But our instincts continue to blind us – especially us in the Philippine elite and chattering classes – because we like to believe we are success stories individually.
And there lies the plight of Juan de la Cruz. What is missing? The common good.
In other words, our instincts reveal our values: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
The blog has been playing like a broken record for over a dozen years, yet it doesn’t get traction.
Why? Because we are “learned” – even “sophisticated” per an American diplomat who had the most flattering words for us Filipinos post-Philippine assignment.
A colleague from my old MNC-company – who had two stints in the Philippines and moved up to Asia-Pacific President – would remind me: “after the Philippines, everything is downhill.” He knew that we – the Philippine elite – lived in gated communities and chauffeured around.
And here we were in the mornings – winter, spring, summer, or fall – walking from the Grand Central station (the final stop of our train commute from Connecticut) to our building a couple of blocks north.
What else can Juan de la Cruz ask for?
Sadly, Juan de la Cruz has to separate from family – and home – to be an OFW because the Philippine economy cannot feed them. At the same time, we in the Philippine elite bash in our successes – as individuals.
What is missing? The common good.
We cannot build this nation from the ground up.
Didn’t Marcos try with his “New Society”? Or Cory – to restore the rule of law? Or FVR – to celebrate Global Philippines?
We even had two economists – GMA and PNoy; and a supposedly model mayor, i.e., Duterte.
We’re missing Erap. Here’s the take of Britannica: “In 1998, Estrada ran for president, though his candidacy faced significant opposition. Ramos, barred by the Constitution from running for a second term, endorsed House Speaker José de Venecia, and many of the country’s influential businessmen opposed Estrada’s populist proposals. The Roman Catholic Church denied Estrada its support because he admitted he fathered four children by women other than his wife.
“He did have the vote of Imelda Marcos, the widow of former president Ferdinand Marcos and then a member of Congress. He enjoyed a devoted following among the country’s poor. Estrada captured nearly 40 percent of the vote, handily defeating his nearest rival, de Venecia, who garnered only 15.9 percent. The margin of victory was the largest in a free election in the history of the Philippines, and Estrada was officially declared president by Congress on 29th May 1998.
“Estrada’s tenure as president was short-lived: A corruption scandal erupted in October 2000 when a fellow politician claimed that Estrada had accepted millions of dollars worth of bribes. In November, the Philippine Senate began an impeachment trial but abandoned it after some senators blocked the admission of evidence. On 20th Jan 2001, massive protests ousted Estrada, and his vice president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, ascended to the presidency. Later that year, Estrada was brought to trial on plunder charges (large-scale corruption) and accused of procuring more than $80 million through bribes and corrupt dealings. Estrada denied the accusations, calling them politically motivated, and he remained relatively popular in the Philippines despite the charges. In September 2007, he was convicted of plundering and sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in prison.”
In prior postings, the blog spoke to Mayor Isko; a movie actor turned politician too.
Is he a model politician? Should he be the next president? Will we successfully come together as a people and unite the opposition to support the model politician?
And my reference point is my Eastern European friends. Despite being merely an MSME – and a losing proposition for eight years – they bested over 15,000 companies across Europe to be a model.
Why? How? Beyond being a commercial success and its innovation culture, it is a paragon of business ethics.
Translation: The public sector is not unlike the private sector, i.e., it is an “enterprise.”
And for an enterprise to succeed, it must impact or deliver value to the real world. And it does so via an innovation culture. And to reinforce and perpetuate the “enterprise,” it must be upright.
And we should say ditto for Philippine education? Must education impact and deliver value to the real world?
Translation: Education must not be about learning the “how-to” or mechanics but the science of “thinking.”
And higher education in the US has its failings too. They had to overcome Japan Inc. The latter taught the world lots of “mechanics” as in Total Quality, yet they also missed the science of “thinking.”
Like Asian martial arts, Steve Jobs used the weight of Japanese technology to beat them by moving the world to digital — using Japanese technology. That’s how the iPod killed the Walkman.
Please recall that “innovation,” as explained by the blog, is about connecting the dots (thanks to Steve Jobs) and presupposes forward- and lateral thinking: Where are we; Where do we want to be: How do we get there.
On the other hand, where are our heads? And that is why the blog never stops playing our instincts: We are parochial and insular; we value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
Enter: Philippine agriculture. “Funding agriculture right,” Cielito F. Habito, NO FREE LUNCH, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28th Sep 2021.
“Why has the Department of Agriculture (DA) perennially received much less than it asks from the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) composed of government’s top economic managers, which finalizes the national budget proposed to Congress? Fellow Inquirer columnist Ernie Ordoñez recently noted that in 2020 and 2021, the DA got only 22 and 30 percent, respectively, of what it originally requested, and got even less in 2022. What gives? Don’t the economic managers believe in the importance of agriculture to our economy?”
Let’s hold it right there.
Those familiar with the blog may recall this scenario: Over dinner, the country manager where I was doing a restructuring initiative blurted out: "My wife asked me to ask you if you are firing me."
And my response: I am here to guide you and your team to figure out three things: (1) Where are you; (2) Where do you want to be; (3) How do you get there.
“Don’t the economic managers believe in the importance of agriculture to our economy? I am certain that they do. After all, the secretary of finance, usually considered the primus inter pares among them, was once secretary of agriculture himself under President Cory Aquino. A key member (Dr. Bruce Tolentino) of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral was also undersecretary to then Agriculture Secretary Sonny Dominguez, and Governor Ben Diokno, a seasoned economist, surely sees agriculture's critical role as well. And Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Karl Chua's past work as a World Bank economist had him leading a multi-year jobs program that had agriculture as a critical focus. So what makes them seem so ‘harsh’ on the agriculture budget?” [Habito, op. cit.]
Let’s imagine this scenario: The DA is an enterprise. And I walk in to do a restructuring initiative. And the DA Secretary asked: My wife asked me to ask you if you’re firing me.
And my response: I am here to guide you and your team to figure out three things: (1) Where are you; (2) Where do you want to be; (3) How do you get there.
Of course, this parade of secretaries deserved firing in the private sector, one after the other.
And that mirrors why the president of my old MNC-company (a 200-year-old Fortune 500) saw the power in the planning and budgeting system I introduced in the region and embraced it for the entire company.
But it’s the public sector so let’s be kinder and gentler.
Let’s start with the title of the article: “Funding agriculture right.”
Are we surprised? Recall what we say about our MSMEs that they must have access to funding.
And that is consistent with our rent-seeking, oligarchic economy. Only the moneyed and political patrons can succeed in an enterprise because they have access to funding.
But let’s digress a bit. Didn’t we say that what we need is “happiness,” not GDP? That is patronizing and can only come from us in the Philippine elite and chattering classes.
Because like the DA, the Philippines needs funding. But let’s hold it right there.
Funding does not mean tax revenues. Tax revenues come from national income or GDP. Can we not connect simple dots?
Recall what the blog says all the time: We are GDP-starved. Forget about OFW remittances and the BPO industry, our top eight companies, the “sweet spot” in our consumer market, the 4Ps, our MSMEs, and the Build, Build, Build program.
They collectively don't generate the levels of GDP to feed Juan de la Cruz – or fund the DA.
Is that hard to comprehend?
What should have been the question, is it funding for the DA, or should it be for Philippine agriculture to be a successful enterprise?
In other words, it must be a commercial success via an innovation culture and reinforced and perpetuated as an institution by uprightness.
And where are our heads again? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “Our economic managers emphasize the imperative to raise agriculture’s productivity to feed into manufacturing and industrial development.
“That is classic linear thinking. And we should have done that decades ago.
“We must leapfrog and toss linear and incremental thinking.
“We in the chattering classes have repeatedly raised the point that Lee Kuan Yew successfully ran Singapore like a business.
“In other words, he knew that Singapore had to traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly, and he had to aggressively drive GDP – i.e., Singapore’s revenues or the top line.
“That is how a private enterprise thinks, and that the lifeblood of the company is Sales – because they drive revenues.
“Recall that in Eastern Europe, while my role would suffice as consulting, I agreed to organize, run, and develop the sales force to show them the ropes of aggressively driving revenues.
“Still, they must recognize the imperative to connect the dots. And why they still want me to hold their hands, especially with the pandemic and with me working from home.
“And what are the dots to connect? They are the three dynamics of (1) the marketing mix (and its foundation is the product portfolio that must continually respond to the challenge of raising one’s well-being; not the dead-end of ‘serving the bottom of the pyramid’; and between the portfolio of products and markets is the challenge of analytics: where to sell which products, why, how, and what is the priority as in Pareto — to get the biggest bang; (2) the resource mix (and it includes the access to finance, and banks favor businesses that have credible game plans, and credibility isn’t free; (3) the execution mix: who will do what, when, where, and how.
“That’s why the blog raised the challenge – lift GDP by an incremental $200 billion. The Philippines cannot just aspire to be a first-world economy, and it must work its butt off.
“What does that mean? It is the difference between ‘analysis’ and ‘analytics.’
‘Analysis’ is why we celebrated the uptick or resurgent manufacturing back in 2015. In contrast, ‘analytics’ says that our premise was shortsighted.
“Recall the GPS model: Where are we; Where do we want to be; How do we get there.”
In other words, in the case of Philippine agriculture, the product portfolio must continually respond to the challenge of raising one’s well-being; not the dead-end of “serving the bottom of the pyramid”; and between the portfolio of products and markets is the challenge of analytics: where to sell which products, why, how, and what is the priority as in Pareto — to get the biggest bang.
We want to be in Philippine agriculture to be a commercial success via innovation and “upright” ethics.
And it starts with figuring out the product portfolio that must make up Philippine produce.
In other words, we want Philippine farmers and finished goods producers to be a commercial success, i.e., they sell high-margin products that are competitive in the global market.
That is what will lift Juan de la Cruz from poverty, not raising the DA budget a few points year-in, year-out.
But we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The Vietnamese tapped the IRRI – which is in our backyard – for know-how. And so they export rice, and we import them.
Why? We in the Philippine elite and chattering classes assume we are learned and successful individually.
What are we missing? The common good.
We cannot build this nation from the ground up.
Beg for foreign money and technology. That is how our neighbors left us in the dust one after the other.
Gising bayan!
No comments:
Post a Comment