Wednesday, July 25, 2018

What in “rapid development” are we yet to figure out?

This is the 21st century. Do we wonder why we’re at least 50 years behind in infrastructure development? We can’t sweep that aside being a most grievous fault. Think repentance and restitution. 

Until we square the circle we will take things for granted and why Build! Build! Build! is floundering. No different from our inability to put Marcos behind us. Think of how despots became history in other parts of the world. And conversely where they are entrenched freedom suffers with harrowing consequences.

There are perilous things we must put to bed if we are to move forward as a nation. The road to nirvana is straight and narrow and that must be the guiding principle if we are to accelerate infrastructure development and gear up for industrialization – and be well on the way to development. 

Note that we’re nowhere near being an industrialized economy – when the world … today … is witness to how the future is playing out: modernize or perish … automation is irreversible. That’s the Chinese speaking. Not that long ago, they were begging for Western money and technology.

If we struggle with “development” what more with “rapid”? China or Deng in particular, learned from Singapore and Malaysia. And we still believe we can’t learn from others? Because we have yet to figure out how parochialism and insularity has sunk us?

Is it the tyranny of the elite – and Juan de la Cruz has been at its mercy since time immemorial? “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,” says Rizal.

And thus our “culture” or way of life: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and the paternalism it brings. And we rely on political patronage and oligarchy given the spoils they bestow. That when all is said and done, we bite the bullet – aka a culture of impunity.

Why do we send our kids to the best schools? It is a given if we expect them to develop and be a contributing member of society. 

Then think of infrastructure and industrialization – with the latter advancing deeply into automation – being fundamental to economic development and nation building. Why is development like pulling teeth with Juan de la Cruz? In the meantime, we are proud that we are addressing poverty.

Yet our poverty is the effect (not the cause) of our underdevelopment. And why we need to benchmark against the rest of the world – and learn from others. Granted we are superior if not holier than thou. That’s the crux of the matter. We in the elite class take parochialism and insularity for granted. Which will preserve the status quo – as in hierarchy and privilege.

And it is a given like destiny and can’t be undone. It is so ... for us Pinoys that have yet to figure out what a fixed mindset is as opposed to a growth mindset. Which explains why we’re still discussing the disastrous effects of land reform, for example. The bottom line: A fixed mindset equals shortsightedness and thus our inability to develop our sense of foresight.

The writer could only pity the folks behind our export processing zones for their weeping – that all we have to offer is incentives that if TRAIN-2 takes them away we can only drive FDIs away. It’s indeed pathetic.

Fifteen years ago, when the writer first arrived in Eastern Europe, he felt for his then newfound friends who proudly showed their manufacturing facility. They were expecting him to compliment them and instead he introduced the idea of continuous improvement. “This serves the purpose today, but since ours is a highly competitive business, we want to constantly move up to the next level.”

Today their manufacturing complex – of seven state-of-the-art factories – would be like a mini Philippine Export Processing Zone with one very indispensable exception. Every item that comes out is a product conceived and developed inhouse and exported to scores of countries. It is not a labor-only concept like what we have in the Philippines.

Of course, they are day-to-day products that every family need. But then again, that is why we Pinoys never had the courage to compete against our neighbors. Our mind is so set even when it comes to invention or innovation. When where it starts is with human needs. And for that reason right at the get-go we would shoot ourselves in the foot.

It goes back to hierarchy and privilege. When we think of Juan de la Cruz as the consumer, we see him as “wa-class.” He cannot appreciate high-value added because he is “mahirap.” But we turn that into a positive by creating something he can afford … Or so we thought … And walk right into the trap of a vicious circle – which is where we are too in our efforts against poverty. More to the point, it is the root of our inability to pursue industrialization as in we don’t need to.

And that is reinforced by our parochialism and insularity. There are seven billion people in the global market. And there is technology that can be tapped if we figured out what product development is. 

When Steve Jobs moved beyond the Mac to the iPod, what he did was to figure out a human need and then pulled ideas together that were already around. Beethoven was no different. In the case of the iPod, Jobs’ sensitivity to human need informed him that music is the way to the soul. So why limit her to a hundred songs, which was what the Walkman was. Thus, the imperative to go digital.

Jobs knew that the Japanese excelled in miniaturization – think bonsai and the transistor radio. And sent his engineers to Japan to look for a miniaturized hard drive. And the rest as they say is history. But we Pinoys don’t like to learn from others? Is it why we can’t produce a Beethoven or a Jobs?

When the writer talks about his Eastern European friends conceiving and developing products inhouse, it doesn’t mean they start from scratch. It is the idea that is key, that it will address a human need. And the world is full of knowledge as in technology that may not be sitting in one place that can be tapped. But it presupposes that one has a developed sense of foresight and is forward-leaning and outward-looking.

Which is where the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff comes from. [If we want to be biblical, it comes from a pure heart or if we stay secular, it comes from a sense of purpose.] Otherwise we will be like a ship adrift, disoriented and confused that we applaud the war on drugs, for example, being the key to rapid development. And that EJK is a virtue. If land reform demonstrated our shortsightedness, how do we square EJKs?

That’s precisely why truly freedom-loving nations condemned us and yet we wonder why? Reads a recent news report from overseas captured by local media, “Duterte’s erratic, crass leadership style showing signs of putting off investors.” At the end of the day, it reflects how parochialism and insularity continue to bury us.

We Pinoys may not have the Soviet Union in our consciousness, but the writer’s Eastern European friends do. Consider: “The Essay That Helped Bring Down the Soviet Union,” Natan Sharansky, The New York Times, 20th Jul 2018; Mr. Sharansky, the author of “The Case for Democracy,” is a former spokesman for Andrei Sakharov. He spent nine years in Soviet prisons and the gulag.

“Fifty years ago this Sunday, this paper devoted three broadsheet pages to an essay that had been circulating secretly in the Soviet Union for weeks. The manifesto, written by Andrei Sakharov, championed an essential idea at grave risk today: that those of us lucky enough to live in open societies should fight for the freedom of those born into closed ones. This radical argument changed the course of history.

“Sakharov’s essay carried a mild title — ‘Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom’ — but it was explosive. ‘Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of mankind by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorships,’ he wrote. Suddenly the Soviet Union’s most decorated physicist became its most prominent dissident.” 

Of course, we’ve suffered from failed leadership time and again. But that is because visionary leadership has never been our success model. See above re our culture or way of life. In the meantime, the world will not wait for us. Until we commit to rapid development we will be like spinning wheels ... with the engine revving ... but staying in place.

Gising bayan!

“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