Eradicating poverty
To celebrate Labor Day, let me ask: Will our government ever be able to eradicate poverty? Despite the pessimism of many Filipinos, the confident answer of the World Bank is: Yes! within one generation, provided the economy sustains its current growth rate of 6 percent annually.
Others have done it. At this rate, we can double our per capita income in a decade, raise it five times in two decades and by 11 times in three decades. Thus, our average yearly per capita income of $3,300 in 2013 will increase to $35,000 in 2043.
Singapore and China have done it. Malaysia has done it, even if more modestly. Of course, the usual objection is that these countries eradicated poverty at the expense of civil liberty.
As pointed out by Time magazine (4/6/15), Singapore prospered economically “at the cost of freedom.” Lee Kuan Yew, its charismatic leader who died on March 23 after being its prime minister from 1959 to 1990 and its “mentor” thereafter until his death, trumped the individual in favor of the community.
Lee suppressed dissent, jailed oppositors, curbed press freedom and micromanaged his people’s lives to the extent of banning chewing gum (to prevent littering), pushing the educated elite to marry one another (to upgrade the people’s genes), limiting childbirth (to control population growth) and telling everyone to flush toilets (to prevent diseases).
To be fair, however, he led by example in living modestly, stopped the communist insurgency, jailed the corrupt, paid public servants higher than the private sector, and rewarded meritocracy. As a result, Singapore became one of the best places in the world to live in, especially now that it has eased controls on speech and allowed more dissent while still keeping a tight grip on good governance.
No need to suppress freedom. To eradicate poverty within a generation, does the Philippines need to ape the authoritarian rule in Singapore or China? Not necessarily, says the World Bank.
What is important is “to work together to implement much needed reforms to invest more (in health, education and infrastructure), enhance competition, simplify regulations and protect property rights,” argues the World Bank in a paper titled “Making Growth Work for the Poor.”
I will no longer discuss the technical details. Suffice it to say for now that, in varying degrees, the report is validated by many international aid agencies, international think tanks and credible local economists like Romeo Bernardo and business leaders like Ramon del Rosario.
In fact, on a much larger scale, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim (whom I met personally during his recent visit here) boldly announced the Bank’s twin goals of ending extreme poverty in the world by 2030 (only half a generation from now) and of boosting shared prosperity among the poorest 40 percent in developing countries, without any mention of altering their political systems.
No to authoritarianism. What I would rather say is that authoritarianism, whether of the Chinese or Singaporean variety, will not work in the Philippines. After our sad experience with such a regime under President Ferdinand Marcos, I do not think our people will ever allow a return to one-party or one-man rule.
True, many cheered the discipline and respite from chaos that martial law brought during its first few years. But later on, corruption and cronyism crept in (unlike in Singapore where the leadership was not only intelligent and single-minded but also selfless and honest).
Authoritarian rule has become outmoded not just in Asia but also in the old Soviet republics, in the Middle East, in South America and in Africa—yes, in the whole world. Suppression of individual freedom is no longer possible in the Information Age. The Internet and the digital transmission of data and opinion cannot be confined by traditional sovereign and territorial boundaries.
Despots and autocrats can no longer hide their crimes. Serious offenses can now be prosecuted outside national borders via the International Criminal Court. Commercial and civil disputes are no longer the monopoly of judicial tribunals because parties can now choose the laws to govern their contracts and select the judges to decide their disputes through voluntary arbitration.
Yes, we Filipinos will just have to work together in freedom to continue the reforms in good governance and in the economy. We need to rely on our own systems, traditions and history to carve out our own prosperity amid our unique libertarian space. We cannot ape other countries. We need to realize that each nation evolves its own way to achieve liberty and prosperity.
As I said in a recent speech before the Asean Law Association: “The peoples of the world and of Asean have different histories, traditions, cultures, ideologies and mindsets. But I dare say all of them need liberty and prosperity. Some countries, taking into account their unique backgrounds, start with improving their people’s economic lives first and restrict temporarily in measured stages their political liberty. Some others begin with political liberty thinking that their economy would flourish as a necessary consequence. Still some others rise with a combination of both liberty and prosperity at the very beginning. I think that such differing starts and focus are necessary in the growth of nations. But, I also firmly believe that eventually and inevitably, all the peoples of the world need and deserve liberty and prosperity in equal measure.”
* * *
Comments to [email protected]
