Why can't I be you?

Filipinos have always looked to Singapore as a model for what the Philippines should be, but of course it's not as easy as it seems. We haven't figured out what we really want, for starters.

My trip to Singapore last week had been in the cards for months, but slightly more recent developments meant I found myself in the country in the midst of a pretty historic moment in its 57 years: a change of prime minister.

The last prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, had been in power for twenty years, the result of the dominant position of the People’s Action Party in the country’s politics. They have been in power since 1959, when the country ended decades of British rule and became a self-governing state. In this 31 years as prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew led the country through its first independent years, and then as part of the Federation of Malaya from 1963, and when it found itself “divorced” and independent again from 1965.

For the next 25 years the country went “from the Third World to the First World”, as Lee put it in his autobiography, despite not having any natural resources and being caught in the middle, at least initially, of tense relations between neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as general anxieties of the Cold War. The belief that its people are its only natural resource meant significant investment in social programs and policies. For its part, the PAP managed to stay dominant by currying favor with labor groups, seeing it as essential to ensure economic development. To this day the party has retained a supermajority in Singapore’s parliament, and why in its 57 years it’s only had four prime ministers: Lee; Goh Chok Tong; Lee Hsien Loong; and from last Wednesday, Lawrence Wong.

The announcement that Wong would become the next leader of the PAP—and thus, the next prime minister of Singapore—didn’t escape notice in the Philippines. I remember a lot of people were sharing posts about how he was the perfect guy for the job. He began his career as a public servant, utilizing his economics background to help guide the country through the Asian financial crisis in 1997. After heeding the invitation to join politics in 2011, he became an instrumental member of the country’s leadership, co-heading its COVID-19 response and leading the Forward Singapore consultative exercise.

The point was, here’s a guy who clearly is getting the top position in the island out of merit, rather than political patronage. Why can’t the Philippines be like that?

There are slight differences in the narratives coming out of my country, but they seem to coalesce around one point: our country is one of wasted potential. Photos of Manila’s grandeur from decades ago would always make the rounds of our algorithm-driven social media feeds, keen to point out that this country—well, at least the capital; we’ve always been woefully Manila-centric—was a good place to live in until… well, we all can’t really agree about that last part.

Some will say things fell apart when Ferdinand Marcos Sr. (the father of our current president, in case you missed it) became president for two decades, imposing Martial Law, quashing basic rights and leeching money out of our coffers. Some will say it was when he was ousted by the first People Power Revolution in 1986 and replaced by Corazon Aquino, a housewife who was thrust into the spotlight when her husband was assassinated. Her inexperience, they claim, led to years of instability—there were several coup attempts—and even more missed opportunities, unless you were allied with her.

Philippine politics is, of course, more complex than that: the often-shifting nature of allegiances and principles mask many levels of local and regional dynamics. But we do tend to oversimplify things, and so the last few political cycles has been characterized by this imagined push and pull between two political families (and whoever’s decided to ally with them at the moment) and their legacies. And then, there’s the yearning for a break from the fighting, the yearning for a leader who will set the direction, keep everyone in line, and work hard towards it.

That does explain why Rodrigo Duterte, a man who forged a no-bullshit, ultra-macho reputation, was elected president in 2016. But it isn’t exactly a new thing. In 2004, former national police chief Panfilo Lacson made a run for president, and evoked the legacy Lee Kuan Yew left as prime minister of Singapore: a progressive country with a high standard of living. If we only had a similarly strong-willed leader, and discipline as a country, we might get there too. He evoked the same idea in his second run for president in 2022; both runs ended in failure.

And why not look to Singapore for a model of what the Philippines should be? I have been there many times and, like most Filipinos, I have left with the impression that the city-state just works. The skyline is impressive. The public transport works. The traffic is almost non-existent. The people seem happy. What’s not to like? More importantly, the fact that all this happened in a span of just fifty years, and with many odds against them, gives us hope that we can have our own resurgence. If everyone else only agrees with our idea of what the right leader is, and choose that right leader…

But of course, it isn’t that easy, right?

Personally, I do agree that strong political will is key to a well-run country, but it isn’t the only element you need. I feel Singapore is where it is in part because circumstances of the time dictated travel in a certain direction. There’s being a small island with very limited natural resources. There’s the geopolitical situation they were literally in the middle of. There’s the heartbreak, at least from the ruling class, over the “divorce” in 1965: the older Lee, who campaigned for the merger between Malaysia and Singapore by citing strong historic and economic ties, regretted that it ever came to that—although racial tensions fueled by mutual suspicion and the principle of “Ketuanan Melayu”, or Malay supremacy, forced everyone’s hand.

It’s not just about political will, but national will, to survive as a country despite the odds. I suppose it also helped that the PAP’s dominance of Singaporean politics made defining what those shared goals are easier. It was fascinating watching television there in the days around Wong’s swearing in, with wall-to-wall documentaries on his predecessors’ legacy, an hour-long interview with the incoming leader, and a somewhat fluffy hour-long profile, all anchored on how he will transform inputs from his Forward Singapore initiative into action in the coming years.

Would that be to happen in the Philippines, would we even come together? It’s not so much because we’re undisciplined as because we really do have different priorities as Filipinos scattered across over 7,000 islands. Just watch Heneral Luna, the 2015 film with John Arcilla’s impassioned performance as the country’s top military leader as Spanish rule gave way to American rule. It was different regional priorities and ambitions that fed into the tensions the film characterized. Not everyone can even agree about whether to fight any foreign interloper, or to collaborate with one over the other.

Sure, Singapore isn’t a homogenous entity either. While it’s a predominantly Chinese island in a Malay-majority region, it has a sizable Indian and Malay population too. But, again, it’s those unique set of circumstances that galvanized the nation. That said, I would bet not every decision the government has made is widely accepted by its people. Singapore’s reputation as a “fine city” is a result of many attempts at social engineering: banning the sale of bubble gum to prevent littering, for instance, or the ban of owning cats on public housing, one that’s only being lifted this September. The pressure on its people to perform does not come easy for everyone. Most significantly, the country’s controversial population policies—the elder Lee, believing Singapore should “maintain its preeminent place” in the region, bemoaned how male university graduates had “an apparent preference” for “less highly educated wives” and encouraged female graduates to have more children—caused the PAP to lose some support in the 1984 general election.

Would such a socially interventionist approach fly in the Philippines? Again, it’s easy to say that all we really need is “discipline”—essentially, that we need to follow our leaders, whatever they say; that we should keep our heads down if we have any criticism—but is that really compatible with our shared values as Filipinos? What exactly are those values again? And no, I’m not thinking of what we’re taught in elementary school, about “bayanihan” and being hospitable and the like, or even the “resilience” that’s used to conjure a feel-good narrative while papering over government shortcomings in calamity response. Are we even willing to talk about that?

But then, we also very obviously have simplified Singapore’s success. We Filipinos do have the tendency to equate shiny, tall buildings with progress. (Or perhaps, a really snazzy airport, unlike the “dump” that is Manila’s.) But we have to have our own homes—the American ideal of suburbia—and scoff at the idea of living in a high-rise. We want our effective infrastructure but fail to realize how it all also depends on whether we follow the rules. More likely than not, our tendency is to find shortcuts. “Who knows anyone in [government agency]?” is a post you’d often see on social media.

The miracle that is Singapore’s transformation in a generation was triggered by a very specific set of circumstances. It doesn’t mean we can’t do it; we’ll just have to understand that the path for a country like ours is much longer, and that there is no chance we ourselves will reap any lasting changes, but rather, perhaps, the generation after the generation after ours. But then, it is easier to say we just haven’t chosen the right leader, and anyone else who disagrees with our take is what’s getting in the way of the Philippines we so supposedly deserve.