MANILA
Sen. Bongbong Marcos makes the ludicrous claim that if his father Ferdinand hadn’t been deposed in 1986, we would now be another Singapore, prosperous and orderly.
Many of us sneered at the young Marcos’ chutzpah, knowing that that possibility had long been made impossible by events. There was no way that turning the Philippines into another Singapore would be possible today, or in the 1980s.
The world’s eyes were on Singapore recently on the passing of that city-state’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. As Singapore mourned Lee’s death, the world toasted him as a visionary who practically single-handedly led his nation to unprecedented progress, taking its place as one of the Asian economic tigers.
Singapore emerged from a backwater town of less than 2 million people in 1960 to today’s 5.5 million, with a per capita income of more than US$54,000 (a slightly higher amount for the United States). For comparison, the Philippines’ is around $3,300.
Could the Philippines have been another Singapore?
The possibility was there and I think it could have been done. Ferdinand Marcos had the opportunity to be another Lee Kuan Yew, but he blew his chance.
Marcos tried to copy Lee’s success. The circumstances were similar when the two started — unruly politics, undisciplined people, underdeveloped economies.
Actually, Marcos had a good opportunity because the Philippines had abundant natural resources while Singapore had practically none. And the Philippines in the 1950s and 60s already had a fairly educated population (although an already large population would have been a hindrance if there were not enough jobs for them, as today).
Marcos would impose martial law in 1972 in an effort to instill discipline among the populace, with the hope that that would make nationbuilding achievable. Lee installed an iron-fisted government as well.
But their efforts would diverge on key points. Marcos’ iron-hand rule wouldn’t succeed while Lee’s would become the key to Singapore’s progress.
The key differences? Two are notable: While Marcos was able to control the people with the help of the military and the police, he couldn’t control corruption among the people close to him. Lee, on the other hand, was able to impose his will on the Singaporeans, including and especially members of parliament and the bureaucracy.
The other key element in Marcos’ failure and Lee’s success was personal integrity. Marcos and his family lived ostentatiously while Lee and his family lived austerely. Lee and his wife led by example, living simply while the Marcoses lived extravagantly.
Could Marcos have done in the Philippines what Lee Kuan Yew did in Singapore as Bongbong (who’s a senator today) claims his father would have done?
It might have been possible if Marcos had been as clean, upright and determined as Lee in securing the welfare and prosperity of his people. Marcos did have that chance, albeit a daunting one, but, sadly, he blew it.
Lee’s economic model, with its authoritarian element, has been the subject of debate in the Philippines and around the world. Was Lee’s iron hand necessary to achieve economic progress? My personal view is that curtailing people’s rights is always fraught with danger and possible abuse, as proven by how the Filipinos suffered under Marcos and by how the Philippine dictator ended up.
(A personal note: I didn’t like Lee because of his condescending attitude toward Filipinos. But he had a persuasive intellect and strong drive, something missing from Filipinos in positions of power.)
But Bongbong is half-right: the Philippines could have been another Singapore. If only his family and the people around them had set an example as Lee Kuan Yew did.
***