In 1965, two leaders came to power in Southeast Asia.
One governed a country with no natural resources, no hinterland, and no safety net. The other led a nation rich in land, people, and potential.
That year, Lee Kuan Yew became Prime Minister of newly independent Singapore. In the same year, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was elected President of the Philippines.
Sixty years later, the outcomes could not be more different. The reason is not luck or culture. It is management.
TWO COUTRIES: COMMON STARTING POINT, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES
In the mid-1960s, the Philippines was among Asia’s more promising economies, with democratic institutions, an educated workforce, and strong ties to Western markets. Singapore, by contrast, was poor, vulnerable, and newly expelled from Malaysia.
The Philippines had significant advantages.
Singapore had little except political will.
What separated them was how power was exercised.
SINGAPORE: INSTITUTIONS BEFORE PERSONALITIES
Singapore made hard, consistent choices.
Merit mattered more than loyalty. Appointments were based on competence, not political closeness. Corruption was made costly and dangerous, starting at the highest levels. Enforcement was relentless and visible.
Long-term planning was insulated from politics. Economic agencies were allowed to think in decades, not election cycles. Civil servants were paid competitively but held to unforgiving standards.
Singapore did not become clean because it was morally superior. It became clean because corruption no longer made sense.
THE PHILIPPINES: POWER BEFORE INSTITUTIONS
The Philippines followed a different path. Under Marcos, loyalty increasingly replaced merit. Power became centralized, weakening institutional checks. Corruption turned systemic, embedded in monopolies, political paybacks, and regulatory capture. Massive foreign borrowings financed control and corruption rather than productivity.
By the time Marcos was ousted in 1986 after more than twenty years in power, the problem was no longer just one man.
It was the system he left behind.
THE COMPOUNDING EFFECT OF GOVERNANCE
By 1986, Singapore’s GDP per capita was already more than ten times that of the Philippines. Today, the gap is even wider: roughly $90,000 in Singapore versus about $4,000 in the Philippines.
This divide did not happen overnight. It compounded year after year, decision after decision.
Governance, like interest, compounds either for growth or decay.
THE REAL LESSON
Corruption is both a moral and management failure.
Singapore built institutions strong enough to restrain leaders. The Philippines relied too often on leaders to restrain themselves, a strategy that history has repeatedly shown to be fatal.
History is an unforgiving teacher. Its lessons are clear, and its penalties severe.
Marcos Jr. is repeating the failed playbook of his father. There is still time for his administration to reverse course but only if it abandons personality-driven governance and commits to rebuilding institutions that punish abuse, reward competence, and endure beyond any single presidency.
Past, present and future administrations must be judged by results and sustainable practices, policies and systems they leave behind.
Future leaders must learn the lessons of history.
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonNews #RedTapesandRedFlags