Democracy is to Singapore what organization is to the Philippines: we both pretend we have it. You are allowed plenty of it in Singapore provided you agree with Mr Lee. But it is difficult to argue with success.

Under the stewardship of the party Mr Lee invented, Singapore’s per capita income grew from US$508 in 1965 to over US$30,000 last year. By comparison, in the same period the Philippines’ grew from US$219 to just US$1100--the latter sum far more skewered in distribution than Singapore’s. Put another way, in 1965, our per capita income was 43 percent of Singapore’s; today, it is just 3.6 percent.

To give us an idea of the scale of Singapore’s achievement, envision the average Filipino family of six earning Pesos 9 million a year. That would be every family in the country, squatters and street dwellers included. That is the magnitude of Singapore’s success, and the measure of our failure, over the last four decades. Because of this, in substantial ways, the average Singaporean has far more freedom over his or her own life than the average Filipino does.

With facts like that, it won’t be easy to dismiss Mr Lee as just another Ed Koch, a one-time big city mayor who also talks too much. For us to do that would be like a midget arguing that an NBA player isn’t really tall. Still, Mr Lee does test one’s patience.

Earlier this week, the senior minister who often goes again went again. He was quoted as saying that democracy does not work in the Philippines because the people are not educated enough. Fair enough. Jose Rizal contemplated that problem in his third and unfinished novel, The Tagalog Nobility. Heaven knows Filipinos have said as much or much worse about ourselves.

Education is the major problem in the Philippines. It is fast deteriorating. Even our best schools and universities are yearly falling behind their regional counterparts. Local bookstores are too often mere stationery stores disguised. In the Information Technology field, India is moving aggressively far ahead of us, never mind Singapore. The national debate about education is all about salaries and fees, not about quality. Lee Kuan Yew may have a point.

Actually, the problems of Singapore and the Philippines mirror each other. Neither of us knows how to walk on two legs. We have emphasized politics over economics with the result that our economy never really grew or with it, a large middle class. And since a strong middle class is the bulwark of a mature and honest democracy, we’ve had problems in that department too.

Singapore, on the other hand, is as admirable as it is boring. Even spontaneity there is planned by the government. Despite the vaunted Singaporean educational system of which Mr Lee can be justifiably proud, he doesn’t think his people will ever be ready to think for themselves. Mr Lee is effectively the world’s first free market Leninist, having created a core party to enforce a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie among whose principal enemies include bubblegum. Consequently, most of us don’t regard democracy and Singapore as synonyms.

The former prime minister is as free to say what he will as anyone is free to argue with him. The problem lies in the fact that he chooses to do that and still remain a member of the cabinet of our ASEAN neighbor. By trying to have his proverbial cake while eating it too, he has caused serious diplomatic trouble from time to time. Malaysia has been particularly prickly over similar "Leeisms."

It is incomprehensible how someone who is so strict about following the rules in his own country can be so contemptuous of following diplomatic law and practice internationally. The solution to Mr Lee’s famous commentaries can be summed up in a choice. He can continue to be a member of the Singapore government, in which case any views he expresses will be those of his government, or he can quit and become a raconteur, scholar, or sage and earn good lecture and book fees while at it. He can’t be both.

I am only too well aware of the difference between a government’s views and one’s own. While in government, one is not permitted the luxury of expressing one’s personal views. Even presidents and prime ministers have to rein in their private views because of the devastating effect it might have on bilateral relations. You may think another head of state is an idiot but you will smile instead and call him "Your Excellency." The consequence of candor might be the expulsion of overseas Filipino workers.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is therefore right first to verify what Mr Lee actually said and then, if warranted, to ask his government for an accounting. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s contempt for us stems from the simple fact they are rich and we are poor and powerless and can do little but bluster over his comments. There are no Singaporean workers to expel.

The remedy is simple. Mr Lee should either shut up or resign and we ought to go to work proving him wrong. History, not columnists, is the honest but cruel judge of truth.