Who will do what . . .

. . . when, where and how?

If news articles must satisfy the above criteria, should we apply the same yardstick in quizzing our presidential wannabes?

Whether it is Noynoy or whoever: what will he do, and who specifically will do what, when, where and how? For instance, can any candidate provide shelter to 30 million marginalized Filipinos? Or is it la-la land-speak?

It’s time the media put these folks into some acid tests? Remember the simple question “when” from Ted Koppel – ever the journalist – that got Marcos flustered . . . and the snap election followed?

It’s time we focus on the vital few? The bigger the enterprise and the bigger the challenge – as the world’s largest and most successful entities have experienced – the more the 80-20 rule applies, i.e., clarity of purpose! The axiom: simple enables execution; complex engenders disaster!

Our task goes beyond growth, it is development. Do we blur the two and end up with initiatives that are at cross purposes, don’t deliver the goods or are too little too late? We have a humongous, monumental task and thus must respond with equal force.

For instance, country-side development is well and good. But we need to prioritize and keep the 80-20 rule in mind? A big chunk of our GDP comes from small enterprises – yet we need to ask: is it sustainable and will it deliver the bang for the buck? The object must be equal to the task – how much do we need to raise GDP to attain developed-nation status? Our mindset must move away from pursuing a zillion projects . . . to building a “21st century Philippines” – a coherently designed economic structure, where the object is proved equal to the task! JFK sounded like he was shooting for the moon?

The task is development: where do we get the bang for the buck? Without doing much, we know we will grow given OFW remittances – and thus are fixated? But we know as well, or are in denial, that they are insufficient to move us closer to development? That even growing at 7% a year will take us a generation to attain developed country status – on a theoretical basis thus reality is even more dismal?

$ 100 Billon – the intermediate object – is a scary number but our vision must be crystal clear, if we are to match Thailand, for example. And it is still way off the ultimate goal of being a developed country! We need that much more GDP if we are to break the bondage of poverty. We will not get there in 5 or 10 years but we must lay down the groundwork and the foundation to be able to build up to that vision – a “21st century Philippines”. And that means focusing on generating, from wherever, the critical building blocks of a developed country: capital, market, technology and expertise for industries that will give us competitive advantage. And it’s not rocket science, developed markets are such because they are able to pull together capital, market, technology and expertise to be globally competitive and thus generate first-world GDP per person. Unfortunately, developing countries, in many parts of the world, tend to bask in sophistication when pragmatism is what they sorely need – in competitive lingo it’s called blocking & tackling!

The question to the presidential wannabes then should be: who will do what, when, where and how?