That's
from The Economist (18th May 2013) expressing their sense of our
mid-term elections. Their evidence: We returned the "locked
up" Mrs. Arroyo to Congress; we made another former
president, Joseph Estrada, mayor of Manila "even though a
court once sent him to jail for life for corruption";
elected Imelda Marcos to Congress "even though she is the
widow of the most corrupt president of all." Ergo: "The
durability of any reforms built on such wobbly political foundations
is questionable."
And
Inquirer News carried a report from Agence
France-Presse, A rogues’ gallery of election winners,
16th May 2013: “Graft-tainted ex-presidents, a dictator’s
unrepentant wife and politicians charged with crimes such as murder
and child rape were among the winners in the Philippines’ mid-term
elections. The Philippines has long endured a corrupt and violent
brand of democracy in which politicians use their influence to avoid
punishment for crimes, creating a so-called “culture of impunity”
that enrages the masses.” And it also included “details on
10 politicians accused of serious crimes who ran in Monday’s
elections. Nine of them won, according to the official tally on
Thursday.”
"Pwede
na 'yan," complacency and our hierarchical system and structure
(collectively our culture?) would explain what The Economist
interpreted as our "wobbly political foundations"? And it
wouldn't be surprising if we brush that aside because the Western
press does not understand the big picture or our culture?
Boo
Chanco (UP naming mahal, mahal patakbohin, The Philippine
Star, 17th May 2013) may have confirmed that we have the right UP
president, yet the picture he painted of our premier university
wasn't pretty. Is UP a microcosm of PHL and why PHL is an economic
laggard? We may have the right president yet the picture of PHL isn't
pretty?
If
a world-renowned Harvard Business School professor, Clayton
Christensen, could be critical of higher education in America, how
concerned must we be? UP has been found to be lacking in partnership
with industry, for example, and the reality is we don't have very
many world-class enterprises that they could partner with.
My
old MNC company, one of the world's largest brands and recently
adjudged by a research firm to have the widest penetration of the
global market even more than the world's biggest brand, has had
technology breakthroughs that in more ways than one it owes to its
partnership with academe. And social scientists have told industry
that knowledge is not the be-all and end-all. For knowledge to
contribute to man's wellbeing, it must be deployed and made tangible
via the right attitude, expertise or skill and productive habits. I
never understood what that meant until I realized that even
world-class companies could be deficient in execution.
As
Boo Chanco discussed, “Every dean, indeed every professor is a
republic within the Diliman Republic.” Knowledge left in the
ivory tower stays there and thus is a disservice to society? Have we
in fact for decades demonstrated that we haven't turned our being the
most well-informed (in the region at least?) into something tangible
for the wellbeing of Juan de la Cruz? And which explains why we're an
underdeveloped economy – and faced with widespread poverty?
No comments:
Post a Comment