From 1946 to 1954, the Philippines ranked as the second wealthiest and most industrialized nation in Asia, next only to Japan. Manila flourished as a modern capital with wide boulevards, busy industries and a vibrant cultural scene.
In 1962, Escolta was the “Queen of Streets,” the bustling economic nerve center of Manila. It was the Philippines’ equivalent of New York’s Fifth Avenue, where Manila’s affluent society flaunted their Sunday best, shopped, socialized, and did business.
Pedestrians walked on the sidewalks in tailored suits and classic dresses. The streets were notably clean, maintained by a dedicated city workforce.
On the beautiful Sunday of 22 April 1962, 64 years and 18 days ago, my first wife, Maria Luz, and I spent the whole day on the iconic Escolta, vibrant with its mix of sights, sounds and the architectural grandeur of Old Manila.
The country was enjoying a high literacy rate, a strong agricultural base and a fast-growing manufacturing sector. These strengths helped build up the image of the Philippines as Asia’s rising star and one of its most promising economies.
In the 1960s, the Philippines and Singapore stood on the same starting line. Both were independent developing economies with strategic maritime locations and young populations with leaders who spoke of modernization and progress.
The Philippines was in a more advantageous position with established democratic institutions, American-style universities and a vibrant manufacturing sector.
Singapore was just a small city-state with no natural resources and uncertain prospects.
Sixty years later, Singapore has left the Philippines far behind.
Singapore’s nominal per capita GDP exceeded $90,000, placing it among the world’s wealthiest nations. The Philippines, despite periodic bursts of growth, has a nominal per capita GDP below $4,000 and continues to export millions of workers abroad while struggling with poverty, infrastructure deficit and institutional weaknesses.
To transition to a developed country, the Philippines needs a structural overhaul that transcends electoral cycles, specifically focusing on institutional consistency, uncompromising anti-corruption frameworks, state-backed industrial modernization and merit-based civil service.
The successful implementation of these pillars requires the following specific systemic changes.
1. Institutional consistency
Long-term planning: Strengthening agencies like the Philippine Development Plan must be legally binding across administrations to prevent the disruption or cancellation of national projects based on shifting political alliances.
2. Zero tolerance for corruption
Empowering the Office of the Ombudsman with greater procedural independence of advanced digital auditing tools to track unexplained wealth and anomalous transactions in real time.
3. State-led industrial strategy
The Department of Trade and Industry and the Board of Investments must actively focus on high-impact sectors, specifically semiconductors, mineral processing, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy.
Comprehensive national industrial strategies can transition the country from importing raw goods to producing complex, high value-added exports, creating globally competitive domestic industries.
4. Meritocracy in governance
Limiting the number of political appointees in policy-making roles. Mid to senior bureaucratic positions must be tenured and secured through rigorous technical testing to insulate them from patronage politics.
Institutionalize the Civil Service Commission’s PRIME-HRM (Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence in Human Resource Management) across all local government units. This will guarantee that promotions and hirings are based solely on aptitude and verifiable performance rather than political connections.
