Our “reality” is why we can’t “feed” Juan de la Cruz

What’s staring us in the face? 

Tens of millions of Filipinos are undernourished and, worse, suffer from abject poverty. And to keep Juan de la Cruz’s body and soul together, we must borrow tons of money for the 4Ps.

And over 10 million chose to be OFWs despite the heavy social price it brings – to them and the nation.

Yet, to add insult to injury, we celebrate that our GDP growth has attained the Western laudable metric of 6%-7%. And the economy created a handful of dollar billionaires.

Should we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes do something?

As the blog has argued, we must learn to reinvent ourselves – and spark “Eureka” in Juan de la Cruz.

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “No human formulation of ‘reality,’ no philosophical explanation of human experience can say: ‘I have grasped its entirety and meaning.’ Reality is too rich and is continuously changing; it can’t fall under a set of categories.”

“It’s not an American who postulated the above. Those familiar with the blog will recall George, Fr. George Gorospe, a Filipino Jesuit from Ateneo de Manila. It took ages for me to internalize George’s message – despite being close and personal during our “Friday Club’s” cocktails.

“Should we be surprised that Juan de la Cruz – our economic managers, our legislators, our economists, us in the chattering classes – can’t grasp the dynamism of reality.”

And that brings us to our instincts, courtesy of our caste system: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

Question: Do we recognize what self-government is?

If we embrace freedom and democracy, we can’t take our responsibility out of the equation.

Self-government presupposes a commitment to personal responsibility.

Our caste system explains why we are unwittingly system-bound. Yet, as Pinoys, we like to believe one can “beat the system.”

Consider the never-ending debate: The Western system of democracy is superior or inferior, depending on one’s point of view. And there is “social democracy” too. In other words, even democracy comes in varying shapes and hues. And the Philippines cannot merely model ours to Nordic countries, for example. They are tiny, population-wise, and for another, their GDP per capita is several folds ours.

We don’t have the national income per capita compared to these wealthy Nordic nations. Nor can we afford the “universal basic income” (UBI); otherwise, we won’t rely on OFW remittances. That is where we are.

Still, do we recognize that there is no perfect system? Recall the Soviet empire. Or today, China.

Russia is a bag of air, reliant on the extraction industry because it failed to industrialize. And China rapidly moved up to the “developed economy” status that comes with its bane, i.e., rising cost-of-living. And people are beginning to be antsy. And so, the leadership wants to redistribute wealth. “Welcome to the club,” if only Uncle Sam could respond. 

In other words, recall what the blog has argued: This universe’s character is that of dynamism and interdependence.

Let’s hold it right there.

If we are to overcome the problem of Philippine education, that is a fundamental principle we must embrace.

“The failure of Philippine education is to develop the ability to think, meet new situations, and solve problems one encounters in real life.”

Let’s get back to the “systems” debate: Is authoritarianism superior to democracy? Take royalty. Why has the world set it aside? Because it cannot compare to the collective mind of freedom-loving people? 

Despite the flaws of democracy, they are the wealthiest nations today. Beyond being well-developed economies, innovation is inherent to them – colloquially called “animal spirits.”

Even China, on a GDP per capita, cannot match America. Moreover, advances in human endeavors to raise the well-being of humankind comes from innovation.

Those familiar with the blog will recall my Eastern European friends. How can former socialists with a losing proposition and minimal capital best over 15,000 enterprises across Europe in just eight years?

Innovation. Innovation. Innovation.

And innovation is not technology per se. It is about the science of “thinking.” And Steve Jobs comes to mind because of his instincts – forward- and lateral thinking. And he defined creativity as simply connecting the dots.

Consider: These Eastern Europeans are in the business of day-to-day products that people find in their favorite stores. What do people need to raise their well-being? That is the question they keep foremost in their minds – in response to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – because it is central to innovation.

Recall too how I changed the planning and budgeting system at my 200-year-old MNC company. And how tapping technology outside its 1000-strong R&D center beat the competition in a race to develop a most sought-after technology. In other words, innovation is thinking out-of-the-box. For example, Pfizer did not “develop” its Covid-19 vaccine by its lonesome self.

Then recall the Ph.D. candidate I mentored in her dissertation. How many dissertations see the light of day to be a commercial success? And why? Because it addresses a human need to raise one’s well-being.

But let’s get back to the Philippines.

“Robredo open to backing Isko-Pacquiao tandem in Eleksyon 2022.”

The wife shared the above article after complaining for weeks of messages she had been receiving from friends back in the Philippines: They were celebrating the supposed candidacy of Robredo. “Is this the time for another Cory,” she asked.

And I had come across the article of Andrew J. Masigan, “The city of Manila acting like Singapore,” and opened YouTube to listen to “Mayor Isko’s State of the City Address.”

And it was after I had listened to The Economist US editors discussing how San Francisco is morphing into a “failed city” despite being home to Silicon Valley. And, of course, New York is also in bad shape.

That brings us to “where we are” as a nation.

What’s staring us in the face? 

Should we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes do something?

Those familiar with the blog may recall that the wife and I had an intimate dinner with the ex-president of an Eastern European country. He had a career with a German multinational company before he entered politics. And I should not have been surprised that he speaks the lingo of the private sector.

This brings me to Mayor Isko. I read that he had attended courses at Harvard and Oxford – i.e., he is inquisitive and hopefully outward-looking too, including thinking out-of-the-box.

How he rose as a public servant is different from then-Mayor Duterte, for example. He was a poor boy from Tondo and introduced to the movies (because of his looks)? That’s not bad. While Duterte is a lawyer, his infamy came from his war on drugs in Davao.

Both Manila and Davao are near and dear to my heart. I grew up (like Mayor Isko, a poor boy) in Balic-Balic in Sampaloc. Short as it was, I lived and worked in Davao. And I still bring the family to Davao.

Sadly, I have no respect for US politics to offer it as a best-practice model. Why? Because the US has been the hegemon for the longest time and must demonstrate that it is deserving. And that is why I chose not to exercise the right to vote. In other words, the US is a disaster waiting to happen – and we saw it with the insurrection at the Capitol. Then came the fiasco in Afghanistan.

Their saving grace is they “have been there, and done that” – i.e., they recognize that they must reinvent themselves.

Think again of the character of this universe: Dynamism and interdependence. Think of the photosynthesis phenomenon, a 24/7 cycle that makes creatures – human and non-human – cohabit and thrive as an ecosystem.

And a hegemon must demonstrate the same character for the rest of the world to emulate. In other words, it must show the world how to define and forge a “common good.”

Let’s get back to Mayor Isko.

If indeed he becomes candidate-Isko and pretends that as with the ex-president of an Eastern European country, my wife and I have an intimate dinner with him, what will I bring up?

For example, the blog has been around for over a dozen years; I am not a politician and don’t aspire for higher office that I don’t have to promise heaven.

What I can do is call a spade a spade. While I have no respect for US politics, I am committed to living up to the ideals of freedom and democracy. For example, my old MNC-company saw it fit to get me a blue passport. And in Eastern Europe, I was offered citizenship.

Beyond being a contributing member of society, I am a volunteer expert (under the auspices of USAID) focused on Eastern Europe.

In other words, as my background reveals, I seek to define and forge a “common good” whenever I am part of an enterprise.

Mayor Isko is a politician, and so I will leave his politics with him. Yet, he can think of his more significant role as Philippine president. And that is nation-building.

And how can he seek to define and forge a common good with Juan de la Cruz?

Since I am a product of the private sector, I’ll use it as an example. And the simplest way to define the role of leadership in a private sector within the umbrella of freedom and democracy is to “make things and sell things.”

Given that freedom and democracy are merely a subset of a more significant set, we must recognize and acknowledge this “universe.” And its character is that of dynamism and interdependence.  

The “common good” presupposes interdependence – yet it is dynamic.

As far as nation-building is concerned, we can again simplify its definition. And especially in the Philippines, it is “to traverse poverty to prosperity” rapidly.

Let’s once more hold it right there.

But how do we become prosperous?

And that is why the blog speaks to my Eastern European friends. They were the poorest country in Europe. They had insufficient capital – a losing proposition for eight years – and were untrained in the free market. They were born and raised socialists.

To be prosperous, they had to “make things and sell things.” And to the surprise of everyone, they turned into the model – besting over 15,000 enterprises across the continent – for Europe because of their commercial success, innovation culture, and adherence to business ethics.

In other words, prosperity demands not only innovation, as in the science of “thinking,” but uprightness, as in business ethics. 

In the case of the Philippines, we must also make things and sell things. Not just “things” but competitive products and services that will find a market globally. And it is not rocket science, as our neighbors demonstrated. Take the Asian Tigers, then China, and, most recently, Vietnam.

Our saving grace is that between OFW remittances and the BPO industry, we have an excellent source of national income.

Yet, what’s staring us in the face?

Consider: “The government can no longer rely on the protectionist instruments of the past and must now muster more positive, enabling measures.

“The focus on industrial catch-up is motivated by the prolonged stagnation of the Philippine industry and its profound impact on the country’s labor market.

“Unlike developed countries whose workers have primarily transitioned away from agriculture to industrial and high-skilled services employment, workers in developing countries such as the Philippines have been moving out of low-productivity agriculture towards low-skilled jobs.

“The services sector account for 61% of gross domestic product and six out of 10 workers, but a third in low-paying jobs.

“Meanwhile, elements of its exports sector with a competitive advantage and the number of exporting companies have been declining, making the Philippines a ‘market of consumer goods rather than a hub for manufacturing exports.’

“The country can explore several paths towards economic diversification and upgrading, which includes ‘leapfrogging’ to high-productivity and aiming for more sophisticated goods by adopting high technology over the medium to long term.” [Diversification, Jobs and the COVID-19 Recovery.pdf (un.org)]

Let’s recap where we are.

We rely on OFW remittances and the BPO industry – a consumer goods market – while our neighbors are hubs for manufacturing exports.

In other words, our neighbors are more faithful to the character of this universe we live in, i.e., dynamism and interdependence.

The evidence? Our eight top companies combined – the ones that gave us dollar billionaires – cannot match the economic contributions of one Vietnam enterprise, Samsung Vietnam.

Why economic contributions? Beyond revenues, Samsung Vietnam creates intermediate industries because a smartphone requires not just raw materials but parts and components too. That is what economists call the “multiplier effect” of investment, especially exports that are techno-products. And why Vietnam has put poverty in their rearview mirror.

Let’s pause — and ponder that point. 

Does our caste system — that feeds on an inward-looking bias — stand in the way of acknowledging how Vietnam arrested poverty? It was not via their version of the 4Ps, for example.

We need another subset — or building block to traverse poverty to prosperity — preferably techno-products, beyond (1) OFW remittances; (2) the BPO industry; (3) a market of consumer goods; (4) our top eight companies. [If it’s not apparent, that is a simple exercise in lateral – or out-of-the-box – versus linear and incremental thinking, aka “innovation.” And it must come with uprightness, i.e., the abhorrence of corruption.]

And here is where interdependence is a must. We don’t have techno-products, but Samsung and Apple have, for example.

And Mahathir comes to mind. He wanted Malaysia to get into techno-products, and so he created a task force to advise him. And they were foreigners, that included Bill Gates.

And this is something Mayor Isko must digest.

Two administrations, Aquino and Duterte’s, did not leverage Arangkada. The JFC offered it to us on a silver platter. In other words, water (i.e., industrialization) already came to the horse, and we ignored it.

And Mayor Isko can think out-of-the-box and emulate Mahathir. How?

Let’s get back to the principle: We must make and sell things – not just “things” but globally competitive products and services.

The problem for Mayor Isko is that the Philippines has no track record in pursuing globally competitive products and services, as pointed out by the UN.

And instead of falling into the trap of relying on political patronage and oligarchy, he must follow the footsteps of Mahathir.

Consider: We already have a good income source from OFW remittances and the BPO industry. Our instincts will again be to rely on our economic managers to craft the response to nation-building.

Let’s call a spade a spade. We have many talents to manage the Central Bank or Department of Finance, or even Treasury – especially given the windfalls from the above two sources.

We need another source — a much more transformative source as in a Samsung Vietnam or Apple AirPods Vietnam.

So, Mayor Isko, if not president-to-be, can assemble a task force to advise him. Take Bill Gates. And also the CEO of Apple and the CEO of Samsung. He can add Warren Buffett too.

“I want the Philippines to leapfrog our Asian neighbors. But I would be grateful if you could guide me. [Translation: It is an exercise in forward-thinking.] So that you would yourself want to invest in the Philippines as heavily as you would elsewhere.”

The devil is in the detail. But Mayor Isko must first set the tone. And tap the right people instead of the Philippine oligarchy.

It is long past the time for us to undo our “reality” and define and forge a common good.

We will continue borrowing tons of money for the 4Ps, infrastructure, supporting OFWs, and the BPO industry. Our top companies will continue to do their thing.

But this universe is characterized by dynamism and interdependence.

We need a brand new playing field that we haven’t had for the longest time. Let’s not pretend we know how to build it.

Let’s call a spade a spade.

Tens of millions of Filipinos are undernourished and, worse, suffer from abject poverty. And to keep Juan de la Cruz’s body and soul together, we must borrow tons of money for the 4Ps.

And over 10 million chose to be OFWs despite the heavy social price it brings – to them and the nation.

Yet, to add insult to injury, we celebrate that our GDP growth has attained the Western laudable metric of 6%-7%. And the economy created a handful of dollar billionaires.

Should we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes do something?

Our reality is why we can’t feed Juan de la Cruz.

Enter: Mayor Isko.

Mayor Isko is a politician, and so I will leave his politics with him. Yet, he can think of his more significant role as Philippine president. And that is nation-building.

And especially in the Philippines, we can define nation-building as “to traverse poverty to prosperity” rapidly.

Gising bayan!