Model vs bad example

A comparison of the country’s annual appropriations with Singapore’s progressive budget reveals how corruption’s decay has prevented the economy from reaching its full potential.

An estimated P700 billion to P1.4 trillion, or 10 percent to 22 percent of the total budget, is wasted through corruption, according to reputable groups such as the Philippine Institute for Development Studies and watchdog organizations.

Procurement irregularities, ghost projects, bribery and patronage are features of the yearly Philippine budget.

Singapore, which has a parliamentary government, has a highly centralized budgeting process under the executive branch. Fiscal discipline is the key feature of the city-state’s budget.

The Ministry of Finance prepares the annual budget, drawing on reserves and revenues in a disciplined manner, adhering to a constitutional balanced budget rule that prohibits deficits.

Parliament debates and approves it, but the ruling People’s Action Party’s supermajority ensures the streamlined passage without individual lawmakers inserting pet projects.

Unlike in the Philippine budget system, congressional earmarks are not allowed, meaning Singapore allocates funds based on national priorities, not district-specific demands.

There is no tradition of Singaporean legislators directing funds to personal or constituency projects.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, an independent body reporting directly to the Prime Minister, enforces the Prevention of Corruption Act, which criminalizes bribery in both the public and private sectors.

Its fiscal system emphasizes meritocracy, high public-sector salaries to deter graft and swift investigations.

Singapore’s budget prioritizes long-term investments, which flow effortlessly in the almost graft-free nation.

In contrast, under a presidential system, the Philippines’ budget process begins with the executive submitting the National Expenditure Program to Congress, which has significant amendment powers. 

Lawmakers can make “insertions,” the modern version of pork barrel, after the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision voiding the Priority Development Assistance Fund.

Similarities exist, though, as both countries’ budgets address social welfare, infrastructure and growth.

Targeted relief, such as vouchers providing Singapore households with $800 to people experiencing poverty, food price rebates and SkillsFuture credits for upskilling, focuses on cost of living, families and seniors and is either universal or needs-based, but centrally administered.

Allocations in the Philippine budget include programs for low-income individuals, but critics note that funds are often channeled through patronage schemes.

The processes employed contrast starkly: Singapore’s is highly transparent, with no pork barrel tradition. Allocations are centralized, merit-based and publicly detailed through official channels.

The 2025 budget of the Philippines, described as the most corrupt in history, overflowed with congressional insertions, estimated at P100 billion to P540 billion.

The comparison reveals that Singapore’s budget is compact, future-oriented and free of localized patronage, contributing to its reputation for efficient governance.

The country’s yearly General Appropriations Act, in turn, is ambitious and allocates funds that end up as pork barrel due to insertions that enable political favoritism, undermining transparency.

The differences highlight contrasting systems: meritocratic central planning vs. congressional influence in allocations.

Singapore generally lives within its means, while the Philippines splurges on partisan-laced allocations through deficit spending, funded mainly by debt.

The discipline in the budget process explains why Singapore is in the First World while the Philippines struggles under a boom-and-bust economic cycle.