In 2007, the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s release of its annual Global Competitiveness Index was as usual accompanied by assessments of what made some countries better than others in bringing prosperity to their citizens.
That year’s Competitiveness Index was topped by the United States, followed by Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland. In seventh place – the first from Asia in the Top 10 – was Singapore, followed by Japan, the UK and the Netherlands.
The rest of the Asian tigers were outside the Top 10 but within the Top 50. South Korea placed 11th, Hong Kong 12th and Taiwan 14th. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia was ranked 21st and Thailand 28th. China was ranked 34th.
Economist Xavier Sala-I Martin, one of the two individuals who designed the index, said in an interview – citing data from the WEF – that democracy “doesn’t help economic growth” in developing countries. But he noted that demand for democracy increases as incomes rise, and it “seems to be what economists would call a luxury good.”
The observation supports the formula for national prosperity that was famously espoused by Lee Kuan Yew: economic rights take priority over individual liberties. Success has been his best argument. Look how far Singapore has come in just 50 years, with 30 of them directly under the man his compatriots called LKY.
Among Filipinos who have paid tribute to LKY, the underlying sentiment is palpable: why did we get the wrong authoritarian ruler?
With the tributes come the inevitable comparisons of the two countries. Where were the Philippines and Singapore 50 years ago, and where are they now?
* * *
About three decades ago when I first visited Singapore as a tourist with my mother, I was struck by how modern the city-state was, how clean, orderly and efficient.
From our arrival at Changi Airport to the drive along the smooth road lined throughout with immaculately pruned bougainvillea, I couldn’t help envying the development of Singapore. The Peranakan hawkers’ cuisine was excellent and the city-state was still a shoppers’ haven at the time when its currency was not yet as strong as it is now.
We crossed the border to Penang for dinner and a taste of Malaysia and the difference was glaring, from the speed of waving vehicles through border patrols to the cleanliness of the streets. You could tell immediately which country had a higher per capita GDP.
As the world knows, Malaysia kicked out from its federation the ethnic Chinese-dominated Singapore. For Lee Kuan Yew, success was the best revenge. We can only guess how Malaysians felt as they saw their tiny southern neighbor grow exponentially, transforming from a colonial backwater into an advanced economy in such a short period.
My earliest indelible recollection of LKY was of a TV interview aired in Manila in which he said the Philippines suffered from too much democracy. Corazon Aquino was president at the time and she pointed out that we had tried authoritarian rule, with disastrous results, as she defended our democratic way of life.
Denigrating democracy was a recurrent theme in Lee’s public statements. And he liked citing the dysfunctional Philippines as a good argument for his worldview. I know several prominent Filipinos who agree with him, and wished we had a Lee Kuan Yew (and his low-key wife) rather than the conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.
We got the wrong dictator – this is a common lament here. Several of our neighbors prospered under authoritarian (even if not always benevolent) rule, among them Malaysia and South Korea. We, on the other hand, retrogressed, from being Asia’s second best economy after Japan half a century ago to Asia’s basket case by the time the Marcos regime collapsed in 1986.
Marcos wanted national discipline to be a pillar of his authoritarian rule. But he and his wife and cronies exempted themselves from the discipline, and “Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan” became nothing more than an empty slogan. In contrast, Lee Kuan Yew lived the ideal, and made his compatriots do the same.
Prosperity came at a price, and there are Filipinos who think it’s worth it. LKY crushed dissent and dealt harshly with even minor infractions such as littering, chewing gum in public and failing to flush public toilets. The Singapore government still adheres to his views on universal human rights, especially press freedom: journalists are not elected and do not represent the people, and mass media is a business that must be regulated.
“You take a poll of any people,” LKY once said. “What is it they want? The right to write an editorial as you like? They want homes, medicine, jobs, schools.”
* * *
Singapore’s impressive success tended to validate LKY’s views. Since that 2007 WEF report, Singapore has risen to the top of the Global Competitiveness Index (or always in competition for No. 1). It also tops global surveys on government transparency and ease of doing business. Its per capita GDP is one of the world’s highest, and for its size, it has one of the highest levels of foreign direct investment and tourist arrivals in Asia.
Its success has made it a model for developing countries that are leery of democracy.
China will not admit it, but I think its leaders who made that country the world’s second largest economy saw Singapore as a model for national prosperity.
Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to point out that their nation was created under different circumstances and it’s much easier to unify and impose discipline in a population of just 5.4 million.
Lee believed in strong, efficient government, with Singapore civil servants renowned not only for their honesty and competence but also for being among the highest paid in the world.
Criticized for that high pay, Lee once said, “The cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again… your asset values will be in peril, your security will be at risk, and our women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.”
Ouch!
As the designer of the competitiveness Index observed in 2007, however, the yearning for individual freedoms increases with income levels.
Singapore has reached the point where its people want that luxury. It’s interesting to watch how a government renowned for social engineering will respond to this demand.
About three years ago several Singapore journalists told me that we should try exchanging leaders for a while. Their leader could teach Filipinos a thing about efficient governance, they said. And our leader could show Singapore what it means to have soul.