People often ask why some countries seem almost immune to corruption. As if their leaders are just magically more honest. But that’s not really it. The truth is actually simpler.These countries didn’t wait for good people. They built systems where doing something dirty is hard, risky, and usually not worth it.In the least corrupt countries, corruption isn’t just illegal but inconvenient. Paper trails are everywhere. Payments are digital. Contracts are public. Anyone can look up where money went and who approved it.You don’t need to “trust” officials, because the system assumes they might mess up and records everything just in case. When everything is visible, stealing becomes harder to hide.They also pay government workers properly. It’s basic psychology. Because underpaid people are easier to corrupt. When a judge, police officer, or regulator earns a decent living, a bribe feels like a bad trade rather than a lifeline.In these countries, public service is treated as a serious profession rather than a favor or a sacrifice.Another big difference is how fast consequences happen. When corruption is suspected, things move quickly. Investigations don’t drag on for years. Officials step aside, trials happen, and punishment is real.No drama nor speeches and no “let the courts decide” while staying in power. The message is straightforward and no nonsense. If you mess up, you’re done.What really keeps things clean is that power doesn’t sit with one person. Institutions matter more than personalities. Courts can rule against the government. Auditors can flag problems without fear. Civil servants don’t get fired just because a new leader comes in. Governments change, but the rules don’t bend easily.The media plays a huge role, too. Journalists aren’t treated as enemies. They can request documents, dig into contracts, and publish messy findings without being harassed or threatened. Whistleblowers are protected rather than silenced. Because when people know they can speak up safely, corruption loses its cover.There’s also a cultural difference that’s hard to ignore. In these countries, even “small” corruption is frowned upon. Favoritism and nepotism are treated as mortal sins.Meanwhile, citizens don’t say “that’s just how things are.” They ask questions, complain, and expect better. Leaders who abuse power lose public trust fast. Sometimes faster than any court case.Another key thing is that jobs in government are usually earned, not inherited. Positions come with exams, qualifications, and experience. Family names don’t carry much weight. When people rise through competence instead of connections, corruption struggles to take root.People can also see where their taxes go. Budgets, projects, and spending reports are public and easy to understand. When something costs twice as much as it should, it stands out. Stolen money becomes obvious because everything else is accounted for.Put it all together, and you start to see the pattern. The least corrupt countries don’t rely on moral lectures or heroic leaders. They rely on boring things like rules, records, transparency, consequences, and social pressure.Corruption doesn’t disappear because people are perfect. It disappears because the system doesn’t make room for it.And maybe that’s the biggest lesson for us. Clean governance isn’t about finding angels. It’s about building a country where even ordinary, flawed humans don’t get away with stealing.
There's some truth in the statement. However, the more I think about that Gerry goes from the guy with the overconfident expression (past pictures) to actually showing he might be that constant pessimist. The guy seems to defend the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino Jr.'s legacy as if the late former president is a fairy (such as gasoline price comparisons, which is a world market problem), to what might be a near-fanatical endorsement of Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo. That's why I use President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as the example for the prime minister and Leni as the opposition leader. Again, I'm not going to think too much about the DDS, Dilawan, etc. rhetoric. In fact, some people admit I voted for Leni when I told this certain person that "Competition builds better services." The person was a voter for Bongbong, and my disagreement might've made me look like I voted for Leni. It's the classic False Dilemma fallacy!
A case of ignoring even basic psychology when one says, "Oh, it's just a coincidence, it's just the quality of their leaders, not their system."
I'm reminded of several people I've received crazy "rebuttals" from on Facebook. For example, I met someone whom I'll just call Miss Clueless (since she's a private citizen, not an open commentator. I asked her, "Is this just a coincidence?" She said, "The one thing those countries have is good leaders, not good systems. It's not much of the system, but the leader only." Another person, a political science graduate (I'll call him Professor Camote), is that, "Well, parliamentary sytem only worked in Singapore and Malaysia because the late Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad aren't corrupt like Marcos." Professor Camote believed in the myth of the "Marcos Parliament". However, the idea has already been long-debunked when Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel Jr., both deceased for some time, challenged the legitimacy of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s reign. Marcos died in 1989, the most important contribution that he made in history! Marcos' "parliamentary system" is so easy to disprove, yet some people still believe it for a reason, perhaps out of a comfort zone experience.
Whether we want to admit it or not, the real fallacy behind the thinking is that "We can just gamble our way into getting the best leaders eventually." Sadly, a gambling mindset is a pathway to poverty. That's why I ask, "Are you gambling or are you investing?" In psychology, we have the late W. Edwards Deming. The real truth is that a bad system beats a good system anytime. A system is defined as a set of rules. The problem with the Philippines has been more systemic than merely a matter of people. After all, even from the principle of business is that, "A good system is what makes a good business." If your business is more reliant on "getting the right person" instead of having a system that "gets the right people", it's pretty much a gamble where you lose more than you win.
If your business requires that kind of a person, you’re always going to be putting too much out there because you’re going to be too people dependent and you do not want to build a people dependent system. You want to build a systems dependent company.And when you have a systems dependent company and then you put really great people on it and you give them really great training, imagine how good that’s going to be. What it does, it also takes some of the pressure off of your people. Because they are following a system where they know that slight errors aren’t going to cause this entire thing to fall apart.Those slight errors aren’t going to destroy the whole company. And so they come in, they’re more relaxed. And guess what, they make even fewer mistakes and isn’t that exactly what happens to you as you’re driving down the freeway?Because you know you all have this margin for error, most of you drive down the middle of your lane. Of course, that’s unless you’re talking on your cell phone which you shouldn’t be doing, don’t do that. So as you’re driving down the freeway, you have all this margin for error which puts you in a state of being relaxed and being comfortable and calm so you can focus on staying in the lane and end up getting even better results.But if the highway patrol has decided that they are going to give you 40% room for error as a professional driver and over 50% room for error as a normal driver, then imagine how much room for error you need to give your employee. This is a short episode because I want you to turn off this podcast.Then as soon as you do, I want you to make a list of the most critical systems within your business. And what are you going to do to be able to make the systems so good that as your employees make mistakes they’re still going to be able to get the desired results.It could be related to sales scripts, it could be recipes, it could be systems where things are done, it could be how many different people are involved in a process so that you have multiple eyes on something so mistakes are caught by other people.But either way, that’s your most important job. In terms of getting to that 70%, but if you can create a business where anything in your business can be done 70% as well as you and still get results, you got a business that is going to be able to grow, expand and do all of that without your day-to-day involvement.Just what you really want in a long-term because you don’t want to have a job where you’re working in a company that you own. What you really want is you want that freedom to have a business that doesn’t rely on you day-to-day.
One shouldn't be saying, "The parliamentary system will never work in the Philippines because of our quality of leaders!" That would be silly reasoning. If one reads through the book From Third World to First, then think. Did LKY think, "Oh, I must wait for Singaporeans to straighten up before I will introduce the parliamentary system and foreign investment!"? The answer was indeed a big no. Reading through the book as slowly as possible, it was easy to see that Singapore focused on systemic reform. The parliamentary system was what significantly reduced corruption in Singapore. The same can be true for Malaysia, too, under Mahathir!
In reality, the Philippines needs a new makeshift. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is already an outdated database. If we're getting stupid voters, then look no further than the most outdated system. I still believe that Butthurt Philippines' saying "I can't detect sarcasm." was just an excuse to attack me back, until of course, its webmaster Lico Reloj decided to block me. The outdated system itself is what's creating the mayhem of a cycle of bad voters, poor economics, ghost projects, and the like It's one to complain. However, it's another thing to complain about the problem while rejecting the solution to what you're complaining about.