A challenge to institution

“We must defend the country’s patrimony and economic sovereign rights from onslaught of foreign monopoly capital.” Who’d believe that today we will still hear what my contemporaries mouthed fifty years ago – if indeed we expect to matter in the 21st century? In the meantime, oligarchy is grinning from ear to ear and so are politicians (“We want a country run like hell by Filipinos!), and our elite class – because we all benefit from our hierarchical system and structure except Juan de la Cruz, the pariah? Our being archaic is the underlying reason why we are unable to attract foreign direct investments? If a cross-section of PHL remains wedded to the past, sooner than later, even Cambodia and Myanmar would shame us? Interestingly, Vietnam’s Politburo continues to lobby the West following internal assessments that their development goals are dependent on their participation in today’s globalized world.

Would a failure of institution explain why Juan de la Cruz became inward-looking and parochial? Beyond the parents, the church and the school have formed his worldview? And so Francis has warned of "a mundane church that lives within itself, of itself and for itself"? How could we not . . . have risen up [see “education” below] to a non-parochial 21st century world? Weren’t we proud of Carlos P. Romulo because we could lead the community of nations?

“Education in its general sense is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training, or research . . . Any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts may be considered educational.” [Wikipedia] “Etymologically, the word "education" is derived from the Latin ēducātiō ("A breeding, a bringing up, a rearing") from ēdūcō ("I educate, I train") which is related to the homonym ēdūcō ("I lead forth, I take out; I raise up, I erect") from ē-("from, out of") and dūcō ("I lead, I conduct").”

Sadly, we still live in our cacique world as evidenced by our fear – i.e., the “onslaught of foreign monopoly capital”? In the 21st century world capital per se is not the be-all and end-all? Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, among others, did not have capital! How primitive could our worldview be? Yet we aren't like the Amish: we like cable TV, we use the internet, we're among the first to acquire smartphones, and we like to fly in today’s airplanes? And we've heard the parable of the talents many times over – i.e., we must look far and wide to do justice to our God-given resources?

Neither land alone can drive and sustain an economy. Our land reform program was bound to fail because of its parochial and populist orientation – i.e., it was not designed to meet the imperatives of a sustainable economic activity. Translation: Start with the end in view; not with the input like land but with the desired output, say, sustainable profitable growth. It is market-driven, not charity or livelihood; that is, the product meets the needs of the market and thus has pricing power that generates healthy margins. That will ensure that the cycle is uninterruptible, which is what a sustainable economic activity is. It is beyond charity giving and livelihood undertakings.

Likewise, CCT won’t lift Juan de la Cruz from poverty; not even CSR if it is not designed to be a sustainable economic activity. And even beyond land and the “factors of production” (men/women, machine, materials, money, method), are the “imperatives of global competition” (investment, technology, innovation, education and training, product development, market development) that we must satisfy in today’s globalized world. Clearly they are beyond our current capacity – and thus must strive to move PHL forward in progress and development.

But we cannot be reduced to pronouncing: “We must defend the country’s patrimony and economic sovereign rights from onslaught of foreign monopoly capital”? What we want – the end view – is to make PHL a developed economy. But we are way . . . way . . . way behind the times and need help – i.e., foreign direct investments that must come with the imperatives of global competition (see above.) Would a failure of institution explain why we have failed to rise up to a non-parochial 21st century world?