Thoughts after the Singaporean example: A Society bound by Duty and Responsibility?

Thoughts after the Singaporean example: 

A Society bound by Duty and Responsibility?

By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro

The contrast between Singapore and the Philippines is striking, especially when considering the two countries’ histories and economic trajectories. Singapore, a small island nation with limited natural resources, has ascended to the ranks of First World economies. In stark contrast, the Philippines, rich in natural resources, has struggled with widespread poverty, despite its abundance. The key question that arises is: how has Singapore, with a population half that of Metro Manila and no significant natural resources, become so prosperous, while a resource-rich nation like the Philippines still grapples with deep economic inequalities? 

Some attribute Singapore’s remarkable success to the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, who, despite criticisms of his authoritarian rule, is often seen as the architect of the nation’s prosperity. However, a closer examination reveals that the Philippines, too, experienced authoritarian rule under Ferdinand Marcos for two decades, with 14 of those years spent under martial law. Marcos, much like Lee Kuan Yew, wielded considerable dictatorial powers, yet the Philippines saw its economy decline sharply during his rule. The difference, many argue, is not in the form of governance but in the nature of leadership and the personal integrity of the rulers. 

Lee Kuan Yew, with his Cambridge education and profound commitment to his country, had a unique ability to think strategically for the long-term. His vision, honesty, and dedication to the betterment of Singapore stand in stark contrast to the often self-serving leadership in the Philippines, where political leaders have largely prioritized their personal and family interests over national development. This is not to say that democracy itself is the root cause of the Philippines’ struggles. Lee Kuan Yew himself famously remarked, “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.” While discipline is critical, it is not a panacea, as demonstrated by the Philippine experience under martial law. The problem may lie not in the form of governance, but in the absence of visionary leadership dedicated to national service. 

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of Falange Española, once stated, “The strength of a nation lies not in its resources but in the unity of its people, their strength of will, and their ability to work together for a common purpose.” This statement resonates deeply when comparing the development trajectories of Singapore and the Philippines. In Singapore, unity and discipline formed the backbone of the nation’s survival and success, with a leadership that continuously fostered national cohesion. In contrast, the Philippines remains fractured by entrenched oligarchies, social inequality, and political division, making it difficult to unite the nation toward common goals.

Ramiro Ledesma, another Spanish thinker, captured this spirit of national unity and collective purpose when he said, “A nation is not built on the exploitation of individuals, but through the sacrifice of its citizens for the common good.” This ideal is one that Singapore has internalized, making national development a collective effort. Ledesma’s view contrasts sharply with the fragmented, self-serving political landscape of the Philippines, where the elite prioritize personal gain over the welfare of the larger society. 

Going back at Lee Kuan Yew, reflecting on the Philippines’ past, pointed out that in the 1950s and 1960s, the country had the potential to become one of the most successful in Southeast Asia. He noted that, “This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries… Something was missing, a gel to hold society together.” What was missing, he believed, was a unifying force, something that could bind the nation together despite its social divisions. The elites, be it mestizos or indios alike, who were largely disconnected from the masses, failed to create a sense of solidarity with the poor, thus exacerbating the social divide. 

This issue of social inequality is something that economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, the 2023 Nobel Prize winners in economics, have explored in detail. Their research focuses on the interplay between political institutions and economic development. They argue that economic prosperity is not merely the result of geographic advantages or natural resources but is heavily influenced by the nature of governance and the strength of societal institutions. In examining Singapore’s success, Terrence Ho, associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, credits British colonial rule for laying the foundations of a functional civil service, parliamentary democracy, and rule of law. When Singapore gained self-government and later full independence, its leaders prioritized inclusive development, focusing on social investments in education, healthcare, and housing. 

Ho highlights Singapore’s unique position as a country with no significant natural resources, which enabled it to avoid the pitfalls that often accompany resource-rich nations. Many resource-rich countries fall victim to the “resource curse,” where wealth from oil, minerals, or other resources tends to concentrate in the hands of a small elite, with little trickle-down benefit to the broader population. The profits from resource extraction often end up fueling corruption and economic inefficiencies, undermining social development. Singapore, on the other hand, made human capital its most valuable resource. The government invested heavily in education, ensuring a skilled and capable workforce that could drive sustained economic growth. As Ho explains, “Singapore invested heavily in people as its only resource, with education among the largest components of the national budget… This set the foundation for sustained income growth built on human capital development.” 

Singapore’s success also lies in its commitment to inclusive growth. Ho points out that the government has implemented numerous programs to strengthen social security and promote social inclusion, such as universal healthcare, long-term care insurance, and income support for the unemployed. Some critics may argue that these policies prioritize social equity over economic growth, but in reality, Ho asserts, “the reality is that future economic progress hinges on social cohesion and inclusivity.” In a global economy increasingly affected by automation and artificial intelligence, it is the investment in human capital that will determine a nation’s future prosperity. Without inclusivity, economic growth can quickly be undermined by populist movements and social unrest, as has been seen in many parts of the world. 

Some libertarians and centrists alike tend to view the Singaporean model as market-driven, stressing personal responsibility and individual initiative. However, the underlying philosophy of Singapore’s model is not merely rooted in market forces nor mere personal action, but in a deeper communitarian ethos found within many Asian societies. In these societies, the role of the individual is defined by duties and responsibilities within the larger context of societal wellbeing. In contrast to the Western emphasis on individualism, Asian communitarianism stresses the purpose of the individual in relation to the collective good. It insists on obedience to the laws and an individual’s duty to contribute productively, whether in the workplace or society at large. This idea resonates with the Marxist notion of “to each according to his work,” where individual contributions are valued as part of a broader social contract. The performance of one’s duties, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to the welfare of the community, becomes the norm. In Singapore, this sense of duty is cultivated through education and state policies that encourage citizens to see their roles as part of a national effort for collective prosperity. 

Why, then, has Singapore thrived? The answer lies in its authentic, non-pretentious approach to governance. Singapore does not merely pay lip service to the notion of hard times—it internalizes and embraces the struggle for survival as a national ethos. While the country has indeed seen improvements in living standards, thriving business and industry, and urban development, the core of Singapore’s success remains grounded in its survival instinct. For a nation that has historically depended on its port as its main economic engine, survival and sustainability have always been the primary motivations, not mere flourishing. Singapore’s government and leadership recognized that national survival would depend not on complacency, but on constant adaptation, hard work, and relentless pursuit of long-term goals. Every decision, from infrastructure development to social policies, is framed within the context of survival in an increasingly competitive global environment. 

In contrast, the Philippines has struggled with a leadership that often treats “change” as a mere charade. The country’s political setup has become a mishmash of Asiatic, Hispanic, and Anglo-Saxon influences, each perpetuating the status quo under the guise of reform. The oligarchy thrives because it has mastered the art of consolidating power while presenting itself as a democratic force. Historically, this pattern dates back to the Spanish colonial period, where local nobility, the Maharlikas and Maginoos, aligned with Spanish elites in exchange for privileges. These elites, descended from ancient Datus, Lakans, and Rajahs, became the backbone of the Spanish colonial system, exchanging tributes and taxes from the populace for power and privilege. Over time, they adapted to foreign rule, whether under the Spanish or Anglo-Saxon influence, and perpetuated feudal systems disguised as modern democratic institutions. 

This historical context has created a ruling class that perpetuates its hold on power, cloaking it in the language of democracy while maintaining a feudal mindset. This is why the oligarchy continues to thrive, even as the country struggles with inequality and underdevelopment. Filipino elites have mastered the ability to change costumes and adapt to foreign rulers—be they Spanish, American, or even today's democratic setting—while preserving their control over the nation’s wealth and resources. 

Renato Constantino, a Filipino historian, insightfully criticized the Philippines’ failure to achieve genuine independence, noting that the political and economic elites merely exchanged foreign masters. He argued, “The ruling class, then as now, preferred a veneer of democratic institutions while holding onto the feudal relationships that sustained their wealth and power.” Constantino’s words ring true today, as the Philippine elite continues to maintain a system that benefits the few while leaving the majority to struggle in poverty. 

Apolinario Mabini, a key figure in the Philippine Revolution and a proponent of national sovereignty and social justice, echoed the same sentiments about the importance of solidarity and national unity. In his La Revolución Filipina, Mabini wrote, “A people who fail to unite in the pursuit of their collective welfare cannot ever truly claim their freedom.” Mabini’s call for unity and a shared commitment to national progress remains relevant today, as the Philippines remains divided by oligarchic interests and social inequality.

The Singapore model offers crucial lessons in governance, vision, and national development. Unlike the Philippines, where political elites continue to consolidate power under the pretense of democratic change, Singapore has managed to prioritize national survival and development. Its leaders, committed to long-term goals, understood that prosperity cannot be achieved without collective effort, discipline, and responsibility. The Philippine experience, plagued by oligarchy, political apathy, subservience to foreign and local despotism, and feudal tendencies, has yet to internalize these lessons, resulting in an enduring cycle of inequality and stagnation. 

The Singaporean approach, grounded in the survival instinct and driven by a clear vision for national development, offers a pathway for nations like the Philippines to break free from the cycle of stagnation and inequality. By prioritizing human capital, social inclusion, and national unity, Singapore has proven that even resource-poor nations can thrive in an increasingly globalized world. The Philippines, too, must learn to internalize its own struggle for survival and move beyond the still-existing despotic and feudal systems of the past if it is to achieve sustainable progress and prosperity. 

As the late Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar once said, “A country does not grow out of nothing, it grows by learning from the mistakes of others.” The Philippines must, at the very least, learn from Singapore’s commitment to long-term, inclusive growth and its recognition that survival is not only a matter of thriving, but also of adapting and building resilience for the future.