We Can’t Blame Culture—We Must Demand Accountability
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.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
To the occassional and new visitors, here are links to some related articles:
https://joeam.com/2025/12/20/accountability-in-the-philippines/
https://joeam.com/2025/10/30/two-decades-on-did-get-real-philippines-get-it-right-about-filipino-dysfunction/
Nice vision, Karl. Thanks. It would be great to see your recommendations started in the Maritime field, both public (including defense like Navy/Coast Guard) and mercantile area.
Thanks.
I have somethig lined up about security another on the Afp modernization part 3.
I will get back to you on your request.
Singapore’s success as a global transshipment hub shows that strategic geography alone is not enough; efficient ports, predictable governance, and strong maritime institutions are what turn location into economic advantage. The Philippines, despite having one of the largest coastlines and a vast exclusive economic zone, has struggled to harness its maritime potential due to fragmented port development, weak coordination among maritime agencies, and inconsistent long-term planning. Singapore also demonstrates how effective waste management can coexist with waste exports through strict enforcement and advanced infrastructure, a lesson the Philippines urgently needs as it battles pollution and improper waste disposal. In maritime security, Singapore maintains robust protection without militarization, using integrated technology and strong institutional coordination—an approach the Philippines can emulate by strengthening its Navy, Coast Guard, and maritime monitoring systems. Yet the Philippines has its own strengths to offer the world, particularly its deep seafaring culture and experience in disaster resilience, which provide valuable insights for nations facing climate and coastal challenges.
Governance Without Measurement
The Philippine governance system suffers less from a lack of laws than from a lack of measurement, evaluation, and institutional memory. Legislation is enacted, plans are written, and judicial rules are issued, yet there is no consistent mechanism to ask the most basic question: did any of this work, and at what cost?
Very few laws are subjected to systematic post-enactment review. While fiscal notes, committee reports, and oversight hearings exist, these focus on intent rather than outcomes. Budget audits examine compliance, not effectiveness; development planning tracks programs, not the performance of enabling laws. As a result, policies accumulate without feedback loops, and failure is neither quantified nor corrected.
This problem extends to development planning. Medium- and long-term plans such as the Philippine Development Plan are evaluated in technocratic documents that rarely shape political accountability. The President’s State of the Nation Address, instead of serving as a performance report against agreed national targets, functions as a selective narrative of achievements. When development plans are decoupled from political reporting, planning becomes ceremonial and politics becomes unanchored from evidence.
The justice system reflects the same accountability deficit. Despite rules on case decongestion and time standards, there is no publicly accessible, court-level data showing compliance, resolution rates, or delay patterns. The legal profession itself is statistically opaque: the country does not publish how many lawyers practice in administrative, civil, or criminal law, making rational planning for access to justice impossible. Motions, postponements, and reconsiderations—key drivers of delay—are regulated in theory but rarely measured in practice.
Most troubling is the issue of judicial corruption. When allegations emerge, responsibility for investigation remains largely internal. The judiciary’s constitutional independence, while essential, has evolved into institutional insulation. Unlike infrastructure anomalies that trigger external audits and investigations, judicial misconduct lacks a credible, independent review mechanism capable of restoring public trust without undermining judicial autonomy.
Taken together, these gaps reveal a system that values process over performance and legality over legitimacy. Governance without measurement creates the illusion of order while permitting dysfunction to persist. Until laws, plans, and courts are evaluated through transparent, outcome-based metrics—and until accountability is institutional rather than discretionary—reform will remain rhetorical, not structural.
Karl, no culture is doomed to permanent failure. Failures are distinct to preceding generations to varying degrees of severity and missteps. Everyone has the capability to seize the PRESENT opportunities so that they will not fail in the FUTURE. So in my opinion it is more important to gather the best models of desired behavior in order to be examples for mentors to others in order to try to change repeating negative outcomes by imprinting new behavior onto society. Well, if the present generation somehow fails again, there’s always the next generation that can give a try, so there will be new opportunities to change things.
(Apologies in advance to my elders, if some of my points may seem provocative and irreverent. If I sound provocative and irreverent, it is because I am tired of seeing our country left behind by our neighbors, of seeing the same talking points trotted out.)
Yet, a question is still left—what would compel us to demand accountability?
Before that, a rant on “culture.”
“Should we blame Filipino culture for our poor state?” A perennial question asked by every Filipino generation.
My answer is “no.” Frankly, I think blaming “our culture” (except in very specific circumstances***) is probably the laziest and most counterproductive answer to the question of why we’re poor/underdeveloped/corrupt. It’s an easy, catch-all answer that is harmful in that it breeds nihilistic cynicism (if the root cause is something as vague and massive as “culture,” the problems become impossible to solve, which leads to pessimism and despair—what you, Karl, call “defeatism”) and distracts from more productive perspectives/viewpoints.
I am reminded of one of the points which were brought up in the fascinating discussions of Heydarian. We moan about “Filipino Time,” but what we’ve forgotten is there was once such a thing called “Korean Time.” Yet, nobody mentions “Korean Time” now. What changed? South Korea got rich. Richer nations have a larger middle class who—having food in their belly and roofs over their head—can afford to pay attention to “higher” needs like good manners and civic sense.
Always, always there is that annoying and bothersome thread in Filipino discourse. If only we were “disciplined” like in Japan or Korea! What—I am sorry to say—utterly lazy rubbish thinking. We think “good manners” are the key to national prosperity and success, when in fact it’s the complete opposite! You get a nation, a society that cares about “good manners,” “civic sense,” and yes…that includes “anti-corruption,” WHEN YOU HAVE A NATION THAT IS RICHER AND MORE SUCCESSFUL.
“Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”
PNoy was a good man—but sorry to say, the saying above is a failed paradigm.
“Kung walang mahirap, walang corrupt.” That is the way. Enough endless and (sorry to use such rude language) masturbatory “discussion” about Filipino “culture.” From the way Filipinos talk about “culture” as the be-it-all of national success, you would honestly think Filipinos seriously think that the key to becoming as rich and prosperous as Japan is if we all line up on one side of the escalator when we go to an SM or Ayala Mall.
There is a word for that. Cargo cult. We Filipinos, in thinking that lining up on one side of the escalator in our shopping malls will automatically transmute our poor society into wealthy Japan like alchemist’s good, are no different from folks in Oceania who, after World War Two, thought that you could make the Americans return with their Spam by painting mock airstrips and control towers.
We always concentrate on imitating the most superficial things—lining up on one side of the escalator, for instance—rather than studying the serious trends and policies which made East Asia (and increasingly our Southeast Asian neighbors) prosperous countries. Like industrial policy, developmental states, cheap currencies, export-oriented industrialization, embedded autonomy, etc.
Again, the key to solving a poor culture is simply—get rich. Focus on getting rich as a country and everything else will follow (or become much easier to do). As Deng Xiaoping put it, “Getting rich is glorious…” Or as Bill Clinton so memorably said: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
When a country becomes rich enough, the middle class becomes big enough to demand fancy things like anti-corruption. When a country is poor (like ours), far too many people are hungry or worrying about which roof to shelter under or what jobs are available, to think about such faraway things like “transparency.” Clearly, the solution lies first in making enough people have jobs, full bellies and homes. Once the basic needs of enough people are met, then we can start caring about (and persuading people about) more idealistic things. Democracy. Virtue. Anti-Corruption.
As some public intellectuals—like CuUnjieng, Claudio and Heydarian—have pointed out, the Philippines is not uniquely corrupt. Our neighbors are just as (or more) corrupt than us. Why are they rich, and we’re poor? Clearly, corruption is not the only piece in the puzzle called “Why does the Philippines suck?” Hell, it isn’t even the biggest damn piece—yet that is all our defeatist minds can think about. Corruption. Corruption. Corruption. One of Heydarian’s enlightening discussions gave a term for this myopic focus on corruption: Anti-Corruption Fundamentalism.
Like Christian Fundamentalism. Or Islamic Fundamentalism. Too much of a thing is always bad, bad, bad—period. That includes Anti-Corruption.
—
Now, I haven’t answered the question I pointed out above. “What would compel us to demand accountability?”
Before answering that question, another detour. Notice the three asterisks I placed at the start on the word “circumstances.”
I said above that I think focusing on “culture” as an answer to our nation (or any nation’s) ills is bluntly, lazy and misleading. I explained that the reason for why focusing on “culture” as the answer is counterproductive is because culture is the result of various social, economic and material trends. Or as the Marxists would say, the Superstructure (Culture) is shaped by the foundation of Base (Economy, Material Circumstances). So if you want to fix the Culture (Superstructure)—you fix the Economy (Base).
In short, to fix the culture—get stinking rich.
There is a caveat to my position, though. I believe it is pointless to try to directly “fix” the “Culture,” if by “Culture,” you mean the “Culture” of “All Filipinos.” Because that is too massive for any one person, even an organized group or movement, to fix. You might as well tell a group of people to water a drought-stricken farm field by spitting on it.
“Culture” at the level of “All Filipinos” only changes when you change the overall structure or structural trends that culture is embedded in. Like making a society rich. That is a clear structural change.
Now, if it is pointless to “fix” the Culture of “All Filipinos,” this does not mean that it is pointless to fix the Culture of *some* Filipinos. Cultural Change is necessary and possible—but this is at the level of our Elite. One reason why the Philippines sucks is because the so-called Filipino “Elite” also suck.
If you fix the Culture of the Elite, some of that will cascade downwards.
A corollary point: If you give the Filipino Elite the proper Incentives, some of that will cascade downwards.
On a related point, this is also why things like ideologies matter. They’re a way to incentivize or give coordination frameworks to…elites! And where the elites move, the common folk like you and me will follow.
—
Now, let us go back to question I raised in the beginning. “What would compel us (or our elite) to demand accountability?”
What would compel our leaders to seek “national interest” as you mentioned? What would compel citizens to demand transparency, to demand accountability?
I think the issue with a lot of discourse in Filipino Politics (especially among well-meaning liberals and reformers) is that WE SEE THE WORLD AS IT OUGHT TO BE, NOT AS IT IS. People are not born “good” or wanting to do good. They are “made” good. They are “made” to want to do good.
We have to meet the world where it is. We have to meet people where they are, not what they ought to be.
We must make it in the self-interest of our elite to be moral.
Provisionally, I suggest considering two points.
1. We should remind our weak, cowardly, small-minded elite of the appeal of Glory.
Machiavelli elaborated in his works the concept of “glory.” Why do elites—like princes, kings, and statesmen—do things like win wars or commission great works of art or infrastructure? Glory. A desire to be great, to be perceived as great, to be remembered.
The Filipino Elite must be reminded that they are pathetic worms. All the wealth they steal will amount to nothing in the end. They can’t carry the billions of pesos they have stashed to heaven. But what does last, shall last? Greatness. Wouldn’t a rich Philippines, a prosperous country of modern trains, modern warships, modern factories, be a reminder of a legacy that shall last longer than their lives on earth? Don’t they feel shame when they meet their Vietnamese or Thai counterparts, and see their Vietnamese and Thai counterparts talk about their car factories, their joint ventures with foreign companies, the technologies and techniques they’ve acquired from such, the gleaming cities they’ve built…
Wala ba kayong hiya? If not for us, then for yourselves at least?
Where is your hunger for Glory? Or are you just a petty little dynast in your petty little fourth-class municipality in the province (as you ape the life of a suburban working-class American earning less than eighty thousand dollars in a subdivision in Metro Manila, hundreds of miles away from your supposed constituency)..?
2. We must, as a nation, focus on getting rich at all costs. Everything else follows from there (or at least becomes much easier).
Anti-Corruption. Accountability. National Interest. Big concepts. National Land Use Plan. Naval Modernization. National Industrialization. Blue Economy. So many plans.
I propose One Big Incentive, One Big Goal for the Nation: Get Rich (as a Nation^^^).
In Meiji-Era Japan, the Japanese elite borrowed a phrase from their deep appreciation of Chinese culture. In Japanese: Fukoku Kyohei. “Rich Country, Strong Army.” This phrase encapsulated the spirit which motivated Japan to rapidly catch up to the West in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Deng Xiaoping said “To get rich is glorious.” Why would a communist say this? Because he saw what had happened to the USSR—and wanted China to avoid the same path. To survive, China had no choice but to become rich. And look where China is now. Able to stare down Trump and make him cower.
I propose Getting Rich as a Nation as the One Big Incentive and One Big Goal of the Philippines because it unites everyone’s self-interest in one direction, and touches upon most (if not all) desirable major plans for reforming and improving the country.
We must unite all Filipinos—or more precisely, all our elites—into the singular task of making our country Rich.
^^^The desire to Get Rich must be wedded to Nationalism. We must seek to make the Nation, not just ourselves, Rich. Otherwise, that’s just hustler individualism. Which amounts to nothing, on its own.
Thanks Francis always a pleasure to have you around. I have no objections or violent reactions.
isasabit ko lang po ito rito:
AI Overview
The statement “we must unite all Filipinos” is often criticized not because unity itself is bad, but because in the context of Philippine politics, it is frequently used as a deceptive or superficial slogan that masks deeper, structural issues. It is often seen as a tool for enforcing compliance rather than fostering genuine solidarity
.
Here is what is often considered wrong with that statement:
Instead of a forced, top-down unity, critics often call for solidarity, which respects differences and focuses on accountability, justice, and helping the most vulnerable
I first heard of toxic positivity on WWE nah just kidding it was a show on Netflix.
Hi Francis, welcome back and yes you may be right about getting rich first. Though if one compares the Philippines to for instance South Korea which managed to industrialize inspite of massive corruption in the process of getting there, what gives? Marcos Sr. could have made his cronies into what the Sokor dictatorship made out of chaebols, giving them assignments what sector to industrialize. Joey Nguyen who lived in Sokor might be able to say more about this.
re glory, I have the feeling that Marcos Jr. has one major driving force behind HOW he is ruling now – far better than anyone expected – it is a desire to redeem his surname. He was a young man when his father was sent packing in shame, and I know how proud old school Ilocanos can be.
as to shame towards Vietnam and Thailand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_(2024_Philippine_film) as a what-if scenario is interesting.
it portrays a Philippines never colonized as a prosperous kingdom on a par with Thailand (with one of the daughter of its King married to a Thai prince), but what can I say, blaming colonization is another of the many excuses the Philippines has in store. There is a teleserye sequel to the movie coming this year BTW.
But getting rich as a nation is definitely a good goal, though Filipinos often tend to think too much only of the crowd around them. Sometimes I get the feeling that the new middle class of present-day Metro Manila already think they are in an emerging country when the reality is, as Joey Nguyen never fails to emphasize here, that the overwhelming majority are still in DE classes. In any case your comment has been interesting food for thought, thanks again.
P.S. pahabol one: definitely every group so far that controlled national wealth didn’t want to spread it out among everyone, they wanted THEIR TURN, whether it was the rich Filipinos who had first dibs on the fire sale of former Catholic Church land by the USA in 1904, or Marcos Sr. who painted himself as the fighter against oligarchs but created cronies. Manuel Quezon may have been an exception with his polices of social justice.
P.P.S. pahabol two: the Philippines has squandered its opportunities to wealth several times. I won’t go into the booms of the 1890s and 1930s/1940s because the destruction of wars may have been unavoidable, but Marcos Sr. wasted the wealth earned in the 1960s by such shenanigans as Imelda having PAL flights cancelled because she needed a plane to shop in NYC (allegedly) and after PNoy had nearly paid of the Marcos debts, Duterte is known to have made new ones. Sometimes I wonder if the anger at the death of Ninoy would have been as great if the Philippines hadn’t already been in debt by then, and the party was over for the middle class of then that had lived well during Martial Law. I wonder how the new middle class of today will react once the party is over for them. IF it happens.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION: the Philippines may or may not learn to get out of these patterns. Maybe there is still too little realization of a common destiny.
apparently, common destiny is summat self serving, chinese president xi jin ping, (loved, loved, loved, commodore jay arriela’s carricature of xi jin ping the bully!) promoted community of common destiny in his quest to dominate the world.
anyhow, our destiny is ours, not aligned with xi jin ping’s! who now wants the secretariat of the New High Seas Treaty.
China is demanding an apology from Tarriela and not BBM or DFA or the Abassador
ahem, if I was tarriela, I will do what mel gibson did in the movie braveheart, i.e. turn around and show his pale backside to the british! with tarriela that would be his brown backside, haha!
Haha
Chaebols had existed since the time of Japanese occupation of the Koreas. Syngman Rhee did have some early industrial policy that partnered with chaebols. But yes, the South Korean military dictatorship did worked closely with chaebols on industrial policy. I would not say the dictatorship really “assigned” sectors to chaebols. Rather the military government set industrial policy to move the already nascent South Korean manufacturing into more value-added areas. In tandem with these efforts, also guaranteeing state loans to foreign investors to build confidence in case the South Korean side of business failed (and chaebols did fail, as only less than half of the original chaebols exist today). South Korean policy was and is consistent, unlike in the Philippines where core national policy can drastically ping-pong between 6-year administrations or even 3-year Congressional elections.
P.S. Finally got around to watching the film “The Kingdom.” My thoughts are that the script writers watched “Wakanda” and decided to make a Filipino version of it, but more cheesy and implausible. I guess they totally missed the point of Wakanda and the Black Panther comics, which is not about the futuristic alternative reality with high technology, but rather Black Panther’s main themes are about self-empowerment and a sense of self-confidence that enables one to do greater things. I would note that the world of Black Panther is very much set in the mainstream Marvel Universe. In contrast “The Kingdom” postulates “what if datu-ism had become much more powerful?” The reality is that historical datus were rulers of what basically were neighborhoods (barangays). Not at all surprising that in many places of the Philippines, the barangay captain’s family literally descended from the former datu at the time of Spanish contact. It’s really hard to progress to a better future when a nation as a whole constantly looks back to the past; even harder if that past written in Filipino “history books” was not really true to begin with.
Was their an equivslent of Vibranium in Kingdom, but yes I now see similarities.
In The Kingdom, the superpower of Kalayaan was apparently … rice and fruits? haha.
Haha
It is the same error in misunderstanding scale that I mocked when I called the modern Philippines a national village.
It already starts with the public discourse that is often just chika, but lacking the real-life feedback of actually seeing the people gossiped about and being able to get a reality check on chika in small communities of old. The governance weaknesses are far worse.
Even during (most of) the Spanish period the Philippines was relatively isolated; the Philippines was viewed by the Spanish as being part of the “Ultramar,” literally “beyond the seas,” a backwater trading pitstop very very far away. Before the Spanish conquest outside contact was sporadic, appearing to be mainly through outside (Tamil, Arab, Chinese) traders coming in or Malay princes raiding (and sometimes becoming nativized leaders). So back then it was understandable that the Philippines was simply not exposed enough to learn new ideas.
What confounds me is that increased outside contact started in the late Spanish period, accelerated greatly during the Insular Government and Commonwealth, and certainly in the modern day the Philippines is “connected fully” to the global trade and information network, having access to any idea a Filipino may desire to obtain. The most logical class to be able to utilize new ideas would be the so-called “Elites,” just like most other countries did in the past, but the Philippine version only seem to use new ideas insofar as to make themselves more money or to gain more power. Essentially the Elites are no better than the most uneducated poor sod in terms of gaining and integrating new knowledge. Outside ideas are worn like exterior accoutrements as another way to express class and power. So I’m glad Francis has also seen the parallels to my joke-not-joke of cargo cultism that exist in Philippine society.
It seems that datu-ism also affects even the most educated and wealthy among Filipinos. Sometimes that is expressed in films like “The Kingdom” that to an outsider is an obvious knockoff of Black Panther, in which the setting looks to portray Filipino “greatness” of the barangic system, that was somehow to become a powerful country on a subsistence-level agrarian economy. But what the film misses is that it is another way of adopting outside ideas (e.g. notions of “what is greatness”) as nothing more than accoutrements, like the cargo cultist Filipino cousins of Oceania did previously. Well even most Filipino snacks are knockoffs of American, European, and increasingly Middle Eastern knockoffs of the first two (hehe knockoffs of knockoffs). I just wonder when the Philippines will embrace herself as she is, and adopt new outside ideas in integralist and Filipino contextual form. It may be hard to move that far forward until that happens.
“Again, the key to solving a poor culture is simply—get rich.” – Francis
I’m going to disagree with Francis. 🙂
The above statement by Francis reminds me of a fundamental strategy for the Philippines to be Olympic Gold Medal champion in basketball, something all Filipinos will love. Just SCORE MORE POINTS THAN YOUR OPPONENT IN EVERY GAME!
Sound like a sound strategy? Why not?
It seems to me like it is similar to Francis’ “the solution to being poor is get rich.” If it is not, tell me why not.
Opposing views welcome.
I love that basketball dream of Pinoys.
I wrote Quinito Henson in the 80s of my 80s dream team that could go head to head with Jordan et al hehe
Paras Asaytono Samboy Lim Hector Calma Allan Caidic
He published it with no extra comment
that reminds me of the saying, poverty exist not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich!
it is not that the man who has too little, but the man who craves for more that is poorer.
we may be money poor, but culturally rich! loved, loved, loved our fiestas the atiatihan, the sinulog, pinagbenga, religious festivals like traslacion, dalaw, santacrusan, etc. so glorious, so colorful, so dramatic and fulfilling.
money really is not everything.
“money really is not everything.” – Kasambahay
I am reminded of a scene I liked in the movie The Aviator (Leonardo DiCaprio) is when Howard Hughs is at a meal with the relatives of Katherine Hepburn, and then Mrs. Hepburn says “We don’t care about money here.”
Hughes then responds “That is because you have it. You don’t care about money because you always had it.”
What do you think of that insight, Kasambahay…or anybody?
Absence makes the heart grow fonder….not that one but close enough. You see the value of the ignored once dead lost or gone.
I dont want to be money rich, too much problems.
“I dont want to be money rich, too much problems.” – Kasambahay
Well looks like that is one Filipino vote against Francis’s proposed solution. He proposes that you have to want to be money rich to get rid of corruption. Patay… 😦
ahem, in the 70s, going to study in UP will most likely net one a bullet in the head! not riches. at the time, nur misuari and jose maria sison used to teach in UP, and between them, many students have been radicalized and made communists.
as late as 2020s, there were armed personnel patrolling UP campus when new people’s army were actively recruiting students.
anyhow, the richest people in the philippines were not really graduates of UP. they were mostly from ateneo, de la salle, etc. even current richest man enrique razon is not from UP. though one time richest man, manny villar, is from UP, and has fallen from grace. his business holding have apparently been overly valued to drum up investors. but investors were not fooled.
“anyhow, the richest people in the philippines were not really graduates of UP. they were mostly from ateneo, de la salle, etc. even current richest man enrique razon is not from UP.” – Kasambahay
I think the general thinking is that education and wealth (riches) brings enlightenment. Basing it on my observation, I would say not necessarily.
Let me reply first with an analogy.
There is a poor bum in high school. Wants to get a good job. So he sets a lofty goal—to get into UP at all costs.
Because he wants to get into UP at all costs, he will start to change himself. He will try to use less rude language, more polite language to fit in. He will spend more time in his studies. He will develop better study habits. So on and so forth.
And when he gets into UP and graduates from it—that will make reaching any dreams he has easier.
Similarly, our nation is mediocre and relatively poor. We want to be a stable, safe, prosperous society. So let us set a lofty goal for the Philippines—to be a rich country. Now, I think the issue with my first comment is I was not clear enough what makes a country genuinely rich. Let me define “rich” for countries as having advanced productive capacities. In short, a rich country is an advanced industrial economy. A fully industrialized country. A country like Japan, South Korea, China, America, Germany or France.
(Or in other terms: A country that build things, the really complex and advanced things that our modern society needs to exist. Cars. Airplanes. Turbines. Semiconductors. So on and so forth. A country that builds.)
Because the Philippines now wants to become an advanced industrial economy (or, a “rich” country) at all costs. So the Philippines will start to change itself. It will adopt policies that will foster growth by ensuring stability such as the National Land Use Act. It will adopt policies that maximize its resources such as Blue Economy policies. It will adopt coordinated industrial policies to expand Philippine manufacturing and make it more sophisticated.
And yes, while the trapos will still be corrupt—they will moderate their greed (and prioritize crucial policies such as those described in my paragraph above) as to not kill the golden goose so speak. After all, a rich country means much more loot in absolute terms.
This is part of why I emphasize “getting rich as a nation” (becoming an advanced industrial economy) as the singular goal. Because in “journeying” to that singular goal, we will end up making a lot of necessary reforms along the way. And we will be motivated to stick to those reforms. Less odds of “ningas kugon.” In the same way a poor bum who has resolved to go to UP will end up making drastic changes to his life to succeed, so will our mediocre country end up making substantial reforms to succeed. And this will not be out of altruism or goodness, but of enlightened self-interest. The poor bum wants to get into UP to get nice things. Like a high-paying job and connections to pay for a condo in Makati, Hermes bags and a Ferrari. We want to become a “rich country” (an advanced industrial economy) to get nice things. Like a proper welfare state, high speed rail, and Filipino scientists making breakthroughs at the cutting edge.
Moreover, having a “singular” goal is useful in that it allows us to not be buried by too many plans, too many initiatives. When you input too much data in a computer, won’t it freeze up? What use are all these plans and proposals if we can’t properly absorb them. Setting “Getting Rich as a Nation (Becoming an Advanced Industrial Economy)” as a singular goal is a good way of giving a central “compass direction” (a “magnetic North,” if you will) to guide all our reforms, big and small. Alternatively, you could say “Getting Rich as Nation” is our way of compressing all the thousands of necessary reforms and plans into a manageable “single point of attack.”
We have many Filipinos hustling individually—but what we need is to *collectively* hustle as a nation. Especially in this cruel era of multipolarity where international law and norms increasingly means zilch. We Filipinos need to hustle together, to build national wealth. That wealth is what will allow us to build leverage (like a modern navy) to protect ourselves and our national interest.
—
Another part of why I emphasize “getting rich as a nation” as the singular goal for the Philippines to adopt has to do with one of the observations Karl made in one of his earlier articles.
Karl, in one of these earlier articles, noted about how in the Philippines, we have so many plans. He pointed out that our problem was that of “integration.” He proposed a body to dynamically integrate all these plans and initiatives, like an “operating system” for the country. I think this is promising but not enough as it risks becoming yet another “inter-agency task force” with ten-plus department heads and not much else.
Because at the end of the day, what compels us Filipinos to demand accountability—and what compels Filipino elite to be competent?
What motivates, incentivizes us to actually implement all these laws and reforms we’ve made or about to make?
Let us go back to the analogy of the poor bum who wants to get into UP. Now, maybe he has a mother who is constantly nagging him about his poor grooming, about how he fails to fix his bed, about how he procrastinates and crams in his studies. He tries to listen once in a while, but always reverts back to his usual self as a slob. Ningas kugon, in short. No internal motivation, only external prodding. Sermons.
But if the poor bum has decided that he wants to get into UP because he wants a nice job and connections in order to live a fantastic life, then that poor bum shall start to make changes to his life—and stick to them. He will start grooming himself properly. He will start fixing his bed. He will start developing proper study habits instead of cramming. And he will likely not give up after a few days—he will stick with these habits. NOT ningas kugon. Why? There is INTERNAL motivation—the poor bum realizes it is in his enlightened (long-term, sustainable) self-interest to shape up.
This is why I brought up Machiavelli’s concept of glory in my first comment. Surely, our elite can aspire better than stuffing piles of thousand-peso bills from flood control projects in their basements? Zaldy Co, Portuguese passport and all, cannot bring his fleet of aircraft or the billions in his bank accounts to the afterlife when he finally meets with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. What lasts is glory—building a legacy that lasts. Choosing enlightened self-interest over short-term, animalistic self-interest. Buwaya ba kayo—o tao?
(For a bar topnotcher, Ferdie was a dumb fool, no? Hindi bobo, tanga naman.)
I have said in my first comment that one big issue we liberals and reform-minded folks have is that WE SEE THE WORLD AS IT OUGHT TO BE AND TREAT PEOPLE AS THEY OUGHT TO BE, RATHER THAN SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS AND TREAT PEOPLE AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE.
Sometimes, I feel in becoming “anti-corruption fundamentalists” and in prioritizing combatting corruption above all else, we liberals and reform-minded folks are like that nagging mom in the analogy above. We keep preaching and giving sermons. We fail to recognize or harness the necessary role of self-interest. We expect people (like our elite) to do “good” things because those things are “good” or because that is the “right” way. This is more than a bit naive in my view.
I am against excessive moralism. I against anti-corruption fundamentalism. I understand I may come across as a young brat to those of you with more experience, but it is not that I disregard your experience—on the contrary, I respect it.
If I sound frustrated and hyperbolic, it is frankly because decades—generations—of Filipinos have talked about corruption, have condemned corruption as our gravest problem. And we’re still here, we’re still a mediocre and relatively poor country. We’ve talked about corruption for years, and there’s not much to show for it.
I do not want to wake up, sixty years old, in the 2050s, talking to my niece’s children about how Myanmar has left us behind, how how they should all go immigrate to the Chinese Taipei Special Administrative Region—and how it’s ALL the fault of the corrupt trapos and their corruption.
Let me close by referring to a point made by the Investment Banker Stephen CuUnjieng: absence of corruption is not enough.
Imagine the Philippines completely free of corruption. Will it automatically become like Japan, South Korea or China? CuUnjieng’s point is—NO. 100% Clean Policymakers adopting mediocre or misguided economic policies will still end up with a poor country.
(When it is precisely a country getting richer which has an expanding middle class which can more assertively demand anti-corruption and transparency measures. The most underrated anti-corruption measure is simply a nation getting rich/becoming an advanced industrial economy.)
Corruption is not the be-it-all. This does not mean it’s not important. I’m not saying that. What I am saying is let’s not allow our desire to combat corruption blind us.
Heydarian explains this much better, in his article—I recommend as a must-read. https://opinion.inquirer.net/187759/hundred-years-of-war-on-corruption/amp
Heydarian notes:
>“Both lay and intellectual discourse, Garrido argues, tend to treat corruption as “genetic to Philippine culture or politics” and as a “generic social problem,” which is divorced from the inherent dynamics of state-building and democratization identified by leading thinkers such as Samuel Huntington. The upshot is a dangerous and “intolerant approach,” which Garrido aptly described as anticorruption “fundamentalism.” Never mind that, practically, all of our most successful neighbors, from South Korea to China and Malaysia, have been constantly grappling with massive corruption scandals throughout their high-growth periods.
>“In fact, leading economists such as Yuen Yuen Ang of Johns Hopkins University have spoken of “corrupt meritocracy” as an engine of economic development. This obviously doesn’t make corruption “okay,” but shows that there are many forms of corruption (e.g., “access,” ”petty,” “speed,” “grand theft”)— and, crucially, the Philippines is NOT singularly corrupt but just another struggling and modernizing post-colonial state.”
Let us move from “Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap” to “Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt.”
—
I strongly recommend that people pay more attention to the discourse currently being made by the likes of Richard Heydarian, Leloy Claudio and Stephen CuUjieng.
Alas, there is not yet a label to describe the paradigm shift they are bringing to Filipino Liberalism. Suffice to say, one can argue their views can be summed up as contending that a shift from “Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap” to “Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt” is necessary for Filipino Liberalism to become both an electoral success and to substantially improve the country as a whole.
Besides the article above, I recommend watching the videos containing the discussion Heydarian talks about with Garrido and Claudio, regarding anti-corruption fundamentalism:
A shorter 45 min excerpt:
(The full 1 hr and 27 min: https://youtu.be/HExHvzsZDr4?si=Fx6XPG07FRFdAcUz)
Stephen CuUjieng on corruption and lazy economic thinking: https://youtu.be/fkr6hotX9eI?si=dBx32iJaGFzNEQu3
I edited the part and deleted the succeeding clarificatory comments.
Francis check this out.
The debate is not whether corruption exists in rich societies—it does, and often in more sophisticated forms—but whether it becomes a mass, politically immune system; poverty creates the conditions where corruption is the default mechanism for survival and access, embedding patronage, bribery, and criminal intermediaries into everyday life, making anti-corruption moralism ineffective and electoral reform impossible, while wealth shifts corruption into elite rent-seeking that is harder to normalize because institutions, civil society, and economic independence can contest it; strongmen can still create impunity anywhere, but in richer states impunity is more fragile and costly because institutional constraints are stronger, whereas in poor states impunity becomes self-reinforcing as the regime substitutes patronage for weak institutions and the populace depends on it for basic needs—so “Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt” is not a naïve promise of purity but a structural claim that prosperity, paired with institutional capacity, strips corruption of its mass base, moral cover, and political immunity, even if it does not eliminate all wrongdoing.
*“Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt” is not a naïve promise of purity but a structural claim that prosperity, paired with institutional capacity, strips corruption of its mass base, moral cover, and political immunity, even if it does not eliminate all wrongdoing.* – Karl G.
You have added to the “Kung Walang Mahirap” which is not in Francis’ original statement. You added “paired with institutional capacity.” That is the detail that the devil is in. How do you build institutional capacity….by simply deciding to be rich? I submit that it doesn’t work that way.
A lot of our politicians are “hindi mahirap.” So they are not corrupt? No way. They are corrupt and the choose to be corrupt.
Thank you, Karl.
This is a good way to sum up some of the points I raised.
Welcome.
One more.
The claim “Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt” is not a naïve promise that prosperity eradicates corruption. It is a strategic statement: that reducing poverty and strengthening institutions is the only way to shift corruption from a structural system into a criminal exception. In poor societies, corruption is not just illegal; it is social and political; in rich societies, it is more likely to be illegal and contested.However, the argument has limits and risks that deserve scrutiny.First, it risks economic determinism. While poverty increases corruption’s mass base, it does not automatically guarantee that wealth will reduce it. Wealth without institutional reform can simply produce elite corruption. A richer nation can still be politically captured, especially under strongmen who control the judiciary and bureaucracy. Wealth makes impunity harder, but not impossible.Second, it underestimates the role of culture and political choices. Even in poor societies, countries with stronger norms of accountability, a professional civil service, and a tradition of civic activism can resist corruption more effectively. Conversely, some wealthy societies have historically tolerated oligarchic corruption because their institutions are weak or co-opted.Third, it risks implying that corruption is a natural consequence of poverty, which can inadvertently absolve political leaders of responsibility. Poverty is not a destiny; it is often the result of policy choices, elite capture, and historical injustice. The argument must therefore be paired with the recognition that corruption is also a policy outcome, not just a survival response.
“I am against excessive moralism.” I’ve not heard that expressed so well. We lecture others as if they had lives just like ours, and we don’t ourselves live up to the standards we set for them. Good and bad are fluid and not finite.
My personal guiding motto is:
“Don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.”
The aim is to get closer to perfection by banking many individual small wins. If it was easy to completely remake any given system into a perfect one that will last for all time, it would’ve been done already at every instance in the past.
The US Founders understood this, which is why the US Constitution and its Amendments are so succinct in words. From the Preamble of the US Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We the People” is often quoted by American so-called “Constitutional Conservatives” to justify positions of extreme individuality. But it is actually the following “in order to form a more perfect Union” phrase and the required components of that “perfect Union” that are more important. Note that the US Constitution’s Preamble does not say “a perfect Union,” it says “a MORE PERFECT Union,” suggesting that the process by which to obtain perfection is never achievable due to human nature, but nonetheless should be an ongoing process of progression.
Comparatively the 1987 Philippines Constitution goes to great length to spell out numerous areas, set hard goals on what constitutes perfection, and thus may ironically provide a great limiter on its own use as a document for progress as it can be seen as an “all or nothing” aspiration.
we filipinos dont get too hang up on our constitution. the supreme courts is the final arbiter of our constitution. the court interpret with finality all that is to be interpreted therein, and what the court says, goes.
“the court interpret with finality all that is to be interpreted therein, and what the court says, goes.” – Kasambahay
I believe that is the way it is here in the US too. I totally disagree with the the SC’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, Right to Bear Arms. But their interpretation holds.
Of course this is right too.
many of us here already know who Heydarian is and where he is coming from – he always has been known for mocking classic dilawan. Now I can’t be a classic dilawan at all as I already had left the Philippines by 1982, but I know where they are coming from with what is mocked as “anti-corruption fundamentalism”. Most of the middle class of the 1970s were acquiescent to Marcos Sr., enjoying life in their bell-bottom pants, Bujiwara kulot haircuts and aviator glasses.
They may have had an inkling of Marcos Sr. corruption but they thought at least they would always be part of the party, which economically ended in 1982 and politically ended when Ninoy was killed in 1983. Many of them became dilawan then, and I do compare their extreme anti-corruption with the extreme anti-war attitude of the German peace movement after WW2. An extreme reaction to something that had been tolerated or at least accepted before.
As for making the entire country wealthy (let us use that word instead of rich) the only President who might have tried that is Quezon. Corny interpretation: of course because he was in charge of the Commonwealth so he wanted the wealth to be common. The main hope is that the present middle class is probably a larger percentage of the population than what it was in the 1970s. I don’t think that polemics like anti-corruption fundamentalism are helpful to politically mock a certain (older) group of liberals, but maybe priorities are in order, for instance prioritizing wealth generation by industrialization. Or what kind of rich does the Philippines want: Dubai-style rich which is a house built on literal sand, or Sokor-style wealth which is built on a productive rock.
Commonwealth 2.0. Why not?
A couple of points.
First: Right off the bat, I think it should be made clear that the arguments of Claudio, Heydarian, CuUnjieng, etc. clearly indicate they view Sokor-style wealth (built on productive industries and technologies, nurtured by a proactive state capable of executing effective industrial policy) as their vision of a “rich country.”
Second: Thank you for pointing out the sharp contrast between the acquiescence of the Marcos era middle class and the evolution of the more idealistic among them into the hardcore anti-corruption liberals of today. Your comparison of them to the German peace movement and their extreme anti-war sentiment is also helpful and gave me a good amount of context. I can understand why older liberals have such a deep-rooted emotional disgust for corruption, even if such disgust sucks the air/focus out of other (just as pressing/important, if not more so) factors in national development.
My reply is to consider the following. We shall mark, by this February, the forty-year anniversary of the EDSA Revolution in 1986. The 1987 Constitution was enacted shortly afterwards. To put this into perspective, the collapse of the Third Republic and Declaration of Martial Law by Marcos Senior was less than thirty-five years after the end of World War Two.
Much has changed. Filipino Liberalism needs to evolve, to suit the circumstances of the times. Some of what worked then—or was thought the ideal then—no longer works now, or has been disproven by empirical practice. Filipino Liberalism, in short, must adapt. Or else other, more reactionary forces, shall shape the Filipino nation.
For instance, the global circumstances are very different. 1986 EDSA Revolution took place amidst the decline and eventual collapse of the USSR and the emergence of the US as the unipolar hegemon. Liberalism was so triumphant, you could speak of an “End of History.” It seemed indisputable that the key was liberal democracy, free markets—the more liberal the democracy, the freer the markets, the better.
Filipino Liberalism now faces the challenge of reinvention, amid drastically different global circumstances. Trump’s America is cheerfully dismantling the liberal institutional order. The West appears as sickly as the Ottomans, while China—proudly illiberal—has beaten them at their own game with “market socialism,” a powerful and dynamic mixture of continent-sized markets, experimentation and competition fueled by Chinese-style decentralization and pragmatic state intervention. Being more liberal does not look as appealing. Having free markets at all costs (ala Washington Consensus) has been shown to be no ticket to lasting success.
And that’s just one example of how global circumstances then and now have changed since the EDSA Revolution.
But to brings things back to the domestic front, I think it is worth noting that we have reached the limits of “EDSA Liberalism” or the “Liberalism of 1986.” What one might also call “Anti-Corruption Liberalism” (embodied by the slogan: “Kung Walang Kurap, Walang Mahirap”) has proven to be no longer viable in the current era, as recent elections have shown.
Duterte won overwhelmingly in 2016. “Kung Walang Kurap, Walang Mahirap” did not win in 2019. What made us win in 2025. The Liberal Opposition itself implicitly shifted to bread and butter issues over the liberal middle class staples of democracy and anti-corruption. Bam doubled-down on education. Kiko laser-focused on agriculture. They were rewarded with an overwhelming mandate in the Senate, placing high in the Top Ten in 2025.
I think that is clear proof that “Kung Walang Mahirap, Walang Corrupt” is more viable approach than “Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap.”
Maybe, a paradigm shift is long overdue for Filipino Liberalism.
Third: I would dispute calling the term “anti-corruption fundamentalism” as polemic. It describes sentiments, circumstances which unfortunately exist among some who identify as reformist or liberal Filipinos. How else can one describe a situation wherein people are lambasted as supporting or condoning corruption when said people are only pointing out that perhaps other factors may be more important in national development than corruption, even if corruption is a genuinely awful thing. This has actually happened recently to a DLSU professor when he released a paper.
I think “anti-corruption fundamentalism” is a valid concept especially when anti-corruption rhetoric, while not necessarily bad, becomes so emphasized that it “drowns out” everything else.
Again, “Otso Diretso” (Straight Eight) lost in 2019. Kiko-Bam won in 2025 by focusing heavily on agri-eduk. The SWS surveys repeatedly show that most Filipinos care about is jobs, food, inflation.
I would like to again emphasize the words of Stephen CuUjieng. Now I precisely recall them, unlike in the first comment.
“Absence of malice is not virtue.”
Again, “absence of malice is not virtue.” You can have the cleanest politicians, the cleanest technocrats, all with the best intentions—and if they have an ineffective (or worse, actively counterproductive) policy, then that nation will not prosper or improve, even if the elite is virtuous.
Corruption is important. I am not saying it is not. But it is not everything. And we miss so much treating corruption as everything.
it definitely does. I was more comfortable supporting Leni Robredo in 2022 as she embodied a more socially conscious liberalism, as opposed to the neoliberal orthodoxy of the 1990s one could feel with older LP members. She still did have the slogan “Gobyernong Tapat, Angat Buhay Lahat” though.
This blog especially Joe America have been called “Marcos loyalists” because some of us are conditionally supportive of Marcos Jr. – I can only speak for myself, but for my part it is because he at least seems to believe in rule of law while Duterte is lawless in spirit, and because Marcos Jr. has competent people like Vince Dizon while Duterte seemed to glorify amateur hour and incompetence. I personally don’t believe in hitting back with similarly loaded polemics though.
Joey Nguyen has also commented a lot on how liberals in the West became too technocratic and forgot to address what the man on the street needs.
Technocratic governance becoming more of an academic justification for policy favoring the wealthy rather than a tool to find balance seems to me to be a large factor in people in the West sliding towards authoritarianism, whether that be to the far-right or the far-left. Though with the horseshoe theory of ideological convergence, who really knows? I long thought that post-War Germany was the most rational of the EU democracies, but even there a large enough segment of the population has turned to the far-right that they start to threaten destabilization. A similar template exists in the UK, France, the US, Canada with analogous movements, with the US probably being the craziest one at the moment.
this was played while I was reading comments while trying to hit my step count
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDBncKw5v_o
We have so many plans, but the implementation the grind is where the action is missing.
I somewhat feel that the laws and the plans are an excuse to not face the hard work of building.
I am in software development and have rescued/upgraded/modernized a lot of government IT systems.
One thing I’ve always noticed is the default of almost all companies I encounter is trash it and start from scratch.
I really hate this because a system that grows over half to more than a decade embodies all the lessons of all the change requests it has survived.
Although I understand that from a purely individual view it is where their incentives point them.
Nobody wants to read the code, nobody wants to understand the reasons for the bottlenecks etc etc.
The political system has 2 polar issues.
01. The bureaucracy is only for its continued existence
02. The politicians most just want to get re elected.
03. The political appointees need to balance what their appointing authority wants to happen and interject their own desires (This is where the corruption or graft enters)
01 favors stasis and nothing happening.
02 favors a manageable polity
03 favors a short term thinking of getting anything that they can get within the 1-3 years they are appointed. (why regulating greed is hardest)
Most of the reforms just really introduce friction and that is why we encourage nothing happening and extortion from the productive people wanting to build and thus playing ball with the extortion being done by 01 02 03
Friction reduces growth. If this was an optimization problem there is an acceptable friction reduction by corruption that allows faster growth.
Personally I think the key is actually concentrating on a specific product that can go live within an admin. So the Provinces should be the breading grounds of what would be the national champion when the provincial block creates a winning presidential coalition. Every Governor should be considered a mini president and we have to go beyond the redistribution games of businesses but the building industries thing.
Hate that I am thinking of multiple things right now that makes it harder to be cohesive.
I may make this a full blown post
**There is a poor bum in high school. Wants to get a good job. So he sets a lofty goal—to get into UP at all costs.
Because he wants to get into UP at all costs, he will start to change himself. He will try to use less rude language, more polite language to fit in. He will spend more time in his studies. He will develop better study habits.** – Francis
A possible weakness in Francis’s analogy – what if UP is not a meritocracy, i.e. it is corrupt and you need to know “the system” to be able to get in? How does the “poor bum” get into UP?
CV, this line of argument is fallacious as it seeks to pick apart the minute detail rather than the merit of the overall analogy in which UP is used as a stand-in simplistic example of a what a lofty goal might be.
“ CV, this line of argument is fallacious as it seeks to pick apart the minute detail rather than the merit of the overall analogy in which UP is used as a stand-in simplistic example of a what a lofty goal might be.” – Joey
So, in Francis’ analogy, the “poor bum” is the Filipino people. Who or what is the UP? Where do the Filipino people go to get what they need to become rich, i.e. the equivalent of a UP college degree?
To their government?
Francis’ analogy is very weak in many areas. I actually just picked one, the UP.
Not picking sides- I know it is hard to be a devil’s advocate critique is interpreted as nitpicking and personal
We do not have to put a disclaimer in all our comments.
Just my additional two cents. Take it or leave it.
Thanks, Karl. I find playing the Devil’s Advocate a productive tool when discussing solutions to a problem.
Welcome!
We had Lance Corporal X before but he over did it and called himself the Chief troll or was it Joe who called him that, no matter, he wore it like a badge. By the way I am the chief librarian and Tanod…do not ask why hehe.
Again, this is a fallacious argument. Your comments are usually a variation of:
1.) Begging the question.
2.) Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (faulty causation).
3.) Appeal to emotion.
Fallacious argumentation is not a form of critical thinking; it is the reverse. I guess this was what was taught in Filipino universities back then.
Fallacious arguments are empty arguments. Empty arguments are not useful arguments. You may be decades removed from the Philippines, but that does not mean you don’t have valuable insight to give. You can listen to others narrate a story of what they have witnessed in the Philippines of today, then think about how what you learned in your professional career and personal life in the US can apply to ideas for making the Philippines better. That would seem more productive to do.
Now here’s something fun.
An 1870s observation from Austrian Filipinologist Ferdinand Blumentritt (and close confidant of José Rizal, translator of Noli and El Fili into German), later translated from the original German into Spanish by contemporary Spanish historian and colonial administrator José Montero y Vidal by which Blumentritt’s observation survives:
“FILÓSOFO EL, Así llaman en las provincias de Filipinas al natural de ellas, que después de haber cursado algunos años académicos en la Universidad de Sto. Tomás, vuelve al pueblo de su nacimiento, dándose importancia de sabio. Visten a la moda de Europa y se miran las botas al andar, etc.” (Montero y Vidal)
I can and have read Montero y Vidal in the original Spanish, but to make it easier I will translate this passage into English as follows:
“THE PHILOSOPHER, This is what people in the provinces of the Philippines call a native of those provinces who, after having studied for several years at the University of Santo Tomas, returns to his hometown, acting as if he were a great scholar. They dress in European fashion and look at their boots as they walk, etc.”
**Again, this is a fallacious argument. Your comments are usually a variation of:
1.) Begging the question.
2.) Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (faulty causation).
3.) Appeal to emotion.** – Joey
Okay…I can see I cannot get any discussion on Francis’ analogy, even from Francis himself. So I’ll drop it.
Let me just close this discussion of the Francis analogy with what Rizal shared with Blumentritt when he heard from him that a former schoolmate of his from his Ateneo Municipal and UST days had passed away. Apparently Don Anacleto del Rosario and he were both brilliant students and often competed against each other in academics. Rizal wrote to Blumentritt of Don Anacleto:
“He was a Catholic, a blind and ardent believer who WOULD NOT QUESTION ANYTHING, whereas I QUESTIONED ALL AND DOUBTED ALL…In the affections of my heart, Don Anacleto stood for my friendships in school, just as you represent my friendships of today in the realm of free inquiry. Your spirit alone, possibly still more tolerant than my own, CAN FOLLOW ME WITHOUT LET IN MY MANNER OF THINKING.”
**I can and have read Montero y Vidal in the original Spanish, but to make it easier I will translate this passage into English as follows:
“THE PHILOSOPHER, This is what people in the provinces of the Philippines call a native of those provinces who, after having studied for several years at the University of Santo Tomas, returns to his hometown, acting as if he were a great scholar. They dress in European fashion and look at their boots as they walk, etc.”** – Joey
Yes, I am familiar with that passage from somewhere in my past. You have advocated for Filipinos in the diaspora to return to the Philippines and teach Filipinos what they learned. Does that make them “philosophers” as Blumentritt describes? I think it was Kasambahay who expressed how he would treat returning Filipinos expressing a desire to teach their kababayans. I don’t recall his exact thoughts, so I will leave it to him to refresh our memories if he catches this.
Not questioning anything is not at all useful. Neither is questioning everything for the sake of argument. Rather one needs to know “how to question” in a way which furthers the understanding (this is what we call “knowledge”).
Back in Ancient Greece there were a band of so-called philosophers who called themselves “Sophists,” who claimed to pursue “sophia” — wisdom. In practice Sophists applied their rhetorical skill to winning arguments at all costs, often with logical fallacies and rhetorical strong-arming, to draw large crowds who donated money to them. Plato famously exposed the Sophists for what they were, preachers of “doxa” — opinion. When challenged Sophists would increase their rhetoric, trying to overpower their debate partner, but with enough poking the arguments of a Sophist quickly fall apart. The Sophists just wrapped their arguments in the appearance of “sophia” rather than truly being students of “episteme” or “philosophy” — knowledge and love of wisdom. The Sophists were a famous ancient example of being a contrarian for constrarianism’s sake.
“Neither is questioning everything for the sake of argument. Rather one needs to know “how to question” in a way which furthers the understanding (this is what we call “knowledge”).” – Joey
I agree, and I’m sure Rizal does to. I think his fifth and last letter to Pastells is a classic in politely ending a discussion that is going nowhere. Here it is:
Rizal’s Letter to Fr. Pablo Pastells
Dapitan, April 4, 1893
Very Rev. Fr. Pablo Pastells, SJ My dear Very Reverend Father:
I hope you will be kind enough to forgive me for the delay in answering you. To the many tasks of sowing and planting, for I am building a house, I have had to add a certain lack of spirit, the result of a slight illness.
I have read your letter carefully, as I have always done with your previous ones. I have also read the work of Mgr. Bougaud which you were kind enough to send me, but I must confess to you that I do not find it as convincing as you would wish. I find in it many things that are very beautiful, many observations that are very true and very profound; but I also find in it many things that are mere assertions, and I see in it the spirit of a partisan and the prejudices of a man who has been brought up in the same ideas from childhood.
I see that we are more or less in the same position: you want to see in me a soul that is lost and I want to see in you a man who is deluded. You find in my words the result of my pride and I find in yours the result of your education.
Regarding the “faith” that you wish me to have: if I do not have it, it is because God has not given it to me, or because I am unable to understand it. I believe that God would not punish me for not understanding Him, provided that I seek to do so with all my heart and with all my strength.
I believe that the “lamp” of reason that God has given to every man is the only one that can guide him in this life. If God had wanted me to see with other eyes, He would have given them to me. I do not want to offend God by disregarding the most precious gift He has given me. I prefer to follow my own reason, even if it is mistaken, rather than follow the reason of others, even if it is correct; because in the first case I am responsible for my own actions, while in the second case I am only a machine.
I thank you, Father, for your interest in my soul. I appreciate your efforts and I am grateful for your prayers. But I believe that it is a useless task to continue this correspondence. We are both standing on different ground and we see things from different points of view. Let us then leave to God the judgment of our actions and our thoughts.
I am, as always, your most affectionate and grateful pupil,
José Rizal
Let me conclude by saying “I agree to disagree.”
You are nitpicking my analogy—which was just that, an analogy. A simple analogy meant to demonstrate that a person or a group, in pursuit of a end-goal (e.g. a “wealthy” nation), may accomplish several intermediate steps (e.g. “reforms”) along the way which would improve that person or group’s condition.
I am no omniscient god, so I cannot offer a perfect analogy that shall be fit for all seasons. An analogy is just an analogy.
Let me try to boil down my argument to the simplest form possible.
My Argument:
– Corruption, while a major problem, is not the most important problem or obstacle to national development.
Following from this,
+ Filipinos seeing corruption as the most important problem has distracted/blinded Filipinos from other problems/obstacles to national development just as (if not more) important.
+ We should focus on boosting national wealth (“rich nation”) because that is more crucial to national development and will make solving the problem of corruption easier (e.g. a larger middle class can demand more accountability).
You said in an earlier reply: “‘You added “paired with institutional capacity.’ That is the detail that the devil is in. How do you build institutional capacity….by simply deciding to be rich?”
Because if a national elite (look to Japan or China) decides to “get rich,” then they will build the necessary institutional capacity to get there and they will, to an extent, moderate or redirect their greed in a more productive fashion.
—
Our argument boils down to, if I understand things correctly, to what sort of Filipino society we should we working towards.
Your vision is moral, idealistic. Filipino citizens should, moved by their conscience and honor, demand accountability from their elites. Filipino elites should, moved by their own sense of honor and the cry of accountability, abstain completely from self-interest and pursue the common good by acting free of malice or deceit.
I presume you would agree with the argument that “a moral Philippines” will lead to all other problems being solved. “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”
My vision is pragmatic, material. In surveys like SWS, the Filipino people have said what they want. They want to stop being unemployed, hungry and unable to afford food and other basic necessities. In other words, they want jobs, food and low prices instead of inflation. My understanding is that while conscience and honor are important, self-interest can never be truly removed or ignored. Ordinary Filipinos cannot—or shall at least find it hard—to seriously entertain deeper values and ideals if their basic needs are not met. Filipino Elites, right now, are as low as animals—their self-interest is short-sighted and prone to excess.
Thus, my goal is a “wealthy Philippines.” Where Ordinary Filipinos will have their basic needs met, and therefore have the space to think about and support higher morals and ideals. Such as Democracy. Anti-Corruption. Transparency. Where Filipino Elites will not only be better held-accountable by a well-fed middle class, but also be motivated by an enlightened self-interest that sees a “wealthy Philippines” as the key to attaining immortal glory as Machiavelli envisioned the respectable elite of any decent Republic should have. Yes, here, the ordinary and elite Filipinos will also be driven by conscience and honor—but they’ll also be driven by self-interest more aligned with what is honorable.
“Kung walang mahirap, walang corrupt.”
—
If you are not convinced, then consider this hypothetical.
Assume there is a Country called Z. Now, the Country of Z had a perfectly moral elite that did not at all steal a single coin from their treasury. No corruption was present in the Country of Z. Yet, the Country of Z implemented misguided or ineffective economic policy. Therefore, the people of Country Z stayed poor. Meanwhile, their neighbors, Countries A, B and C—despite having greater corruption—had more well-off citizens. Because Countries A, B and C had implemented more effective economic policy.
Now, if you question that this is just an imperfect hypothetical. Consider that our neighbors are on the same level of corruption as us. Our Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in 2024 was 33. Thailand was 34. Indonesia was 37. Vietnam was 40. Yet, in 2024, the GDP Per Capita of the Philippines was only 3,984 USD—while Vietnam had a GDP Per Capita of 4,717 USD, Indonesia had a GDP Per Capita of 4,925 USD and Thailand had a GDP Per Capita of 7,346 USD. Meanwhile, if you look at the number of manufacturing firms per million citizens, the Philippines had a pathetic amount near 200, while Indonesia boasted more than 14,000, Malaysia more than 1,400, Vietnam near 1,400 and Thailand a 1,000.
Maybe the reason why our neighbors are surpassing us—becoming richer than us, with more well-off citizens—isn’t that they’re less corrupt, but that they have better economic policies to foster development. Such as industrial policy. See this paper comparing some of our economic policies to equivalents in our neighbors as an example: https://cids.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Institutional-Design-for-Industrial-Transformation_Lessons-from-Regional-Peers-and-the-Tatak-Pinoy-Act.pdf
Consider also the research of Yuen Ang, who pointed out that the “much-admired” countries of Europe, America—and China now—all experienced tremendous corruption during their golden years of rapid economic growth. Yuen Ang, in her research, came to also observe that corruption was not a monolithic thing—there were types of corruption, and some forms of corruption was less bad (and in fact beneficial to economic growth) and other forms of corruption were truly negative. See a summary of her research regarding corruption here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4900296
What I am trying to say here is NOT that corruption is irrelevant or doesn’t matter. What I am saying is corruption is an important issue, but it is not the most important issue—especially when it comes to national development. And that an excessive focus on corruption (“anti-corruption fundamentalism”) is bad, in that it drowns out the space in the public discourse for other issues—such as the need for effective industrial policy, or for funding research and development, etc.
—
If you still disagree, then I shall just agree to disagree. My thanks for this fruitful mental exercise. I have learned much. I hope you—and those watching—have as well. Again, my thanks.
Moments like this make this blog feel like an oasis.
—
I will conclude by going off-tangent, to ramble in an dramatically oversimplified and exaggerated fashion, the tale of Qing China.
China was once far richer than Europe, with arts and philosophy that exceeded Europe. But inch by inch, then mile by mile—Europe overtook China, and humiliated it even (e.g. Opium Wars).
Now, in the beginning, the proud mandarin intellectuals of Qing China called, as a solution, for the Chinese to remember their morals as Confucius taught them. If they could follow the way that they were taught to follow for centuries past, if they could stay purely moral, China will prosper. As for the “Western innovations,” bah.
Well, after some humiliations, the intellectuals of Qing China started to take these “Western innovations” more seriously. Even culminated in a movement of sorts. The Self-Strengthening Movement. Alas, unlike the Meiji Revolution, it…didn’t take.
I wonder, in this frightening multi-polar world, of cruel and merciless great powers, whether our efforts at reform shall end like Qing China or Meiji Japan. I wonder. I wonder.
A national morality does not operate in a closed system.
Quite enlightening indeed. Thanks Francis.
Thanks for this framcis
Thanks for your post, Francis.
“I am no omniscient god, so I cannot offer a perfect analogy that shall be fit for all seasons. An analogy is just an analogy.” – Francis
Of course, and I don’t think there is such a thing as a perfect analogy. I believe, however, that there is such a thing as a wrong analogy, i.e. there can be so many imperfections that it just makes the analogy.
I love the saying “Iron sharpens iron.” Thus, when someone like me comes up with challenges to your convictions, I believe you can use them to sharpen your arguments in defense of your convictions. If all you get is positive feedback, whether sincere or not, you don’t get much of a chance to sharpen your convictions.
You said a lot in your post, and I have opinions on a lot of what you said. I’ll hold off on them for now pending some feedback from you on this issue of “Iron sharpens iron.” You may not see it the way I do and would prefer I say nothing.
hehe, the modern Pilipino word “pilosopo” describes an intellectually pretentious sophist, not a true philosopher. An intellectually one-eyed man who tries to be king among the intellectually blind, who is able to out-talk them, but even they feel that something doesn’t feel right.
A lot of Filipino public discourse is PILOSOPO, including Senate people trying to say forthwith does not mean immediately, or Erap actually wasting the time of the Supreme Court by claiming he did not resign, just step down. Filipino public intellectuals often play this game of smoke and mirrors and it is tiring, even Heydarian tends to play it at times, and I am not always sure if he is not pushing somebody’s political agenda, low-key, or just clout-chasing.
RE the point that the Philippines sometimes over does going against corruption, I would see the following possible useful takeaways BTW, instead of vaguely speaking of anti-corruption fundamentalists which is just polemics:
– MLQ3 has mentioned in a lot of Tweets and articles how the Philippine system (especially procurement) is so hogtied to prevent corruption but only manages to make things slower while the experts. What Karl has mentioned about focusing on RESULTS (monitoring if projects actually get done) would be better. Streamline processes, maybe even with a slight risk of corruption, but make sure STUFF GETS DONE.
– The system that moves all money to the central authorities first and redistributes it to the archipelago is potentially leaky in some many places, I wonder how much decentralization and regional civic society can make more of an impact in keeping stuff under control.
– Marcos Sr. still seems an example of how MASSIVE corruption plunged the Philippines from being richer than Sokor to way behind nowadays.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered that the penchant for pilosopo actually may be related to displays of power among young men in the datu system, but without blows or bloodshed aside from possible hurt feelings. Having the “last word” is important to a pilosopo, as having the last word makes the pilosopo feel like he has won even if his opponent just got tired and wandered off. I’m sure debate and rhetoric is taught in the Big Four, but I’ve never met a Philippine-educated person who is good at debate as they are always tempted to go for fallacious argumentation (and the last time I engaged in formal debate was in my university years).
Aside: In the Blumentritt observation there may be something most people miss, which is “look at their boots as they walk,” implying those Indio dandies were what we call in the US “all hat no cattle.” Pretentious social climbers who pursue something outside of their means to ape what they think brings social favor, while completely misunderstanding the point of European riding boots.
To go with Heydarian again, sometimes he has good points, but mostly he seems to be chasing multiple ideas with no consistency. Pick the best seeming idea and stick with it, until it becomes clear that idea was bad. Heydarian has never had a “practical” job; his jobs have always been as an opinion-giver. But I do wonder, how much is an opinion worth if that opinion is not backed up by experience? I would trust a lesser educated person with valid life experience that is able to be transferred horizontally or vertically over someone whose whole career has been as a professional opiner. Maybe people like Heydarian are the best intellectuals that the Philippines can produce at the moment…
Re MLQ III: A more complicated bureaucratic process, even one well-intentioned to stamp out corruption, in practice makes the system more opaque. A perfect environment for *increased* corruption to exist in. The result is the opposite of the intention. At that point a logical person would start rethinking his methods…
Re Philippine system of tax distribution: Here in the US the income tax system is bifurcated between states and federal authorities, while property tax and VAT are localized. In an ideal American tax system more wealthy states would be helping less wealthy states make up for shortfalls in tax revenues needed for local needs. My state of California is a huge “donor state,” which involuntarily is forced to massively subsdize “taker states” (i.e. “red states”) as the state and local authorities of taker states run things badly. Unsurprisingly the top 10 states with the highest occurance of public corruption are those very “taker states” as their elected officials have little incentive to develop their own state and municipal economies.
Re Marcos Sr.: I would not assign blame to Marcos Sr. and his cronies alone. They were supported by a cabal of influencial local families who faciliated the corruption. Many of those influencial Marcos Sr. era families became “new dynasties” in the Fifth Republic. But as to the Philippines being “richer” than South Korea in the 1960s, the Philippines was not suffering under massive war destruction like South Korea was during that time. I do think too few Filipinos recognize that successive governments preceding the Marcos Sr. era and going throughout the Martial Law period squandered the help the US and private American companies gave the Philippines to live large until living large wasn’t possible anymore. “One day millionaire” behavior. In contrast South Korea used the help they got to bootstrap an industrial economy and are now a global economic powerhouse exporting their products and culture all around the world. Of course South Korea was also informed by thousands of years of organized government unlike the Philippines which was a collection of barangays… but such excuses ring hollow in the present day with so many educated people of Filipino descent around the world who have the experience needed to make up for lack of history and institutions.
“I wonder if anyone has ever considered that the penchant for pilosopo actually may be related to displays of power among young men in the datu system, but without blows or bloodshed aside from possible hurt feelings.” – Joey
I believe labeling the other party in a debate “pilosopo” is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Amen?
No, because an line of argumentation that sticks with the ideas is not “ad hominem.”
**No, because an line of argumentation that sticks with the ideas is not “ad hominem.”** – Joey
I see…so your were calling the argument “pilosopo” not the person presenting the argument. Thanks for clarifying.
It probably is. And being unable to retort can mean having lost, like Eminem lost the rap battle in the first showdown of “8 Mile”.
Mar Roxas definitely lost in the eyes of many the debate exchange where Duterte (in)famously called him “bayot” if he was unable to kill as a President.
one of the most infamous incidents in Philippine politics was when Daniel Tirona of Cavite asked Bonifacio if he had the education to hold a position.
that was when the otherwise rhetorically skilled Bonifacio blew his fuse and drew a pistol.
that reminds me of 19th century pictures of the Sultanate of Sulu, where the Sultans wore Western leather shoes as a sign of wealth.
Dr. Mahar Lagmay of the Project NOAH flood control projects didn’t just study in England for a while.
His time in Europe had him going places as well – I know because we ran into each other in our 20s.
He has been outside the usual Pinoy bubbles, even as we are both by origin “UP nepo babies”.
what I think made Rizal who he was was that he didn’t only hang out with ilustrado circles in Spain.
being short of money in Berlin in winter also shaped him, also freezing as one can over here.
the Philippines of TODAY might be walking into the same trap again. YOLO.
As the book about Bikol during the abaca boom is titled: “Prosperity without Progress”.
The Philippines is a country that loves a good story.
We love the story of the underdog.
We love the story of the reformer.
We love the story of the hero who “sacrifices for the nation.”
But we do not love the story of measurable results.
We are comfortable with rhetoric because it allows us to avoid the uncomfortable truth:
our governance is still driven by narrative and discretion instead of auditable, performance-based evidence.
This is not a moral failing alone. It is a structural problem. And until we fix it, “getting rich as a nation” will remain a dream — not a strategy.
The problem is not ambition. It is accountability.
When leaders call for “getting rich,” they often frame it as a moral imperative or a patriotic mission. But the question we should be asking is not why we should get rich — it is how we intend to get there.
If the answer is only “growth,” “investment,” and “national pride,” then we have already lost. Because growth without accountability is merely a rearrangement of wealth.
What we need is a governance system that produces measurable outcomes. And this is where the Philippines continues to fall short.
What should exist — and what does not
In functioning democracies, laws and policies are not treated as sacred objects. They are treated as experiments that must be measured.
Every major law should undergo:
Implementation review (did it produce the intended outputs and outcomes?)
Budget utilization analysis (did the money go where it was supposed to go?)
Responsiveness assessment (did it solve the problem it claimed to address?)
This is standard practice in OECD countries through Regulatory Impact Assessment and ex-post evaluation.
In the Philippines, the reality is starkly different.
Most laws are never evaluated ex-post. When they are, evaluations are fragmented, ad hoc, and often driven by external donors or academics. COA audits focus on compliance, not outcomes.
Even landmark laws — anti-corruption measures, education reform, agricultural modernization — can go decades without a formal outcome evaluation.
In other words, legislation is treated as a political endpoint, not a policy experiment that must be measured and improved.
The tragedy of “political theater”
Our major national plans, like the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and AmBisyon Natin 2040, are largely aspirational. They are not binding in the way they should be.
Why?
Because our institutions do not demand it.
The State of the Nation Address (SONA) is a political performance, not a performance report. The President is not required to report progress against long-term targets, KPIs, or inter-agency underperformance. Annual budgets remain incremental instead of results-based.
The SONA reports activities, not outcomes. And that is a structural flaw.
The justice system: a governance sector without a dashboard
This is where the problem becomes personal for ordinary Filipinos.
We do not have a public, regularly updated dashboard of judicial performance.
We lack:
clearance rates by court
backlog reduction metrics
average case age
delay penalties and enforcement
data on motions for reconsideration
transparency on case resolution with finality
The justice system is managed without measurable outcomes — something unthinkable in finance, logistics, or infrastructure.
And because the judiciary largely investigates itself, the public perception of impunity is not only persistent — it is rational.
The solution is not more slogans. It is better governance design.
If we want to get rich as a nation, we must first build a state that can produce measurable results.
That requires:
Every major law should be reviewed after implementation, with published outcomes and a timeline for amendments.
Budgets should be tied to outcomes, not to political patronage or incremental increases.
A publicly accessible platform that tracks progress on:
infrastructure delivery
education outcomes
healthcare performance
judicial efficiency
anti-corruption metrics
Not just COA audits, but independent evaluations and enforceable penalties for non-performance.
What “getting rich” truly means
We should not mistake wealth for success.
The Philippines does not need more slogans. We need institutions that can be measured and held accountable.
Because wealth is not an outcome of desire. It is an outcome of systems that work.
And right now, our systems are still operating under narrative governance — not evidence governance.
If we want to become a rich nation, we must first become a nation that can measure its progress.
To my friends here who reminds me time and agsin of my AI usage.
Reminder: GIGO
Can AI produce an output like this on its own?
A true “get rich” guru cannot teach the Philippines a magic formula to instant wealth. The country’s challenge is not a lack of ambition, but a lack of a system that turns ambition into sustainable income and long-term wealth. If a guru could truly teach the entire nation to get rich, the lesson would not be a catchy slogan or a secret trick. It would be a practical framework: financial literacy, skill-building, entrepreneurship, and disciplined investing.
First, financial literacy is the foundation. Most Filipinos know how to earn money, but few know how to manage it. A national program based on budgeting, debt management, and savings could immediately improve household stability. When families understand how interest works, why inflation erodes savings, and how to avoid predatory lending, they stop losing wealth to bad financial choices. This alone would strengthen millions of households and reduce poverty in measurable ways.
Second, a real path to wealth is through skills that generate high income. The Philippines has a young, energetic population, but many are trained for low-wage jobs. If the country shifted toward building in-demand skills—such as technology, digital services, advanced trades, and modern logistics—Filipinos could earn more without leaving the country. This would also help the economy transition from labor export dependence to domestic innovation and production.
Third, entrepreneurship must become a national culture. The Philippines has countless small businesses, yet many fail because they lack training in marketing, pricing, and financial planning. A guru’s lesson would be to teach how to build scalable businesses, not just small stalls. The goal would be to create companies that generate employment, produce goods, and compete internationally.
Finally, investing should become a standard practice, not a privilege for the wealthy. Teaching people how to invest in diversified assets—stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and businesses—would allow wealth to grow over time. The nation needs a shift from saving as a habit to investing as a strategy.
In short, a “get rich” guru can teach the Philippines that wealth is not a shortcut, but a system. When financial education, skill development, entrepreneurship, and disciplined investing become widespread, the nation will not just become richer; it will become truly prosperous.
Integrated Spatial Planning (ISP) is vital for protecting the livelihoods of farmers and fisherfolk in the Philippines. To ensure success, these communities must be informed and empowered. How to Inform Farmers and Fisherfolk
Awareness should start locally. Many rural areas lack reliable internet, so information must be delivered through accessible methods:
Barangay Meetings: Use simple language to explain zoning and planning maps.
Local Radio: Discuss relevant updates and decisions.
Community Boards: Display clear information in public places.
Text Alerts: Notify residents of consultations.
Drives by LGUs: Organize information sessions.
Communication should be straightforward, avoiding complex jargon. Participation After Being Informed
Informed communities can take action:
Engage in Consultations: Ask questions and voice concerns.
Join Organizations: Strengthen collective advocacy.
Provide Feedback: Submit proposals to councils.
Monitor Compliance: Report violations of zoning rules.
Participate in Monitoring: Help oversee protected areas.
True Empowerment
Empowerment entails influencing decisions through:
Legal Recognition: Ensure farmers’ groups have a voice in planning bodies.
Training: Provide education on rights and environmental protection.
Access to Support: Offer legal and technical assistance from NGOs and government.
Transparent Tools: Use mapping tools for community-based management.
Conclusion: Empowerment Means Participation
ISP works only when it includes the affected communities. Empowered farmers and fisherfolk can advocate for plans that protect their livelihoods and promote sustainable development.
Fareed Zakaria argues that the 20th-century model of manufacturing-led development has given way to a service-driven global economy centered on technology, finance, and knowledge work, a shift that poses both an opportunity and a challenge for the Philippines. While the country already excels in services through its world-class BPO sector, young English-speaking workforce, and global diaspora, this growth has not resolved entrenched poverty among farmers, fishermen, and the urban homeless. Government programs in agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, and skills training exist, but they remain fragmented and insufficient to transform rural and coastal livelihoods. The real opportunity lies in linking service-led growth to the country’s natural strengths through blue and green industries—sustainable fisheries, marine tourism, renewable energy, ecosystem restoration, and digital platforms that connect producers to markets. These sectors are not peripheral environmental projects but high-value, service-intensive engines of inclusive growth that can generate jobs, protect ecosystems, and reduce inequality. Zakaria is right that services must dominate, but for the Philippines, success depends on building a service economy that is people-led and planet-led, connecting land and sea to technology and markets, so growth lifts the many rather than enriching only the urban few.
I usually am upbeat and something possesed me to write a whole article saying that and you are correct of course. Try and try until you success ika nga nila.
How can the next gen uplift us if symptoms persist.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2169482/pinoy-pupils-skills-continue-to-decline
The Philippines excels at planning, legislating, and narrating progress, but consistently fails to measure whether governance actually works. The State of the Nation Address (SONA), instead of serving as a rigorous performance report tied to long-term national goals like the Philippine Development Plan, remains a political narrative built on selective statistics that count activity rather than outcomes. Laws are passed without systematic post-legislative evaluation, development plans exist without political accountability, and oversight mechanisms—such as the “zero budget threat”—function more as theatrical intimidation than evidence-based performance control. This deficit extends to the judiciary, where delays, capacity gaps, and even corruption allegations persist amid opacity and self-policing, leaving the public unable to assess institutional effectiveness. The result is a governance system that rewards appearances over results, speeches over metrics, and fear over learning. Until the SONA is transformed from performance art into a transparent, outcome-driven report card, the country will continue to govern by narrative rather than reality—and perform rather than progress.
Out of topic.
It seems that a President VP impeachment will happen. With the Senate President benefiting from this, I guess he would not delay this, unless he wants suspense.
Oh boy.
We will see.
I agree
Karl, I was re-reading your article. It occurred to me that Filipinos need to demand accountability from themselves too, not just leadership. Until we are prepared to do that, we will not be able to demand accountability from leadership. Also, up to this point, reform is optional. Philippines, though maybe economically last in the region, is not a failed state, unlike perhaps Venezuela. Just my morning thoughts.
To put things in another perspective that condenses the premise:
Humans are rational creatures and corruption is often mistaken as irrational — it is not. In a system such as the Philippine one, corruption is *entirely rational* and I think “elites” may be surprised that much of the anger of the DE towards corruption is in fact more along the lines of “I didn’t get any of that money.” As corruption cannot be fully stamped out even in the most overall honest of countries, people can also tolerate corruption up to a certain degree as long as they see the benefits they get from society as fair. An example here is China is a massively corrupt country run by a one party system of kleptocratic cadres, yet the Chinese people tolerate it insofar as they perceive their own economic situation is getting better generation-over-generation — that is the social contract offered by the CCP and accepted by the Chinese people.
Now humans are also capable of abstraction within a structure so along that line of abstraction, “accountability” is an expression of a constructed system by which one’s own rights and prerogatives are protected from others who might “take our stuff or rights.” When one does not like it very much if another can take his stuff and trample of his rights, he starts to respect the stuff and rights of others.
If one does not have much to protect, one has no impetus to demand accountability. In order to encourage accountability, people need to have increasingly have things important to their person to protect; e.g. personal/family economic advancement, property, access to government services, access to opportunity, etc. The easiest way to start this process is through personal economic advancement, which is why the aforementioned is a common theme in my comments.
“The easiest way to start this process is through personal economic advancement, which is why the aforementioned is a common theme in my comments.” – Joey
I agree. And many in the Philippines who agree have gone overseas for personal economic advancement. It started decades ago initially with the migration of Ilocanos mainly to Hawaii and the rest of the United States. I trust that fits into your common theme.
Does what you said align? Tangentially, barely, but not so much as those who left are no longer affected by the Philippines system for the most part.
Thanks again for the valuable inputs. We may agree dusagree spin a win (70s pinoy game show) but we learn most of the time. Value added much..