Vision, next level, empathy

Are those among the things we take for granted to keep the equilibrium in our informal, harmonious and pleasant culture? Why would we want to disturb the apple cart? We were having dinner with friends, who had lived most of their adult life in California but now call Alabang home, when I picked up those words. While my wife and I were the ones visiting the Philippines, all four of us would fall under the classification Fil-Ams. Which simply means our worldview is different from those of us who call PHL home, and no other.

Our friends have picked up the local lifestyle being members of the country club and signing up for another in Tagaytay. “The idea is Tagaytay is accessible and the goal is to visit once a week, play golf and pick up some fruit and vegetable on the way back. Of course, we must know when to drive out to minimize traffic en route. By and large we will keep our American way of life, meaning DIY (do-it-yourself.)”

I looked perplexed and my wife had to translate. “Remember I had lunch with friends last week and I saw a few ‘yayas’ but there were no kids around. The yayas were attending to my friends and they were seated at the next table, at the beck-and-call of their señoras, like valets.” And my wife added, “When we come to live here again, you will hire me a yaya cum valet.” That will be the day!

In a feudalistic society like ours, we don't need a vision because those who count are already living the dream? But a vision or to imagine a bright future is something that my Eastern European friends would not assume. We were in our dark ages – under our Soviet masters – and we learned to take things as they come, was how they would explain it. And I would recall the expression, “step-by-step.” “Foresight” was not top of mind, if it was even uttered.

When I first arrived they explained the situation they were in. First the good news: They had sales of $6 million which made them proud. But the bad news was they were giving away the store, they were not delivering profits. And so we discussed the challenge they had in front of them and, that is, to be a $100-million company. Long story short, they've blown past that milestone and have set their sights on something much bigger. Their mantra is to keep moving up to the next level.

How does that apply to PHL? We must view SMEs beyond a livelihood or family undertaking. The bias must be on “outcome” not “activity.” Every enterprise is an opportunity to be a contributing member of society; and once critical mass is attained, collectively they can supplant our feudal system – and even wean us from our reliance on OFW remittances. But that will not happen if they remain small scale. They must seek to scale up. We can’t be an oligarchic economy that is riding on the backs of 10 million OFWs in perpetuity if we truly mean that we want to be an inclusive economy – and feed the other half of Filipinos. Poverty has gotten worse? Surprise, surprise? What else do we expect given our reality? Willing the glass to be half full doesn’t make it so!

Of course their eyes popped when my Bulgarian friends heard $100 million. That means you are able to stand on your own two feet, was how I explained the significance. It's all about the ecosystem. Imagine that we will lay out tracks, sturdy tracks and long enough so that we can travel far. Then we shall put on one car then a few cars, and then some; and then we will extend the tracks so the cars will have enough tracks to traverse – and even run at faster clips. Imagine, think 360 degrees and visualize an ecosystem.

The image came to me again as we were driving along EDSA and caught in traffic; and my wife and I were watching the few jam-packed MRT cars while countless buses were clogging EDSA because of their stop-and-go routine. How do we move up to the next level? My wife asked: “Why don't they optimize the investment on the tracks and put more cars in order to take more passengers and reduce the number of buses?” The thought came from our recent experience while in Bangkok and where we moved around with ease like other foreigners we saw because of the efficient public transportation system.

But is it true that bus operators are an influential bloc? Why? What was the rationale of the investment on the MRT if the public transportation system hasn't truly improved? Shouldn't that be the metric of such an infrastructure project? 

Back to my Bulgarian friends on how they can stand on their own two feet. Wherever we will lay the “tracks,” we have to think empathy otherwise we will never figure out the right products to sell. As we develop more of the right products, our portfolio will expand. That is how we will put more cars on the tracks. It is not about what we think, it is about what the consumer's problem is, or her need. It is not inside-out, but outside-in. It's the simplest way to explain empathy. [I am writing this on the train as snow continued to make a mess of Manhattan after attending “The Big Rethink” conference sponsored by The Economist Magazine for the modern-day CMO or Chief Marketing Officer. And I was with two friends from Eastern Europe. The first session asked the question: What global trends are we not talking about, moderated by the Media Editor of the magazine with 3 Fortune 500-types in the panel. And I was waiting to hear about Steve Jobs, for example, but not only. And so I raised my hand to make the point. The CMO beyond being the exemplar of leadership and financial accountability is grounded in human empathy because that is the well from where product innovation comes from, so says Steve Jobs. What is my question? Do you agree or disagree?]

Our Fil-Am foursome finished dinner and as we stepped out of the restaurant we realized we were both parked some distance away. And it was not a pleasant sight – a sea of cars packed like sardines – in a restaurant row that's part of a development billed as the local version of Beverly Hills. And our friend sighed, “There’s no empathy behind the design of this development.”

Over dinner we were jumping between looking at the glass as half full and the absence of the desire to move up to the next level. The good news is Philippine business and industry have some of the smartest people. And that we have a select group of Ivy League-types that are leading local enterprises.

In our hierarchical system and structure, everyone expects them to occupy lofty positions in Philippine society – and why we send our kids to these institutions in the first place. And then the bad news: we got to talking about the couple of cases where such an assumption was off base (or was it misplaced trust?) to the detriment of their employers.

Yet even in the West there is “clubbiness” among such elite groups, and the reality is because innovation continues to move at warp speed, those who don't keep up are left behind. And in the Philippines where we lag in innovation, creativity and competitiveness, it won't be surprising if they aren't kept current as well. And why doctors have continuing education, for instance.

The moral of the story: Can we imagine having a vision for the Philippines? What about our enterprises not taking the Filipino consumer for granted, that is, if they want to be honed in innovation, creativity and competitiveness? Those are founded on empathy . . . Whatever progress we may have achieved as an economy, there is the attendant challenge to move up to the next level . . . And finally . . . impeccable credentials can't undo the fundamental given, that education doesn't end with a sheepskin.

“Complaining is our national pastime”

In Singapore recently, my Bulgarian friend (with his wife and 19-month old daughter, who could hold the attention of those around her with her limited vocabulary which she compensates with eye contact and hand gestures) and I had dinner with a Singaporean. She teaches math at the local university and is also an art critic, specializing in architecture. “I wrote about your hotel,” she exclaimed. The hotel has become my own favorite, “offering lofty sky gardens” [says their flyer] bordering the all-glass floor-to-ceiling windows-cum-wall running the length of the room on the 14th floor. The rooms are generously adorned with wood, including slender frames of cube-like figures randomly stacked against the glass treatment (but no monkeys to do acrobatic stunts.) And from the reception desk all the way to lounge on the 16th floor, I would be greeted by Pinoy staff members.

The Singaporean has a PhD in AI (Artificial Intelligence) but would ask if we could share ideas how the youth of Singapore could keep on with the progress that has defined their city-state. She has lived in Japan for 7 years and also in Argentina. “You know, complaining is our national pastime. We always talk about what’s not working in Singapore. By now you know that I am both left and right brain. And while we’re teaching Singaporeans about creativity, I think we still lag the world because our nation developed with us, the people, following the vision set by our leadership and the rules that came with it. And that’s my point in asking how our youth could keep on with this progress.”

And she would continue: “In the case of Japan, perhaps because the system works, they would not hone their creativity even in the electronics industry which they once dominated. They can pursue technology but they’re creativity-challenged as far as applications are concerned.” And so I would relate the story of Toshiba and Apple. Toshiba had developed the hard disk the size of a dollar coin but they never figured out an application.

Enter Steve Jobs: He was not thinking technology but human empathy. That music is the way to the soul and the Walkman was the best the device available, with its own limitations – perhaps up to a hundred songs. Yet the soul can represent something that is truly vast and can be fed lots of songs, say, a thousand songs. But then Toshiba would sell the ownership of the teeny-weeny hard disk to Apple. The rest as they say is history. But Jobs would also explain how simple creativity is: it is simply connecting the dots.

There was a rumor that Lee Kuan Yew has died. He has been in hospital since early February or for practically a month (as of this writing) and the latest news is he was in ICU being treated for pneumonia. And the nation seemed to be in the mood of dissecting his strengths and weaknesses, the biggest concern being “we don’t have a succession plan.” 

It appears, volunteered another Singaporean, the son who is the Prime Minister doesn’t have the charisma, the vision, the leadership and the managerial skills of the father. “When he is confronted with questions in the Parliament, he can’t articulate his position nor his responses to these questions and he falls back on the talking points re the Singapore GDP.” I had to smile to myself because I had just read about one of our economic managers in the Philippines waxing poetic about our ability to continue with an accelerated growth rate of even up to 8%. [Haven’t we predicted boom times for decades?] Because he would also fall back on the talking points re the Philippine GDP. For instance, while the government has approved a huge infrastructure budget, it has yet to translate it into an efficient execution process. And the same applies with the targets set for FDI yet we remain the laggard in accumulated FDIs.

The big difference with Lee Kuan Yew is during his time, as many Singaporeans would explain, he was able to articulate a vision for Singapore and the core values that Singaporeans had to embrace to attain that vision. And as importantly, he would spell out the “how” to get there. And that while Lee Kuan Yew muzzled the opposition, the opposition in the past would also shoot themselves in the foot. Singaporeans are smart enough and won't be swayed by populist talking points. And yet for many years that was what the opposition tried to do.

“And that is why we are concerned. To keep on with Singapore’s progress, we cannot resort to a populist character. For example, we know we have zero natural resources, even our water comes from Malaysia. We are a tiny piece of land and all we have is ourselves, people. Indeed we need foreign investors like they have been successfully attracted by our leadership. But the son can’t articulate how we shall raise our population to 6.5 million. Lee Kuan Yew in the past would very easily explain whatever targets or goals or even KPIs (key performance indicators) he set for Singapore.”

I asked a Singaporean colleague about the flag and he went to Google to capture the precise words and read: “First the colors. Red stands for universal brotherhood and equality of man. White symbolizes pervading and everlasting purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents a young nation on the ascendant, and the five stars depict Singapore's ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.”

We were introduced to the Commander of the Singapore Guards, and in the Singapore Armed Forces they are considered the elites, and I realized I’m indeed a senior citizen. He looked like a PMA cadet, young, fit and trim. And he was introduced by his first name, not as a general or commander. We were in our business attire and he was in civvies, and could be mistaken for an athlete. And indeed he is and is passionate about football, and would break into a grin when he said he roots for Liverpool. And could rattle the names of players counting back years including stars from Central and Eastern Europe, where he knows we come from.

The Guards are in charge of the National Day Parade and 2015 is special, the 50th anniversary of Singapore. And the deputies made certain the Commander would meet us being one of the sponsors – and having traveled from a distant place. “I wish you’d come on the 9th of August for the parade itself,” he would add. We were comparing notes with my Bulgarian friends well aware that command officers in our own countries would look like the elders of this youthful Singaporean officer who personified “a young nation on the ascendant.”

There is not that much secret behind the success that is Singapore? First of all, they had a visionary leadership in Lee Kuan Yew. And the people, as they themselves profess, are smart enough not to be swayed by populist talking points. As importantly, they never sleep on their laurels. To complain is not unpatriotic, and in fact is their national pastime. Yet they are committed to the pursuit of their vision as a nation.

Is there a blemish in the record of Lee Kuan Yew? They would relate to the one time during a question time in the Parliament when Lee Kuan Yew was pointedly questioned about the preferential discount he received from a developer for the house in Bukit Timah. He did not explain it other than to say that he “got a discount but who has a problem with that,” and stormed out while belligerently tossing the pen in his hand. Of course, he was an autocratic leader.

I am writing this back in Connecticut and had read about Obama’s own challenges and can only conclude that indeed perfection is not of this world. Thus, there really is not that much secret about the success that is Singapore? But that can only be true if we Filipinos would: (a) look outward not inward; (b) seek to learn from others; (c) clarify our perspective; (d) distinguish our faith from our heart and from our thinking; (e) keep the fundamental givens; and (f) keep it simple?

And that means being committed to the pursuit of a vision as a nation, and not be swayed by populist talking points or sweet-talking economic managers? But first we need visionary leadership? And then as a people we need to toss “kanya-kanya”?

“Our inability to get our act together”

“EDSA People Power was not a revolution. It was a revelation of the Filipino’s better self, buried by our toxic dependence on foreign powers, our bahala-na and ningas-cogon mentality, as well as our inability to get our act together.” [Another EDSA (?), Fr. Rolando V. De la Rosa, OP, Manila Bulletin, 21st Feb 2015]

Is our “better self” still buried precisely because of our inability to get our act together? Or why despite EDSA People Power, we’re back to square one? For example, “Bayanko is a separate movement completely independent of the National Transformation Council.” [For people power to succeed, Carmen N. Pedrosa, FROM A DISTANCE, The Philippine Star, 22nd Feb 2015]

If my memory isn't failing me, I thought I first read about the National Transformation Council in the same column? But then again, didn't we first read that GK and Couples for Christ were partners? Is getting our act together a real challenge for Pinoys? Because it is the gut issue that wittingly or unwittingly we keep glossing over that at the end of the day we're neither here nor there? For instance, Party-list over traditional political parties or charity giving (e.g., GK, CSR, CCT, etc.) over economic development . . . and yet we still can't feed half of our people? And we're still at it with federalism over Imperial Manila and parliamentary over the presidential form of government?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, so says Einstein? And should we wonder why we have a toxic dependence on foreign powers or why we can’t even feed half of our people . . . when we have yet to learn to stand on our own two feet? Of course individually we’re proud! Why not given our “kanya-kanya” instincts? The common good be damned!

The evidence: “METROBANK RESEARCH PREDICTS FURTHER 6-7% RISE IN 2015,” Mayvelin U. Caraballo, The Manila Times, 22nd Feb 2015. “Remittances by overseas Filipino workers (OFW) will rise a further 6 to 7 percent this year and provide a major growth engine for the local economy against global headwinds, the research arm of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. said.”

“A steady inflow of such remittances is seen coming from the United States, where economic growth is expected to gain pace and make up for the slowdown in other developed economies which also employ Filipino workers, Metrobank Research said in its latest report.”

How else must a bank think? More precisely, how do we wean ourselves from OFW remittances? Indeed “there are times that try men's soul”?

“Strong govt-private sector ties in PH supply chain urged,” Rosalie C. Periabras, The Manila Times, 22nd Feb 2015. “The government and the private sector must now address the problems hounding the Philippine supply chain industry, an official of the Department of Transportation and Communications said.”

“Transportation and Communications Undersecretary Julianito Bucayan Jr. told delegates at the recently concluded 8th Ports and Shipping Conference in Manila that a sound and harmonious relationship between the government and the private sector is key if the Philippines aims to become a major player in global shipping and shipbuilding.”

“The Joint Foreign Chambers (JFC), a coalition of seven foreign business chambers, has joined the clamor for the swift enactment of amendments to the BOT Law in order to sustain investor confidence by institutionalizing the processes that have improved the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program over the past four years.” [JFC calls for swift passage of BOT amendments, Bernie Magkilat, Manila Bulletin, 21st Feb 2015]

“We call on government to swiftly enact the amendments to the BOT Law that will institutionalize the PPP Center and its processes, which we believe will further strengthen our PPP framework and prevent hindrances to the implementation of critical public projects,” the JFC said.”

And Mindanao, of course, continues to hug the headlines: “Assuming that the ARMM is a failure, is it the law that needs drastic changes? Or, is it because the officials “elected” to occupy the ARMM high offices failed to faithfully execute their duties? Quite a number of them became extraordinarily rich by helping themselves to the ARMM budget as if it were their own personal fortune…” [Applying the lessons of history II,Former Senator Atty. Rene Espina, Manila Bulletin, 21st Feb 2015]

“There are two ways of thinking and of having faith . . .” [Pope Francis Slams 'Prejudiced Mentality' Of Believers Who Fearfully Cling To Religious Laws, David Gibson, Religion News Service, www.huffingtonpost.com, 15th Feb 2015]

Indeed our faith is strong but mustn’t forget that there is also thinking. Where does “bahala-na” come from? Is what we call faith in fact a reliance on our “heart” and leading with our heart is why we can’t get our act together? Because our hearts can’t be one and the same? “Kanya-kanya” comes from the heart? But community sense and the commitment to the common good comes from thinking?

I’m writing this while in “Las Casas Filipinas de Acuzar” (billed as a “heritage resort” – “Pride in the past; Hope for the future” – in Bagac, Bataan) where a brother-in-law hosted us and his siblings to an overnight stay. They’ve stayed with us (snowbirds) in Marriott facilities in Phuket, Bangkok and Phoenix and the brother-in-law wanted us to experience something Filipino . . . to be proud of.

We thoroughly enjoyed Las Casas and my wife and I relished walking around and feasting on the sights of old homes and of old Binondo and Escolta, complete with the esteros. (That's coming straight from our hearts.) The young guide who showed us around heard that I once worked at an office in Escolta and asked if I'd confirm the names of the establishments he enumerated. He knew what he was talking about.

As our group compared notes, one of the siblings said that the island resort that we visited a few years ago in Marinduque has turned into a strictly chartering business. The conclusion is it was unable to sustain itself as a regular resort. But the facility would compare to a Marriott and why the reference. And we went recalling the different places we’ve visited. And the ones we thought we liked the most were pretty accessible and easy to reach. And like all enterprises, sustainability is never guaranteed especially when competition offers better value. (That's where thinking comes in.) I mentioned that some of our European friends have gone to Boracay and their common comment is “getting there is an adventure.”

My wife explained how the Marriott vacation club (which was known before as the “time-share” concept) has learned from the past – and is thriving. She calls it the opposite of “kanya-kanya.” People buy ownership by weekly units. The business model (apart from the reality that Marriott is a trusted brand; they have countless locations around the world and thus benefit from economies of scale) simply is the enterprise does not carry the costs of the assets and maintenance as well which are passed on to the fractional owners. What is the hypothesis of the Marriott experiment? Owners aren’t fixated by acquisition cost when there is perceived value in convenience, flexibility, choices and high-end resorts – the metric that Marriott set to define and translate the idea into a tangible product.

The moral of the story: If individual enterprises find the challenge to succeed and thrive daunting, what more of a community or a nation – especially when “kanya-kanya” rules? There are two ways of thinking and of having faith, so says Francis.

Should the Church take on the challenge of educating Juan de la Cruz to toss “kanya-kanya”? To be inclusive and to take care of the poorest of the poor is Christian-like, but it does not mean dole-outs. Dole-outs precisely reinforce and perpetuate an oligarchic economy. Think of the few fighting and cornering the economy while championing CSR. Beyond the church, should the educational system help Juan de la Cruz to square the circle?

Our inability to get our act together given “kanya-kanya” adversely impacts vital facets of the Filipino life thus our failure to feed half of our people. Has it in fact buried our better self?

“Whatever the costs . . .”

“In a powerful sermon that signaled his desire to push ahead with historic reforms, Pope Francis on Sunday (Feb. 15) said the Roman Catholic Church must be open and welcoming, whatever the costs.” [Pope Francis Slams 'Prejudiced Mentality' Of Believers Who Fearfully Cling To Religious Laws, David Gibson, Religion News Service, www.huffingtonpost.com, 15th Feb 2015]

If we come to think about it, catholic means universal and thus open and welcoming?

“‘There are two ways of thinking and of having faith: we can fear to lose the saved and we can want to save the lost . . . Even today it can happen that we stand at the crossroads of these two ways of thinking . . .’ as he outlined the current debate in the church between those seen as doctrinal legalists and those, like Francis, who want a more pastoral approach.” [ibid.]

“Jesus responds immediately to the leper’s plea, without waiting to study the situation and all its possible consequences . . . For Jesus, what matters above all is reaching out to save those far off, healing the wounds of the sick, restoring everyone to God’s family. And this is scandalous to some people!”

“Jesus is not afraid of this kind of scandal . . . He does not think of the close-minded who are scandalized even by a work of healing, scandalized before any kind of openness, by any action outside of their mental and spiritual boxes, by any caress or sign of tenderness which does not fit into their usual thinking and their ritual purity.”

“Francis repeatedly slammed the ‘narrow and prejudiced mentality’ of believers who cling to religious laws out of fear. They wind up rejecting the very people they should be ministering to . . . which means anyone on the margins of society ‘who encounters discrimination.’”

Question: Where do we in PHL stand given the historic reforms that Francis is championing? For example, “[T]he Roman Catholic Church must be open and welcoming, whatever the costs?” Consider: Our value system, characterized by our parochial bias, is not open and welcoming to change especially of the extraneous kind. And so we find even the community and the common good extraneous – so long as our family's needs are provided for. No wonder we're among the most corrupt? And given the ambivalence in our traits and values, we live with and perpetuate a feudalistic system even as we claim that we are for an inclusive society. And it is deep-seated and has stood the test of time. 

The evidence: How long have we heard unsolicited advice like the following? “Phl needs to open up economy – think tank” and “Corruption, investment restrictions hinder PH ‘economic freedom’ – US think tank” and “EU urges reform in PH procurement system.”

“US-based think-tank The Heritage Foundation said the Philippines would need to open up the economy to more players and continue its structural reforms to increase investments.” [Phl needs to open up economy – think tank, Kathleen A. Martin, The Philippine Star, 19th Feb 2015] “Terry Miller, executive director of the organization, said . . . the government should consider altering some rules on trade and investments to better cater to a bigger group of investors. Miller said that some policies only protect a number of businesses or some sectors, holding back economic development and investments, and in turn, the creation of jobs.”

“They tend to preserve the benefits to perhaps only an elite group in the society. Maybe if you can open up the economy, then much more opportunity will be available for average people. Policy changes can make significant changes.”

“THE Philippines should focus on three key areas of concerns to achieve ‘economic freedom,’ according to the US-based Heritage Foundation.” [Corruption, investment restrictions hinder PH ‘economic freedom’ – US think tank, The Manila Times, 18th Feb 2015] “[T]he think tank’s Senior Analyst Anthony Kim and Executive Director Ambassador Terry Miller both said that the Philippines should further improve its policies and reforms for the elimination of corruption, ease restrictions on foreign investments, and remove the influence of corruption in the judicial system.”

“The country should improve its rule of law in the performance of the judicial system and in fighting corruption. If those are addressed, there should be advancement in the [economic freedom] score for the long term. Address corruption and change the culture to correct the acceptance of corruption in the [government] processes.”

“THE European Union has urged the Philippine government to do more in improving the transparency and competitiveness of its procurement system as it plays a key role in attracting job-generating investment into the country.” [EU urges reform in PH procurement system, Mayvelin U. Caraballo, The Manila Times, 17th Feb 2015]

“In a forum on Tuesday, Ambassador Guy Ledoux of the Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines, said the country has made progress in terms of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), noting that inward FDI stocks in the country increased to 25 billion euros in 2013, mostly originating from the EU, from 10 billion euros in 2004. However, the EU ambassador said that the latest figure is only a fraction of the more than 200 billion euros in FDI that European companies invest every year around the world. That the Philippines has been a laggard in FDI growth can be traced to the bottlenecks in the country’s procurement policy, which blocks investments.

“Some of these companies are reluctant due to problems industry faces with procurement: companies encounter problems with tendering and bidding processes that seem to work against foreign bidders,” Ledoux said.”

Those are pretty damning indictments that should wake us up and bring us down to earth? If they're not bad enough, what about our demonstrating to the rest of the world that indeed we're a banana republic? Are we again foolishly entertaining the idea if not gearing up to upend a democratically elected government?

I was chatting with a relative who was bragging about their province up north. And so next January during their fiesta they will host us to see for ourselves how much progress they've achieved even when they're not done yet – and have in fact attracted foreign investment. But that's why when another relative wondered aloud how the fate of Luisita would have angered relatives of President Aquino, one would appreciate how after we take one step forward we then take two steps back.

Wouldn't our generation wish to see the future of the Philippines? But not if we keep moving backwards? And so I have to miss another extended family get-together before our annual homecoming to the Philippines ends. With my Eastern European friends, we are among the sponsors of Singapore’s 50th anniversary celebration and received an invite to an advance thank-you event. While having just returned, I'm flying back because I want to be a witness to Singapore (more so the Philippines) going full circle after 44 years – when I first visited and the industrial area of Jurong was still barren land. [Concern is in the air in Singapore following the news that Lee Kuan Yew is not in the best of health.]

Francis referenced “the close-minded . . . repeatedly slammed the narrow and prejudiced mentality” . . . “Charity is creative . . .” They are a great guide not only about faith but thinking as well, including innovation and creative destruction. But even the Curia, to the surprise of Francis, can’t imagine that? Not surprisingly, mortals like us Pinoys are like a lost sheep? Which explains why we’re the regional laggard?

Because our comfort zone always wins, it goes without saying that we're preserving the status quo, yet we wonder why reform efforts don't get traction. For instance, half of our people say they are hungry and poor yet we take the ambivalence for granted? And so instead of the positives of charity and creativity, we are confronted with the negatives, of a narrow and prejudiced mentality? 

But we’re not about to rock the boat? Precisely why Francis wants openness whatever the costs? Openness is not sacrilege. But in a feudal society, that applies only to the few? Like my old neighbors in our old enclave in Alabang; they flexed their muscles (all the way to the SC) to block a planned community center in the neighborhood. Bravo!

Mindanao: a hard nut to crack

“Senate Majority Leader Alan Peter S. Cayetano said yesterday the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) that is supposed to bring peace to violence-wracked Mindanao belongs in the waste basket.” [BBL: Cayetano aims for the waste basket, Mario Casayuran, Manila Bulletin, 15th Feb 2015]

I’ve watched the Senate Majority Leader on TV whenever we’re in town and he seems to make sense. But in politics as in love and war, all is fair; and so detractors have been throwing darts his way and his family's. For instance, that he belongs to a political dynasty with its own baggage? 

Emotions are still raw and it is understandable Senator Cayetano wants to toss the BBL although he says he’s for peace. It appears the MILF has a credibility issue and those outside the peace process believe they can’t represent Bangsamoro. And so after the MNLF and the MILF, where do we go? “There will always be many Mamasapanos remaining in profuse poverty when our national hierarchies continue to deny us the chance to prosper. We ask our leaders in the Government and the MILF to uphold the trust they share in the peace process.”— Junaid (FNU), Mamasapano resident, 07 February 2015. [National unity, morale, trust, leadership, strategic priorities (Last of two parts), Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos, Manila Bulletin, 14th Feb 2015]

“Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign for federalism struck a high note among the people of Palawan, a province long embroiled in a dispute with the national government over its share of the controversial Malampaya Fund.” [Duterte: Federalism to stop Malampaya theft, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 4th Feb 2015]

Mindanao is a hard nut to crack. It needs a Philippine president that will demonstrate a commitment to Mindanao. While that means accelerating economic development, Mindanao must have an overarching goal. And what will it take to get there? What infrastructure, what strategic industries and what science and technology and education initiatives must be in place? And the efforts must be monitored in a very high-profile manner because we are working to win the hearts and minds of the people.

It is more than allocating money or land like we saw with land reform. It’s about the ecosystem, the absence of which revealed our shortcomings in economic development and nation building – owing to the inability to connect the dots? Does it have to do with our crying need for visionary leadership? Or to forward-think? Does it have to do with “kanya-kanya” or self-centeredness? Try community sense and the common good . . .

But back to the peace process. “Duterte . . . appealed to the country’s top political leaders to rise above the national outrage and anger over the Mamasapano (Maguindanao) incident.” [‘Rise above anger and work for peace,’ Manny Piñol and Catherine Valente, The Manila Times, 21st Feb 2015]

“The Third-Party Monitoring Team (TPMT), the body that monitors the progress in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, highlighted the need to continue with the peace process especially after the tragedy in Mamasapano.” [Casayuran, op. cit.] “The recent tragic events at Mamasapano have underlined yet again the human costs of conflict, and the TPMT joins in expressing their condolences to the families of all the victims,” TPMT Chair Alistair MacDonald said during a press briefing held for the release of their second annual Public Report on February 13.

“But it will be essential to protect the future while providing just remedies for the past – and that future can only prosper in the context of a widespread and lasting peace. According to MacDonald, while public attention is focused on the tragedy, the substantial progress made in the peace process for 2014 must not be overlooked. He noted that the report they release should serve to remind the public of this progress.”

We need third parties involved because of our own credibility problem. Remember the Irish peace process? Perfection is not of this world yet we like to think in absolutes? Evil is always at hand to undermine the best of intentions. And evil has been around since Eden and even at the Last Supper. And in the case of Mindanao, do we want to truly know and learn how to live with our Muslim brothers?

But we worry about the Constitution? We have to invest in the “substance” lest the “form” won't suffice. Does Pinoy abilidad mean throwing one for the other? For example, we shared with a couple of local experts our discomfort with federalism not because we discount it per se but to suggest that we go through the thought process. What is the fundamental given? That a market must have critical mass and economies of scale in order to be viable. For example, Quebec or Scotland; and thus they chose to keep the status quo.

At the end of the day, the challenge is how to rigorously prioritize development initiatives (i.e., the substance) and it is something that we as a people have yet to learn whether we are federalized or not (i.e., the form)? And what about the risk of reinforcing our parochial bias? Which together with our hierarchical system and structure have held us back – and why we’re still in our dark ages?

I am writing this in Singapore after being driven practically all around this city-state (and was just in KL.) And shared with my Eastern European friends that 44 years ago, I stood over a barren land they called Jurong* and never imagined how rapidly they would turn into a First-World nation. And we discussed a thinking model to guide the enterprise going forward, i.e., with the view to “self-actualizing” the consumer. And that is what being competitive means in dynamic markets. [*The government saw industrialization as a solution to the country's economic problems and Jurong was picked as a prime area for development. Wikipedia]

But we Pinoys have our work cut out for us, our failure to rapidly pursue economic development. [See above re our inability to connect the dots.] And it's worth repeating the analogy: Let us imagine we’re going through layers while putting up the building blocks of the economy. And it starts with infrastructure. And once it’s extensive enough, we can overlay a set of vital strategic industries that will travel far and wide and drive PHL’s economic output several times more than currently. Industries need a platform. But then we must stretch our imagination by asking ourselves, how shall we sustain these efforts? And that means we need science and technology and education over the longer term.

“[Former President] Ramos recalled military action against rebel groups that burned down Ipil town in Zamboanga in April 1995 ahead of the signing of a peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) . . . ‘The Ipil raid in April 1995, this was seen by us as an attempt, just like now, to destroy the peace agreement we were about to sign with the (MNLF),’ Ramos said.” [Aquino hemming and hawing—Ramos, Erika Sauler, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 15th Feb 2015]

There are no simple answers. And like the world is witnessing today (in Ukraine, Syria, Greece, etc.), we’re in a funk. But we better ask ourselves whether our worldview will put us in good stead in the here and now?

I'm speaking to Singaporeans and while they went through a rigorous screening process before we hired them, I don't see them any better than people I worked with over the 20 years I was in the Philippines. But how come Singapore is a First-World nation and we can't even feed half of our people? If we have a Muslim problem, these people principally are: Chinese (74%), Muslims (14%) and Indians (9%).

And in KL I was speaking to a group that was half Chinese and half Muslims. And as I recalled being driven around in both places (their infrastructure puts us Pinoys to shame), I was pleased with and congratulated them for the progress they've achieved in a short period of time. And as we discussed the challenge to move up to the next level, they asked questions and expressed the desire to learn more and do even better.

And these people represent nations with GDPs per capita so many times more than PHL. How do we respond? “Alam ko na ‘yan” . . . or . . . “Wala tayong magagawa”?

The bias must be on “outcome” . . . not “activity”

“This past October, a roadshow was conducted by the PPP office in the US to present to potential investors 50 PPP projects worth $20.82 billion. That is a substantial amount of investment the Philippines could use for its infrastructure improvement . . . But in the words of (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Kurt Tong of the US Department of State) . . . the projects need to be ‘practical,’ a word that we do not understand the meaning of in this context. However he also said the rules and plans need to be clearer . . . ‘PPP deals’ need to be viable on the revenue side of the private investor . . .” [PPP and the USA, Business Mirror Editorial, 23rd Jan 2015]

Where are we coming from on the PPP and where is the above US official coming from? To answer the question we may want to borrow a page from education. “Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational theory (1989-present) that bases each part of an educational system around goals (outcomes). By the end of the educational experience each student should have achieved the goal.” [Wikipedia]

And much earlier there was “Bloom’s higher level of thinking. It is named after Benjamin Bloom, who chaired the committee of educators (1949-1953) that devised the taxonomy. Bloom's taxonomy refers to a classification of the different objectives that educators set for students (learning objectives). It divides educational objectives into three "domains": cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as "knowing/head", "feeling/heart" and "doing/hands" respectively).” [Wikipedia]

And from Soren Kierkegaard: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” And more recently many would have heard of Stephen R. Covey’s “The 7 habits of highly effective people,” and “Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind.”

This blog has talked about a simple model in the pursuit of undertakings, big and small, and it goes: Where are we; where do we want to be; how will we get there. And it is reflective of the thinking processes of visionary leadership (like Deng Xiaoping, Lee Kuan Yew, Mohamad Mahathir) as well as forward-thinkers and innovators (e.g., Edison, Jobs, Gates.)

In the case of the PPP – and for decades in our export promotion efforts – we trumpeted the roadshows we organized to the West and now Singapore. [“Phl holds Singapore roadshow for PPP projects,” Lawrence Agcaoili, The Philippine Star, 6th Feb 2015.] But they’re focused or biased on activity not outcome. An activity is not necessarily designed to reach a predetermined outcome, and in which case it is open-ended. And what to do to close the loop? Rely on “bahala na” or “fate”? 

As one local expert shared with me, “we train our business students how to plan but we don’t train and test them on how they execute.” And it is not surprising given the conventional wisdom and approach to learning, i.e., linear thinking. Practice. Practice. Practice.

It takes practice to learn execution . . . and also how to define an outcome so that it becomes its own metric. For example, the metric of a product idea could be something like: Can it be translated into a tangible product that sells and is preferred by consumers in the local market and beyond? Is it a sustainable undertaking, does it deliver healthy margins that it will contribute to the growth and competitiveness of the enterprise, and become a contributing member of society, including every country where it does business? [The model also applies to agribusiness, e.g., where scale via consolidation is imperative. And the bias must be to look outward and tap best practices from wherever, e.g., from Malaysia and Thailand. It is a race to the top which is what benchmarking is about. “Pwede na ‘yan” doesn’t cut it. And “alam ko na ‘yan,” is the road to disaster?]

And how many supposedly great product ideas have been pursued without defining the desired outcome that is its own metric?  And how many of them fell by the wayside? Even SMEs mustn’t use size as an excuse. It is about embracing innovation and competitiveness. And it is not a monopoly of MNCs as my Eastern European friends have demonstrated. Nor is it about the ideology of globalization. It is about the fundamental given of economies of scale. And it is beyond the rhetoric of “inclusiveness.” It reminds me of my late Jesuit friend who kept bending my ear about “reality” but was too dense it took years to sink in. Reality is the opposite of “plastik.” 

An oligarchic economy cum feudal society by definition is not about the common good and thus is not inclusive. But even the Church takes it for granted? And so do our conglomerates? While some of them have ventured outside the country, their DNA is about local dominance. They haven’t been truly honed in global competitiveness. Think Samsung. They’ve graduated from local dominance to global dominance.

Where the rubber hits the road is in the selling of a product. How does the mantra – “begin with the end in mind” – apply in selling? “Show them the money.” Don’t sell a retailer the product, show them how they will make money by selling the product in their stores. And that’s why marketing is important or the marketing mix, i.e., the 5 Ps: the product, the pricing, the placement, the promotion (and add people because execution is about people.)

And that is why innovation matters. And innovation has to be principle-based, e.g., human empathy – as championed by the Stanford School of Design; and is team-driven as opposed to being dependent on “bossing” which is inherent in our hierarchical system and structure. It is a carryover from Edison, the father of modern R&D where he moved away from the conventional wisdom – i.e., where research efforts were pursued by individuals – to that of a team-based orientation.

A marketer must thus put herself and her team in the place of the person or consumer in order to internalize what problem or need she has. And in the process of examining her need, we can’t ignore Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Or why Steve Jobs would say that a person may not be able to articulate her need but the spirit of innovation demands empathizing with her to realize that higher level need, as in being self-actualized. Of course, we can read consumerism in that – and see malice in everything.

Yet there is the overarching goal of a people's well-being that can be attained via competitiveness that is derived from investment, technology and innovation as well as people, product and market development – the elements that make an economic activity robust and sustainable . . . and become a pillar of an economy. It is the inverse of persistent poverty or a non-inclusive economy. And it explains why the global community has adopted yardsticks in the pursuit of innovation and competitiveness, among others. [“First APEC public-private dialogue” (by Roberto R. Romulo, The Philippine Star, 13th Feb 2015) drives home the point for the BPO industry. “[T]he 21st century has moved on . . .” And he talked to “disruptive technologies”: “The dramatic changes in technologies demand greater innovation and creativity from management and different/higher skills from employees . . .”]

At the end of the day, our ability to compete will be the acid test of how we will fare in the 21st century, including in the Asean Economic Community. There is no free lunch. We can’t rest easy even when AEC opens a bigger market for us . . . if we are not competitive in the first place. It will be sad if all that we gain from AEC is a bigger market for OFWs – because it will reinforce our “Dutch disease” where services will all the more outstrip industry. We now know that it is industry that drives the economy because of its greater multiplier effect – and why the NEDA secretary wants “to rebalance” the economy . . . if we are to truly overcome persistent poverty.

And back to the PPP. “But in the words of (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Kurt Tong of the US Department of State) . . . the projects need to be ‘practical,’ a word that we do not understand the meaning of in this context. However he also said the rules and plans need to be clearer . . . ‘PPP deals’ need to be viable on the revenue side of the private investor . . .”

Beyond doing roadshows, we need to demonstrate to investors how they will make money. There’s nothing wrong when Tom Cruise hollered,“Show me the money!” It’s reality . . . as I explained it to my Eastern European friends, a bunch of ex-socialists.