Why a Lee Kuan Yew-Style PRESIDENT Won't Emerge Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

Sim Dapat Jr.

It's easy to admire the late great statesman Lee Kuan Yew. However, it's easy to just think about what he said about the Marcoses while ignoring the stuff that he said about the Philippines. As I was reading his book From Third World to First, it was easy to talk about what he said about the Marcoses while ignoring good economic advice. Years ago, I also remember the Philippine Star article by Alex Magno (way back in 2006 that talked about the parliamentary system. As the 2028 is just around the corner and it's 2026, I was thinking about the fallacy of "just vote wisely, it's not the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines that's the problem." However, it made me think of this statement by Magno from the Philippine Star, which should be a reflection of the biggest hurdle why a LKY type of leader would never show up in the Philippines:

One keen observer of the sometimes bizarre conduct of our national affairs is former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Although retired from government, Mahathir keeps tabs with unfolding events in the region. Revered by his countrymen for the great economic achievements of his period of rule, he keeps office at the penthouse of the Petronas Towers – the highest edifice in the region and probably the world. From there, he observes his bustling capital and contemplates regional developments.

Last week, House Speaker Jose de Venecia called on Mahathir in the course of a five-day visit to Malaysia, swinging across from Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak and Sabah. The visit was primarily intended to conduct consultations with Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar on the future of the envisioned ASEAN Community and on de Venecia’s proposal to create an ASEAN Parliamentary Council.

Always forthright in his views, Mahathir was not shy about his opinions on the Philippines, even as he qualified those views with a polite disclaimer about non-interference in our internal affairs.

He bluntly told de Venecia that the "Filipino people need a break."

In the context of their conversation, that "break" is understood as a respite from the hyper-politicking that has plagued our country of late. That hyper-politicking has gotten in the way of our efforts to improve our economy, raise productivity and build a better future for our people.

Hyper-politicking has produced gridlock, endless bickering and neglect of urgent policy actions. It has undermined investor confidence in our economy and prevented willful leadership from being exercised – the same sort of leadership that Mahathir himself deployed in bringing Malaysia up from backwater economy status to that of an "Asian tiger."

Mahathir agreed with de Venecia that a parliamentary system of government could work better in the Philippines because it ensures "continuity in policy and the faster pace of approvals of development programs."

A major factor explaining Malaysia’s success story under Mahathir’s leadership is a responsive government enabled by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in a parliamentary system of government. The dominant role played by the major party UMNO ensured continuity of policy perspectives independent of the fates of individual power-wielders.

When Mahathir retired from politics, there was no uncertainty about the policy architecture that brought Malaysia to tiger-economy status. That policy architecture is not a personal legacy of Mahathir. It is the fighting faith of his party, UMNO, which continues to command the support of the Malaysian people.

If Malaysia had a presidential system of government, Mahathir might have never become its leader. Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive, this man could not win a popularity contest.

Even if, hypothetically, Mahathir was elected president of a Malaysia under a presidential system, the man might not have accomplished what he did in a parliamentary setting. The legislature would have obstructed his most dramatic innovations. His team might have spent precious time and energy attending endless congressional investigations. Other aspirants to the top-post might have constantly conspired to cause his failure or smear him in the public eye as a means to undercut his base of public support.

The phenomenon of a Mahathir – or a Lee Kuan Yew, for that matter – would be difficult to imagine outside the framework of a parliamentary system of government. That system of government encouraged the full development of political parties that, in turn, built public support for innovative policies. The parliamentary form, along with the strong party system it fosters, ensure the cultivation of an ample supply of prospective leaders ready to take over and provide a consistent and reliable quality of leadership,

After all, the emergence of strong nations and strong economies is a process that requires generations of leaders. It is a process that takes longer than a single political lifetime.

It is, likewise, a process that requires the reliable institutionalization of political commitment to a strategy for progress. A national project of achieving a modern economy is, after all, a task that is too large even for the greatest of leaders to undertake singularly. It is a task that requires the sustained effort that only a committed party can ensure.

Without diminishing the personal qualities of great Asian leaders such as Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew, it remains that their feats of statesmanship could not have been done without the strong network that only a stable political party could provide. The parliamentary form of government ensures superior conditions for evolving that stable network.

When Lee Kuan Yew, and later, Mahathir Mohamad, reached the point when it was best to withdraw from their leadership roles, the transition was never traumatic. The process was never uncertain. The continuity of the policy architecture was never in doubt.

When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.

Great leaders do not fall from the heavens and perform overnight miracles of national development without a stable governmental platform.

At the risk of sounding tautological: great leaders can only emerge from political and institutional conditions that make great leadership possible. The most important characteristic of those conditions is that they do not rely on the mysticism of leadership and do not fall prey to the destructive tide of personal ambitions as well as personal jealousies – both of which are in abundance in our politics today.

We need to look into the reality of wishing for a LKY to fall from Heaven or wish for him like wishing for a Genie, is plain illogical. We need to look into the framework of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. I may not like the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, but I can agree with his supporters (not the blind ones) that the problem is only one term. I could easily say, "The problem is that after six years, then what? The success of the nation is more dependent on the leader than the system that leaders are required to follow." It's easy to say, "The problem is with the people, not the system." However, any businessperson would see that the success of a business is more dependent on the system than the one who runs the business. If a corporation depended more on the chances of getting a good chairperson, it would become a business that gambles on the future rather than set milestones for future leaders. A good business has a system that makes it hard for bad authority figures to run it if it wants better leaders. A good business makes it easy to remove bad authorities (ex. the chairperson doesn't need to do a crime; they just need to be incompetent) while making it easier to retain the good ones. Difficult for the sake of difficulty is different from taking the difficult path out of necessity.

Now, let's just assume that this 2028, we will have a Lee Kuan Yew type candidate as a candidate

I took this idea from Magno from the Philippine Star to further drive in scrutiny. Magno used the idea of what if Malaysia had a presidential system. According to history, both the Philippines and Malaysia are genetically closer. As a Chinoy, I remember the Hokkien word huan-a was used to describe Filipinos. However, a more accurate way to look at how the once-derogatory term huan-a wasn't limited only to Filipinos but also to Malaysians and Indonesians. Basically, most Filipinos have the same DNA as the Malaysians. The big problem hasn't been about DNA but the system that runs both Austronesian or huan-a countries. It's easy to say, "Malaysia was just lucky to have Mahathir Mohamad," or "Singapore was just lucky to have Lee Kuan Yew."

I might target who I call the Pambansang Marites (national gossiper) of the Philippines, Raissa Espinosa-Robles. The idea that Singapore was just "lucky" to have LKY at the most crucial moment is a luck fallacy. We need to realize Singapore used to be part of Malaysia. This causes the idea that if Filipinos of all faiths just "pray hard enough," or if the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines prays hard enough, a LKY-style leader falls down or reveals themselves regardless of gender. There might be national assemblies of worship regardless of religion. Pray hard enough for an LKY-type leader, and they will show up. However, it doesn't work that way because the reality is, LKY made a system that not only defined him but also defined his successors. 

Let's just say that the LKY-style leader shows up. For the sake of the hypothetical scenario, let's call him Harry Dy. The name Harry Dy is very common. Dy has the same character as Li, which is alternatively spelled Lee. Now, let's say Harry was an outstanding mayor in his province, became an outstanding governor, and he's now a senator. Let's say Harry is now blasting Robin Padilla's comments and also blasting Kiko Pangilinan's solutions. I personally don't support either Padilla or Pangilinan. Now, let's say this hypothetical Harry shows up and decides to run for 2028. Harry announces that he's running for president.

However, reading through From Third World to First, LKY, who was also called Grandpa Harry, may not fit into the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, in the long run. As I read LKY's writings, this hypothetical leader I created called Harry, would've lost the Philippines elections because:

1. For people who consider the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as "divine revelation" (never mind Article XIII), remember that LKY's own economic policies would defy the decades-long Filipino First Policy by Carlos P. Garcia, who was often called the "illustrious son of Bohol". LKY defied the norms of his day by inviting FDI, even if the third-world-minded economists of his day talked how FDI is bad and that it would "worsen Singapore". My hypothetical Harry would probably say it during the election debate: "We need to remove the 60-40 ruling to invite more FDIs." This might not sit well with people, according to the Pulse Asia survey.
2. LKY was known to be brutally frank. He might not be a tough talker like Mahathir but he was still tough nonetheless. When I read through From Third World to First, it's easy to get intimidated by LKY, who also had a strong anti-pasaway policy. He wasn't just tough on corruption, but he was also tough on pasaways. For example, going to Singapore means people must follow the law, whether citizen or foreigner. For example, the Michael Fay incident in Singapore was just one out of many incidents. Most Filipinos today are still too butthurt for the truth, and wouldn't want the truth when the truth hurts. 
3. Whether we want to admit it or not, stupid voters are a result of a stupid system, not the other way around. It got annoying when I had a prolonged argument with Butthurt Philippines. The page's administrator already blocked me after I pointed out his inconsistencies or just for flaming others for the sake of it. The reality is that stupid voters wouldn't like an LKY-style candidate, who would prefer to give realistic promises instead of promises like a more peaceful Philippines in three to six months, a corruption-free Philippines with a straight road, that there will be no poor if there are no corrupt officials, or rice at PHP 20.00 per kilo. He would even argue for charter change, something often automatically equated to "dictatorship". 

The reality of the presidential system under the 1987 Constitution

It's easy to overcelebrate the achievements of Noynoy, as if he was some kind of god that defied physics. However, we need to look at the timespan that the current presidential system has. For example, we look at this limit. Article VII Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution writes this as a reality:

SECTION 4.    The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

This makes me think of the problem that the Liberal Party of the Philippines faced. Noynoy was only granted six years. The big problem with Loida Nicolas-Lewis' idea of six years of Daang Matuwid (straight path) under Manuel "Mar" A. Roxas II (who's a cousin of First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and grandson of Manuel Roxas I) for six years and then another six years under Mayor Atty. María Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo. This creates the problem of whether there is a Plan B if ever Mar and Leni lose the elections. 2016 came and Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte (who's under the custody of the International Criminal Court now) became the president. In 2022, Leni lost the presidential race to President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. 

We see the sequence of the six years one-term only. Policy changes a lot faster because there's barely any continuity. The rationale for the six years one-term only is to prevent another Marcos. However, for the nth time, the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. never ruled a parliamentary government. Do I need to mention that a short reign isn't necessarily benevolent? LKY ruled Singapore for 31 years, and his son Lee Hsien Loong ruled Singapore for more than 15 years. However, Saloth Sar aka Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years and did way more damage than Marcos ever did during the 20 years. The Khmer Rouge genocide is one of the worst in history! Pol Pot became so erratic that it was necessary to overthrow him. 

When we look at the other hurdle, namely that the president is elected under direct vote. The president in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is both the head of state and head of government. It's unlike in Singapore, where the president under direct vote is the symbolic head of state. It's a real letdown, really, that the late Maria Corazon "Cory" S. Cojuangco-Aquino never remained as a national symbol of unity. Cory's job was to unite the people under her banner, but she didn't orchestrate the downfall of an illegitimate regime. Cory became the national symbol of hope. That's why I felt that Cory should've been the Head of State (president) while the Philippines had a real prime minister (head of government). The president wins by popular vote but should remain as a national symbol of unity. However, in the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the president wins not just by direct vote but becomes whom the people chose to win. That is, even if a LKY-type leader emerged as a presidential candidate, they will never win by popular vote. 

Instead, history tells us that the parliamentary system is what creates LKYs, not just rallying and praying for a leader such as him to "miraculously show up"

The most persistent myth is that we just need a good leader. However, if we need to think of it, no parliamentary system means no Mahathir and no LKY. The reality is that the system determines the kind of character that prevails. I'm not saying that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is giving politicians the permission to steal and cheat. However, rules against wrongdoings become ineffective when it doesn't address the root cause. For example, you can have all the rules against fist-fighting and cheating. However, if there aren't any rules agaist insults or when the education system cares more about the grades (outcome) instead of how to get good grades via learning (where good grades are but the outcome), you can expect more fistfights and cheating. If the school only grades students on how well they regurgitate information in a pump-and-dump exam, suspension would probably become a broken tool instead of an effective one. It might end up with teachers sympathizing over cheating instead of being strict against it. It's because if there are reasons to justify cheating (where your answers on the test paper matter more than how much you learned to get the right answers), cheating becomes more justifiable despite rules against it.

The parliamentary system doesn't elect the prime minister by the direct vote of the people. The president in some parliamentary systems gets a direct vote, such as the Singaporean president. Singapore rigged such a system where it's not easy to become a prime minister. The reality is harder than ever with this in mind. If you think about it, even the first step to becoming a prime minister is downright difficult, making only the best of the best sit in power:

Step 1 

In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP. 

But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:

• Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
• Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
• Read business or economics as an undergraduate
• Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School

Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage. 

In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.

This definitely wasn't how Marcos Sr. did things. In fact, LKY even said this about Cesar Virata, therefore proving that the Philippines never had a parliamentary system:

As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.

With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.

Andrew J. Masigan, a Duterte critic and longtime supporter of Mrs. Robredo, even wrote this in Business World, which I believe needs sharing more than ever:

FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.

A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.

A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the member of the parliament.

There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.

Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.

Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.

The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.

A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.

In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.

Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.

The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation. 

What's the choice now? Are we still relying on "random miracles" (which is akin to gambling) or create a system that will allow an LKY to lead the Philippines for the better?