and a different way of thinking. I just wish more Filipinos took on that mentorship and guidance role.
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.
Why Governing Space Is the Real Test of Philippine Development
The Philippines does not mainly fail because it lacks plans, talent, or ideas. It fails because it cannot govern space—and therefore cannot govern power.
Space is not abstract. It is land that floods because it should never have been built on. It is traffic that steals hours of life every day. It is coastlines fenced off, ports monopolized, sidewalks occupied, and fishing grounds taken from those who depend on them. Space is where rules either hold—or quietly collapse.
Countries that develop learn one thing early: who controls space controls outcomes. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and later Vietnam did not grow simply by encouraging markets or participation. They enforced land use, cleared illegal occupation, disciplined monopolies, reclaimed rivers and coastlines, and made planning cumulative. Europe’s reclaimed cities followed the same logic. These were not cosmetic changes. They were assertions of state authority over private power.
The Philippine state does the opposite. Authority over land, sea, and infrastructure is fragmented across agencies, local governments, courts, and informal elite arrangements. Laws exist, but enforcement is negotiable. Planning happens, but is easily reversed. Progress is made—and then quietly undone.
This is why reforms keep failing across sectors. Decongestion fails because people are moved without moving jobs, investment, or state functions. Housing fails because relocation ignores livelihoods. Health and education fail because devolution strips systems of protection and continuity. Fisheries fail because small fishers follow the rules while powerful actors ignore them. Sustainability fails because land use remains discretionary and short-term.
At the center of this dysfunction is a refusal to lock in authority. The absence of a National Land Use Act is not a technical gap; it is a political one. Without a binding framework, land is allocated by convenience and influence rather than ecology, risk, or public need. Floodplains become subdivisions. Transport corridors are blocked. Public space shrinks while private capture expands.
This failure reflects a deeper imbalance in how leadership is understood. The Philippines elevated moral critique and civic awakening—rightly associated with José Rizal—but never paired it with the institutional discipline embodied by leaders like Lee Kuan Yew. Rizal gave conscience. Lee gave enforcement. Development requires both, in sequence.
History shows that reform works when authority comes first: rules are enforced, space is cleared, power is disciplined. Only then does participation become productive. And only when rules are insulated from electoral cycles does progress become irreversible.
The Philippines repeatedly reverses this order. It demands consultation before enforcement, participation before discipline, and consensus before authority. The result is reform without teeth and development without memory.
The real question is no longer what the Philippines should do. The country already knows. The question is whether the state is willing to govern space—and in doing so, govern power, including its own elites.
Development begins when rules stop negotiating with power and start governing it.
@joey
Why not just read through that AI comment and pretens it is just a long comment. Or scroll through it.
Because pepple like me find AI useful and if you realky think tgese comments are trash then there is nothing I can do about that.
You can fact check and if you disagree the human behind those comments can undretand or not.
Instead of just saying AI content susks or AI content stinks.
As if we the humans are not here.
Aack , my trademark typos. Grrrr.
At least ai understands my typos. ..most of them hehe.
LOL LOL LOL. Spilt my coffee.
Hahaha!
Hahaha!
I do not find AI useful at all compared to the tool between human ears. My policy still stands that if I’m not interested enough in a subject to invest real time to understand the expert interpretation enough to dive into the source data, then I won’t be retaining the information in the long run as it wasn’t useful in my life to begin with. But that’s just me.
OK.
If I can require someone to write me a memo. That is my default. Get it written and be mindful about it. This is because the act of writing can be a way of making things clearer for you and me. It forces you to organize thoughts etc. Personal experience makes the machine based probability machines more of a mind meld.
The mind meld is important as you inject the probabilities encoded in your neurons mostly by all your experiences with the probability distribution defined in the LLM.
LLM output is slop. The mind meld has value.
At least for me
I prefer to ask ChatGPT for summaries because I don’t want to read through the long form – if ever I use it to quickly go through stuff I don’t have the time to look through thoroughly. Of course there is a huge difference between an article like “Half a Millenium After Magellan”, which had me working for three months after Christmas break in late 2020 to of course March 2021, my closest attempt at doing real historical research (but not qualified as such because to be real research, I would have had to check the sources I used down to their footnotes, and it would have taken me maybe two years FULL-TIME to write) and AI output. Somewhat like I once biked the over 30 km from Bonn to Cologne and back on the same day aged eighteen, as opposed to taking the train, 20 minutes ride.
AI is just as useful and as dangerous as every shortcut. Googling for information is also a useful shortcut. Wikipedia is useful but potentially its articles can be victims of malicious or foolish editing. I was a bit involved via a pseudonym in fixing German Wikipedia entries on the Philippines over two decades ago, when they were mainly written by some German men married to Filipinas, often way more confident of their knowledge than they actually knew stuff. Yuval Noah Harari who wrote the book Nexus about the development of knowledge correctly sees the danger of seeing AI as “gospel truth” which it isn’t. I have relied on Gemini to give me ideas on how to cook spaghetti sauce because I needed to, that is something I can trust it with. There are articles online about how Salesforce had issues with replacing 4000 of 9000 support employees with AI, seems they overestimated its capabilities even for such a clearly defined scope. Definitely the output of AI has improved, a bit like search engine output improved eventually, those who remember that age of Yahoo know what I mean. But still..
I also prefer reading the discussions here than the long form AI stuff Karl posts, and personally I prefer to specify which part of what I comment is from AI and which is my own stuff, a traditional mindset but I guess to each his own. The main danger of AI is similar mentally to me not having hiked or biked as long anymore and taken the train or car more over the years. Mental fitness is like physical fitness and can decline if one uses too many shortcuts. I can happily say that I now am back to being able to read actual books without quickly getting impatient, as social media can be addictive in terms of instant gratification of thinking one has gotten actual information. I might never take the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage (though I watched a movie about someone who did last year) but I might yet do some smaller physical hikes as well as fully read some books I just skimmed in the past few years. The long way is sometimes more rewarding.
Your points are well taken but it will sink in.
I already promised to summarize and symptoms still persist.
Now as to my llm usage in writing blogs or articles. I write somethjng essay form or oitline, I ask chatgpt to correct enhance and add something else .
I use llm as a tool a crutch butnot a stretcher to be carried out by two
On the Claim That the Philippines Was “Never” Going to Become Singapore
The argument that the Philippines was never capable of reform—that it was structurally, culturally, or morally doomed to fail—sounds sophisticated. It presents itself as realism. In truth, it is a form of surrender.
History is unkind to deterministic thinking. No nation that successfully transformed itself did so because success was inevitable. Singapore did not rise because it was destined to; it rose because its leaders rejected excuses when excuses were abundant.
To argue that the Philippines could never emulate Singapore “no matter who promised it” is to confuse difficulty with impossibility, and leadership failure with national incapacity.
Singapore in the 1960s had:
• No natural resources
• Severe ethnic divisions
• External threats
• Weak institutions
Lee Kuan Yew himself repeatedly stated that failure was the default outcome. What changed Singapore’s trajectory was not culture, size, or destiny—but discipline imposed by leadership, institutions that enforced accountability, and consequences that were real.
To say the Philippines is different in kind—not merely degree—is not analysis. It is cultural determinism, a lazy explanation that absolves leaders of responsibility while blaming abstract forces like “culture,” “history,” or “the people.”
Culture does not precede systems.
Culture follows incentives.
When corruption is punished swiftly and without exception, behavior changes.
When competence is rewarded and patronage penalized, norms shift.
When law is enforced consistently, morality stops being optional.
Singapore did not wait for virtue to appear. It engineered behavior through institutions, enforcement, and incentives. Over time, culture followed.
The defeatist narrative is especially dangerous because it benefits the very failures it claims to explain. If reform is impossible, then no one is accountable. If corruption is inevitable, then integrity becomes naïve. If the nation is irredeemable, then moral compromise becomes reasonable.
This way of thinking does not challenge power—it protects it.
The Philippines’ problem has never been a lack of faith, talent, or intelligence. It has been a lack of sustained moral courage among those entrusted with authority. The country did not fail because it tried too hard to reform; it failed because reform was repeatedly postponed, diluted, or selectively enforced.
To call this reality “proof” that reform is impossible is to mistake repeated abdication for destiny.
No serious leader believes that nations succeed by accident. They succeed because someone, at some point, decided that excuses would no longer be accepted—and paid the political price for enforcing standards.
The belief that the Philippines has “no chance of redemption” is not realism. It is resignation. And resignation, when adopted by educated elites and leaders, becomes self-fulfilling.
Nations do not collapse because reform is impossible. They collapse when those who know better stop believing that responsibility matters.
hear! hear!
Thanks for yor insights Allan.
I would not want to be defeatist thanks for the warning. My intention was for the future. I too questioned commenters here for not recognizing the effort of most of our leaders.
I did not intend this to be a defeatist post and I am for thr uplifting of the Philippines.
We can do it with a few tweaks of the status quo.
Thanks again.Allan.
No matter how big or small those tweaks are we stil must do it.
Gradually not one time big time.
If I said it wrong, I apologize
But I am hopeful for a positive future. I did not mean to whine.
Greetings sir Admiral Cusi.
I am the son of the late Plaridel Garcia, sir.
Thanks for your comment and please do drop by again if a topic interests.you.
Your name rung a bell sir, I thought hard and I remembered my bratmate Admiral Ong turning over the Vice Commander position to you upon retirement, sir.
“To say the Philippines is different in kind—not merely degree—is not analysis. It is cultural determinism, a lazy explanation that absolves leaders of responsibility while blaming abstract forces like “culture,” “history,” or “the people.”
Culture does not precede systems.
Culture follows incentives.”
That is true, but the Philippines is different in time, which, for today, makes it different in kind vs what Singapore was in LKY’s heyday. “Culture follows incentives” is a spot of brilliance and indeed LKY supplied them by raising government salaries and having no tolerance for corruption. Anything is possible and we all hope for a richer, fairer Philippines. For me, I go with probabilities. What is the probability that voters will place character over popularity in their votes? What is the probability today’s social media dirtstream can even show them character vs slanderous memes? What is the probability that a president with character can slash through the impunity that drives patronage, today’s cultural core, and incent progress?
Pretty low it seems to me.
On Singapore : ” It engineered behavior through institutions, enforcement, and incentives. “
————–
Incentives = reward
I wonder what bribery is …
Thanks for dropping by Sir.
I wrote a short essay about accountability but it did not tackle the responsibility of leaderhip it was more of either we crucify one or we net as many as possible making it impossible to solve conspiracy.
https://joeam.com/2025/12/20/accountability-in-the-philippines/
despite our differences, singapore and philippines have many things in common:
https://www.tripzilla.com/tpb-similarities-singaporeans-filipinos/130763
Thanks for this Kb.
“The Philippines does not lack consensus on what it wants. Across political divides, Filipinos want a country that works.” – Karl G.
Sorry, Karl. I believe you are wrong on this. If this is true, why isn’t the country moving towards that consensus? Actions speak louder than words. If you examine the collective actions of Filipinos, you will see that they for the most part do not help move the Philippines towards “a country that works.”
Your essays often point this out, like making laws with no IRRs, lack of integrated plans, etc. etc.
I acknowedge with thanks.
Thanks, Karl.
Food for thought: “Saying ‘we want a country that works’ is like a group of people saying ‘we want to be happy.’ If one person defines happiness as a quiet library and the other as a loud nightclub, they aren’t actually in agreement—they are just using the same word for different dreams.”
Excellent food for thought.
Until now I do not get the agree to disagree.
Are they agreeing or disagreeing.
So we do have a consensus not to have a consensus.
“Are they agreeing or disagreeing.
“So we do have a consensus not to have a consensus.” – Karl G.
They are disagreeing. By default as seen in our collective action, yes we have a consensus not to have a consensus.
Yup.
The idea of imitating Singapore doesn’t really work well here — despite enormous pushes by those people with power fantasies — because of many factors, including a massive cultural difference in which Chinese-style filial piety, meritocracy, and Confucianism are very strong over there and the fact that Singapore is one island… versus hundreds of what amounted to petty fiefdoms of landed politicians, not all of these can be easily made to conform.
Well said.