What the Philippines can learn from Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore

[pspoon_low-end]

---

ive been reading about singapore's former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's biography on how he steered singapore to be one of the tiger economies in Asia. During the 50's and 60's, the Philippines was on track to become an emerging tiger nation in south east asia while singapore was still having a lot of domestic problems. singapore didnt have the natural resources to exploit and have income with it. i wonder how LKY turned singapore and its people up side down and be one of the nicest nations in the world. here are some points on what LKY did to transform the nation.

Decisions and policies

Lee had three main concerns — national security, the economy, and social issues — during his post-independence administration.

National security

The vulnerability of Singapore was deeply felt, with threats from multiple sources including the communists, Indonesia (with its Confrontation stance), and UMNO extremists who wanted to force Singapore back into Malaysia. As Singapore gained admission to the United Nations, Lee quickly sought international recognition of Singapore's independence. He declared a policy of neutrality and non-alignment, following Switzerland's model. At the same time, he asked Goh Keng Swee to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and requested help from other countries for advice, training and facilities.

Government policies

Like many countries, Singapore was not immune to political corruption. Lee introduced legislation giving the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) greater power to conduct arrests, search, call up witnesses, and investigate bank accounts and income-tax returns of suspected persons and their families.
Lee believed that ministers should be well paid in order to maintain a clean and honest government. In 1994 he proposed to link the salaries of ministers, judges, and top civil servants to the salaries of top professionals in the private sector, arguing that this would help recruit and retain talent to serve in the public sector.
In the late 1960s, fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee started a vigorous 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Third or fourth children were given lower priorities in education and such families received fewer economic rebates.
In 1983, Lee sparked the 'Great Marriage Debate' when he encouraged Singapore men to choose highly-educated women as wives. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried. Some sections of the population, including graduate women, were upset by his views. Nevertheless, a match-making agency Social Development Unit (SDU) was set up to promote socialising among men and women graduates. Lee also introduced incentives such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. By the late 1990s, the birth rate had fallen so low that Lee's successor Goh Chok Tong extended these incentives to all married women, and gave even more incentives, such as the 'baby bonus' scheme.

Legacy

During the three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from being a developing country to one of the most developed nations in Asia, despite its small population, limited land space and lack of natural resources. Lee has often stated that Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic. He is widely respected by many Singaporeans, particularly the older generation, who remember his inspiring leadership during independence and the separation from Malaysia.
On the other hand, many Singaporeans have criticized Lee as being authoritarian and intolerant of dissent, citing his numerous mostly successful attempts to sue political opponents and newspapers who express an unfavorable opinion. International media watchdog Reporters Without Borders has asked Lee, and other senior Singaporean officials, to stop taking libel actions against journalists.

since the philippines is a very corrupt country, i think we should have a bureau patterned with what LKY did for singapore. or even better, mas harsh siguro ug mas strikto nga bureau. punishun ang corrupt official and his/her family para ang mag huna2 nga mu corrupt mahadlok na. kasagaran sa mga officials run di na mahadlok kay kibaw sila nga lax kaayo ang gobyerno.

population is also one problem sa ato. i think its time to be practical na. lets set aside religion from what the government can do to eradicate population increase. ang mga pinoy nag lisod na gani, punan pa manganakay ug tulo or upat, samot ka pobre. kung ang korupsyon mu decrease unya daghan na funds ang gobyerno, maka suporta na ang gobyerno sa first 2 childs sa family just like what singapore did to their people.

buot hunaun wala silay natural resources like ours para ma dato ila nasud. and i firmly believe what lee kuan yew said that...

"Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic."

naa jud ni sa taw. in our case naa ra jud ni nato nga mga pinoy kung mag disiplina lang ta. national unity ug dili sigeg reklamo nya way buhat. i hope our next president can turn things around. maayo lang unta.

[pepponeskie]

This was the aim of Mr. Lacson, when the time he ran for presidency na parehason daw nya ni LKY ang pama agi sa pinas.

in 60's daw sa Singapore was a chaotic place sad, naay mga gang war sa mga Malaysians and Insik, pero na control ra nila ug dali ang sitwasyon. Singapore was a poor country at that time, my boss said makakaon ra sila ug karne kaisa sa usa ka buwan, ug mag atang cya sa adlaw nga makakaon cya ug manok.

There were no natural resources in Singapore, all are imported from Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and other countries, maski tubig nila gikan sa Malaysia. Yet, some workers imported sa Pilipinas.

Siguro dali ra nila na control kay gamay ra ilang area ug ang population, unlike sa Pilipinas nga daghan ug isla.

As TS said na population is one problem sa atoa, which is imposible kaau nga ma limit na...kay naa ang simbahan nga numero uno nga mo oppose...maau nalang ug motabang sila ug pakaon sa mga naglisud nga population, pero dili.

[ManWhore]

^^Actually there is common sentiment that Marcos had what it takes to make the Philippines as progressive as Singapore. He had what Lee had…brains, power and implementation, unfortunately, Marcos didn't have the one thing Lee had…the one thing in nature that stands beyond reproach…good intentions. Marcos had a unique moment to be part of history, but he chose the money. While Lee is revered by many (he has his share of detractors and critics as well) for his selfless sacrifices into building Singapore to what it has become.

[pspoon_low-end]

critics will really be there even if there is something good being done. di jud na mawala naay manaway. samot na ang pilipinas daghan kaayo utok kontra. LKY was sort of a dictator in his time. he did this so that the laws would be enforced fully. he pressed for laws that the singaporeans need to follow and accept the consequences when they dont follow it. kanang balaod nga di angay mag labay ug basura or bisan papel sa dalan simple ra kaau na nga balaod nga kita pud unta makatuman pero gahi jud tag ulo. nganu sa ila mabuhat man nila? kay mahadlok sila sa penalties. they know there is a law and that there are severe penalties if its not upheld. dri sa ato lax kaayo. naa tuoy balaod pero mismo ang mga mu enforce baliwala ra. naay basurahan sulod sa jeepney, adto ghapon sa gawas ilabay. kaon lansones and balat labay sa dalan. pastilan jud aning pinoy. mao na usahay maka ingun ko bugo ug wa jud disiplina ning pinoy. uwaw kaayo ing ani ta nga pagkataw.

LAWS THAT NEEDS REINFORCEMENT ra jud angay nato. kay kung dili ienforce, baliwala ra sa mga taw. suma gud kung kita mu adto ta sa singapore, ma usab man ta. di man ta angay mu labay bisan asa. kay hadlok man pud ta sa ila balaod. laliman ka cane-un ka tungod lang nilabay kag papel.

[cebugdev]

its not proper and correct to compare the Philippines to Singapore..

Singapore is a city-state meaning its CITY is the country..
Philippines is an archipelago composed of many islands and MANY CITIES ranging from Metro city to small city like Carcar and composed of lots of provinces and small towns, Singapore can focus on ONE CITY alone, therefore can imposed its laws strictly, check and balances and control IS EASY compare it to multiple level and heirarchy of our government..

[james_chaw]

Ang Pinas mag salig ra ghapon nga daghan tag mga natural resources. mag huwat lang ta sa panahon nga naay ma=interested mu palit sa atong resources. we are blessed with these resources but we do not have the financial capabilities to make use of all our natural resources wisely and efficiently by our own selves.

[tracernet_v2]

why cant the Philippines learn from LKY and Singapore?

IMHO the philippine government is too proud to follow steps taken by other nations and other leaders... if they werent naa unta klaro n progress, progress that is measured not only with the number of infrastractures built compared to the previous adminstrations, but also the number of persons who have improved quality of living...

[SioDenz]

Si Marcos tah to, nag sugod na pero nilikoy...

[Romeojin]

if only one island lang ang entire pinas maybe we could do more than what we are today.

[RedbaroN]

There's one culprit behind the unsuccessful progress that our country suffers, LACK-OF-DISCIPLINE....