The Society of Honor by Joe America

---

By Karl Garcia

First, I would like to thank Admiral Allan Cusi for his eye opener which is the basis of this write up.

I also want to acknowledge a moment of misjudgment in my own writing—one where I allowed a sense of defeatism to creep in. While most of my articles have been hopeful and solutions-driven, I have at times given too much weight to the narrative that reform is impossible. I even wrote about this mindset in a critique of the Get Real Philippines blog, now Get Real Posts, challenging its often defeatist tone. My intention was always to spark constructive debate, but I now see that even critique can be shaped by a larger culture of resignation.

This article is not meant to refute Admiral Cusi’s point alone. It is meant to clarify my position and reaffirm my belief that the Philippines is capable of transformation—if we demand accountability and stop treating reform as optional.

---

On the Idea That the Philippines Was “Never” Going to Become Singapore

It is easy to fall into the belief that the Philippines is simply too different—too fragmented, too “cultural,” too politically complex—to ever replicate the disciplined transformation of Singapore. At times, I too have used this argument as a way to explain why reform has been slow or inconsistent.

But the more I reflect on it, the more I see that this line of thinking is not realism. It is resignation.

It implies that failure is inevitable, and that leadership is powerless. It turns reform into a fantasy and corruption into an unchangeable condition. That’s a dangerous mindset, because it makes inaction feel justified.

The Philippines’ challenges are real. Our geography, history, and political landscape matter. But these are obstacles—not proof of permanent incapacity. They can be addressed with strong leadership, institutions, and accountability.

Singapore in the 1960s had no natural resources, severe ethnic tensions, external threats, and weak institutions. Lee Kuan Yew himself warned that failure was the default outcome. Yet Singapore did not accept failure as a fate. It chose to build a system that made reform unavoidable.

This is the key point: culture is not a fixed foundation. Culture is the result of incentives.

When corruption is punished consistently, people stop doing it.
When competence is rewarded, people strive for it.
When the law is enforced without exception, integrity becomes the norm.

Singapore did not wait for virtue to appear. It engineered behavior through institutions and consequences. Over time, culture followed.

The Philippines’ problem is not a lack of talent or intelligence. It is a lack of sustained moral courage among those in power—and among those who should be holding them accountable. Reform has not failed because it was impossible; it has failed because it was delayed, diluted, or selectively enforced.

That pattern should not be mistaken for destiny.

---

Accountability in the Philippines: Not Just a Public Spectacle

I recently wrote about accountability in the Philippines, noting how our pursuit of it often becomes performative: bursts of moral outrage, public accusations, symbolic arrests, and then a return to business as usual. Accountability becomes a ritual—loud, passionate, and incomplete.

In many cases, accountability extends beyond the individual to their family and descendants. Assets are seized from grandchildren who had no hand in the alleged wrongdoing. The original suspect may have long died, yet punishment continues through lineage rather than law. This raises a fundamental question: is this justice, or inherited guilt masquerading as accountability?

A system that punishes bloodlines rather than proven individual acts risks undermining the very rule of law it claims to uphold.

But the deeper problem is leadership.

---

The Leadership Accountability Gap

In the Philippines, leaders often get away when they foul up. We sometimes jail a leader, and in those rare moments, the nation holds its breath. We convince ourselves that we are finally having our “Korea moment”—a decisive break where even the powerful are not immune. But then reality intrudes. Pardons are granted. Sentences are softened. Political rehabilitation quietly follows. The symbolic victory evaporates.

The message this sends is devastatingly clear: accountability is conditional, reversible, and negotiable for those with enough power.

This is not merely a failure of courts or prosecutors. It is a systemic leadership problem. Decisions that cause massive harm—economic, social, environmental, or institutional—are rarely treated with the same moral weight as street-level crimes. Policy disasters that impoverish millions, entrench corruption, or weaken democratic institutions are reframed as “errors in judgment,” “policy differences,” or blamed on predecessors.

The elastic notion of “national interest” compounds this. Each administration defines its own version, often incompatible with the last. Without a stable, institutional definition of national interest—anchored in constitutional principles, long-term development goals, and measurable public benefit—leaders can justify almost anything and escape accountability for nearly everything.

---

Real Gains: What Has Improved

This is not a defeatist argument. There have been real gains—progress that may not always be visible in outcomes, but is visible in norms. These include:

• More transparent public discourse
• Increased civic engagement
• Greater awareness of corruption and governance issues
• A stronger public demand for accountability

These are not trivial achievements. They represent progress in norms, even if the outcomes still fall short.

---

Persistent Gaps: Where Accountability Still Fails

Yet the gaps remain profound:

• Accountability is often symbolic rather than structural
• Leadership is rarely held to the same standards as ordinary citizens
• Punishment is sometimes inherited rather than proven
• The national interest is too often redefined to justify failure

---

Filling the Missing Piece: Accountability as Stewardship

What is missing from our accountability framework is a conception of leadership as stewardship. Leaders are not merely decision-makers; they are custodians of institutions, resources, and public trust across generations. Accountability, therefore, should not end with jail time or pardons. It should include:

• Institutional reforms that ensure long-term standards
• Clear metrics for success and failure
• Transparent decision-making processes
• Consequences that extend beyond the individual to the system

---

Conclusion: We Can Change—But We Must Choose to

The Philippines is not doomed by culture or destiny. It is hindered by repeated failure to enforce standards, and by a public tolerance for excuses.

If we want change, we must stop using “culture” as a scapegoat. We must stop acting as if corruption is inevitable. We must demand accountability and insist that responsibility matters.

The Philippines will not be transformed by hope alone. It will be transformed by decisions—by leaders who are willing to pay the political price for reform, and by citizens who refuse to let them off the hook.

---

Recommendations: Doing This Again—But Better

1. Strengthen Institutions Over Personalities
We need systems that enforce accountability regardless of who is in power—stronger anti-corruption bodies, independent courts, and transparent procurement processes.

2. Incentivize Merit, Penalize Patronage
Civil service reform must be prioritized. Performance-based hiring and promotion, along with strict penalties for nepotism, are non-negotiable.

3. Enforce Laws Uniformly
No one should be above the law. Consistent prosecution of corruption and the removal of political protection are essential.

4. Define National Interest as a Stable Standard
National interest must be anchored in constitutional principles, long-term development goals, and measurable public benefit—not political convenience.

5. Demand Leadership Stewardship
Citizens must insist that leaders are accountable not only for crimes, but for policy failures, institutional decay, and governance disasters.

---

If the Philippines wants to change, it will not be because destiny changed. It will be because we finally stopped accepting excuses—and because we finally insisted that accountability matters.

---