Legacy

There have been several columns both domestic and foreign written about Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew. Many showered him with positive, glowing comments. A few provided a sprinkling of negative observations. But regardless of how one views him — this much of his legacy is certain — his almost fanatical focus to the financial well-being of his country and how he got things done to achieve that objective. A ramshackle backwater resource-less country of two million inhabitants in 1965, dubbed as a “poor little market in a dark corner of Asia” was transformed under his stewardship into an economic powerhouse and an international business hub that is now one of the world’s leading financial lights.  

When I see Singapore now, I think of what the Philippines could have been.  Prime Minister Lee and President Ferdinand Marcos possessed similar skills and intellectual heft. They governed with an authoritarian fist for over 20 years.  Both were trained in the law with Marcos graduating cum laude of his UP Law class (he claims he would have graduated valedictorian if not for the Nalundasan murder case that he had to prepare for) and topping the 1939 bar exam and Lee scoring a rare double first class honors at the University of Cambridge.  They learned valuable lessons dealing in the black market during World War II.  They started leading their independent countries in 1965 (while Lee was elected Prime Minister in 1959, Singapore broke away (or was expelled?) from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965). Both restricted free speech and muzzled the press.  

And to think that the Philippines started with so much more. In 1965, our total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) amounted to $5,784 billion, which is five times more than Singapore’s $974.2 million.  However, given the latter’s smaller population, this translates to a per capita GDP of $516 for Singapore and $189 for the Philippines. In 2014, Singapore’s total GDP grew to a whopping $446 billion while the Philippines amounts to $289 billion. But given that our population is 20 times more than that of Singapore, the latter’s per capita GDP is $ 56,100 which is more than 20 times ours at $2,900.  Similarly, their 2014 unemployment rate is 1.9 percent as compared to our 6.6 percent figure.

Lee eschewed ideology and instead embraced reason and reality. This is almost the opposite approach employed by a leader who also rose to power in 1959 — Fidel Castro. (We all know what the state of Cuba is now.) Lee was not a big fan of democracy and free market capitalism. Rather he encouraged the benefits of a market economy operating within an authoritarian context.  Neither did he believe that the means necessarily justified the ends.  His policies were fairly consistent in preferring the need for economic growth over the protection of human rights. “The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions which are inimical to development.”  His trademark pragmatism was exhibited in the idea that “the ultimate test of the value of a political system is whether it helps the society to establish conditions which improve the standard of living for the majority of its people.”

*  *  *

In his book “From Third World to First” Lee provides instructive insights on the Philippines:

On our workforce: “They had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Many were English-speaking. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own.  Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours.  There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries.”

On the OFW diaspora: “Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education.”

On the country’s potential: “In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed because America had been generous in rehabilitating the country. Something was missing, a gel to hold society together.”

On culture: “It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos who pillaged his country for over 20 years still be considered for a national burial… and his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics.”

On democracy: “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.”

On corruption: “The Philippines has a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges.”

*  *  *

2014 Bar Exams: Congratulations to the new 1,126 lawyers who hurdled the 2014 bar examinations. Special greetings to the six FEU JD-MBA graduates who passed led by Fideliz Diaz who placed 8th. She follows the lead of Atty. Elaine Laceda, MBA and is the second JD-MBA graduate to land in the top ten. Not bad for a program that only started producing graduates in 2008. Next week, let me share my observations on the current bar examination process.

*  *  *

Greetings: Birth anniversary best wishes to co-celebrants hardware taipan Johhny Cobankiat, FEU JD-MBA top student Kaisey Paja, Union Bank lawyer Agnes Zapanta-De Jesus and Bank of Singapore’s Angie So. Heavenly greetings to Heidi Perez.

Nuptial greetings to legal lovebirds Mike Aguinaldo and Naealla Bainto who are tying the knot at the City of Pines this afternoon. Both work with the Office of the President (love born in the corridors of power) although Mike has recently been appointed as the new chair of the Commission on Audit. It would have been a real honor to stand as one of their sponsors but an out of town engagement early the following day would make it difficult for me to attend the Baguio festivities.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]