In case we have forgotten, Executive Order No. 10, creating a Consultative Committee to review the 1987 Constitution, speaks to “the sovereign will, ideals and aspirations of [our] people.”
Here’s a simple test of our perception and foresight: How long did it take us to realize that OFW remittances aren’t the answer to PH poverty? They directly benefited over 10 million Filipinos. Beyond jobs, they created a middle class equal to at least 10% of our population. As important, they have become one of the two legs of our economy, the other being the BPO industry.
To quote from an earlier post, “Consider how we chose our options: OFW remittances instead of industrialization. BPO industry instead of innovation and global competitiveness. Price-focused yet inadequate – and nowhere near competitively priced – power supply instead of rapid infrastructure development. Land reform and subsistence farming instead of a globally competitive agribusiness designed for scale and productivity and profitability. Focus on rural poverty instead of rapid economic development.”
With that as backdrop, let’s take a closer look at our needs, ideals and aspirations. Specifically, how do we ascertain these (a) needs, (b) ideals and (c) aspirations?
Is a parliamentary system among them? What about a federal system? What are our needs really? Aren’t we the regional laggard – poor and underdeveloped?
Isn’t our poverty rate worse than that of our neighbors including latecomer Vietnam? Where is our poverty coming from? Consider: The world has drastically reduced poverty, including in China, India and Vietnam. The common denominator? An open economy not government system.
Where do we lag our neighbors? Their Income or GDP per person (purchasing power parity) are much higher than ours, except for Vietnam. And what do they have in common, including Vietnam?
They begged for Western money and technology. They have successfully pursued rapid industrialization and export development while going full speed ahead with infrastructure development.
Where does either system, federal or parliamentary, come from? We are assuming and prescribing a solution – based on our perception and historical lack of foresight? (A) We never learn or (B) We are static not dynamic?
Why? Because imperial Manila has neglected Mindanao. Think of New York City vs Albany, New York, the seat of the government of the State of New York. Or drive in upstate New York. We’re not talking Kentucky.
There are certain factors that draw economic activity. Not every square kilometer is created equal. Think Pareto’s 80-20 rule. Not every Fortune 500 company is guaranteed longevity. Think of where General Electric is today. Edison must be turning in his grave.
And why the writer’s Eastern European friends are constantly challenging themselves to manage three sets of dynamic: the product idea that must be the heart of the marketing mix that is focused on the dynamism of human needs (i.e., the here and now and beyond); the drivers of product development, production and supply chain; and the requisite leadership, organization and execution skills.
Now that we have a president from Mindanao, we must codify a system that will end the bias for Manila. But will a federal system ensure that resources (e.g., tax revenues) are allocated accordingly, i.e., to enhance economic development especially in the rural areas? Recall the poverty in rural Kentucky.
Still, we believe that a parliamentary system will have a mechanism that can cut short the term of the president when it is warranted. Yet during the transition, there are fears Du30 will in fact extend his original term.
On the state of the economy, the conversation is focused on lifting the restrictions imposed by the current, the 1987 Constitution, while nationalists are up in arms.
But let’s get back to the needs, ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people. The blog often discusses our way of life – our instincts or culture, if you will. Do we disagree that we are (a) parochial and insular; (b) defer to hierarchy in return for paternalism; (c) value and rely on patronage and political dynasties and oligarchy? More to the point, where does our culture of impunity come from?
Ours is a perfect storm. And should we not ask ourselves why it is so before we assume and prescribe a cure? In other words, it is beyond logical, linear and incremental thinking. Think lateral thinking (Google Edward de Bono.) And to the academics, it is akin to model thinking (Google Design Thinking.)
Consider: If we have a parliamentary system does it follow that impunity will go away? If it doesn’t we will keep dissolving the government? Beyond Marcos, we already chased out of the palace Estrada and Arroyo. And wanted Aquino convicted for a couple of supposed crimes. And from the SC we impeached Corona and have started the process to impeach Sereno.
And why is our Constitution biased against foreign direct investment? We know but take it for granted that Singapore, Malaysia and China begged for Western money and technology. Will a change in the Constitution make us beg for Western money and technology, and replicate how the Asian Tigers traversed the journey from poverty to prosperity?
More to the point, with Western money and technology, they rapidly drove industrialization and export development. Will a parliamentary and federal system make us drive industrialization and export development? Recall what Sen Manny Villar said, that we can’t ease the restrictions on foreign direct investment because of the influence of oligarchy.
And oligarchy in a federal system need not be national. Impunity thrives when crime pays and a more limited geography makes local lords easier to breed especially when the people defer to them in return for paternalism. Which nourishes parochialism and insularity and “crab mentality.”
What about rapid infrastructure development? Will a parliamentary system and federal system accelerate PH infrastructure development?
Our instincts nail us down to a static posture that we can’t embrace dynamism. In the meantime, we are debating dynasties. Most of the people we elect into the legislature are from dynasties – because we value and rely on their patronage.
We have a saying, “sa hinaba-haba ng prusisyon, sa simbahan din pala ang tuloy.” We are squarely back to square-one!
Why do we think the Chinoys control PH economy? A people that is static and not dynamic cannot be like the Chinoys. Nor can we be like Silicon Valley. Or even an Asian Tiger.
But we will have a better chance at rural development with a federal system? Development presupposes investment. We can’t seem to distinguish between cause and effect. And why in a recent posting the blog highlighted the poverty in rural America, especially Kentucky, the most federally dependent state in the wealthiest nation in the world. And investment is generated by dynamism as opposed to patronage. Worse is to defer to hierarchy in return for patronage.
Why are venture capitalists in bed with Silicon Valley? Because they are always in search of the next idea that can be monetized. On the other hand, every argument to push MSMEs and regional competitiveness without fail speaks to financing and government intervention – but no emphasis on self-reliance. Yes, self-reliance. If that is our blind spot, think of Tatang Sy, the wealthiest Filipino.
Monetizing a new idea recalls Edison and Jobs and individuals like them. That is the heart of innovation and global competitiveness. Which to us Pinoys connotes big brother as in government and patronage and oligarchy. In other words, we are fixated by hierarchy and destiny.
And it brings us back to our instincts and culture. And why the blog keeps sharing the dynamism of the writer’s Eastern European friends. They are from the poorest country in Europe. But they never cease to imagine competing and winning against Western behemoths.
We have gone ahead of ourselves – talking about the mechanics – of a parliamentary system and a federal system without the rigor that problem-solving calls for.
Recall the case of the Asian Tigers and how the world drastically reduced poverty. Government system was not the common denominator. Let’s look in the mirror not elsewhere. It’s called owning up – or growing up.
“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]
“Now I know why Paul dared to speak of ‘the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13). Law reigns and discernment is unnecessary, which means there is little growth or change in such people. When you do not grow, you remain an infant.” [Faith and Science, Open to Change, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 23rd Oct 2017]
“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]
“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” [William Pollard, 1911-1989, physicist-priest, Manhattan Project]
“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment