‘Malay ko’
Aside from stability in political leadership, the decentralization of governmental power to the federal states has been credited with its rapid economic development.
Text size
Aside from stability in political leadership, the decentralization of governmental power to the federal states has been credited with its rapid economic development.
KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia is what the Philippines could have been had we become a federal republic shortly after our independence from the United States, right after Japan surrendered in 1945.
Malaysia declared its independence much later than us, in 1957, and became a federal republic only in 1963. We had a huge head start — 18 years, to be exact — and we had Southeast Asia’s first airline, first national railway, first integrated steel mill and first comprehensive car development program, among other firsts.
But now we’re really miles behind Malaysia, which used to import toilet paper from us, of all things and Vietnam, which used to beg us for rice. Now, both are building world-class motor vehicles, while we’re still stuck with the jeepney, albeit electrified, with lithium-ion batteries from China.
In the 1960s, our economy was one of the frontrunners in Asia, ranking way up there with Japan. Our gross domestic product (GDP) was double that of Thailand and Indonesia, and our economy was 30th worldwide.
We were self-sufficient in rice. The then brand-spanking-new buildings in Makati and along Roxas Boulevard were the envy of our Asian neighbors. Almost 90 percent of investments in new enterprises were Filipino-owned. So, what happened?
For one, we stuck to import substitution, meaning that we geared our local industries to making things for the domestic market only, and not for export to other countries, where the value added is much higher.
In contrast, many Asian countries shifted to export-led manufacturing and made themselves hospitable to foreign direct investments. Thus, even by 1968, South Korea — although just wracked by civil war — had already overtaken us in GDP. Camote…
But back to Malaysia. Being a federal republic gave it the political stability that our present and past Constitutions, with their fixed terms for the chief executive, could only dream about. While we changed our republic’s head honcho every four, eight or, now, six years, federalization gave Malaysia the potential for more political stability.
Thus, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad served for a total of 24 years, but he had the decency and delicacy to resign in 2020 when his popularity plummeted, in order to avert a political crisis (Mr. Marcos Jr., I’m looking at you).
Nonetheless, the continuity provided by the Malaysian Constitution gave it the impetus to attain significant economic growth during his term. Malaysia’s economy is now 34th in the world and third in Southeast Asia.
Aside from stability in political leadership, the decentralization of governmental power to the federal states has been credited with its rapid economic development.
Obviously, according to studies, targeted and focused state government spending from localized revenues greatly augments federally managed policies to drive GDP growth across the federal states.
Would that our body politic finally acquire the initiative to change our Manila-centric government into one more in tune with what an archipelago with diverse needs and cultures needs to catch up with the rest of the world.
The problem is that our current crop of leaders seems to be clueless about federalism. All they do, when the issue pops up, is say, “Malay ko” (what do I know).
