The writer thanks a friend who referred him to John Gokongwei’s speech to the AD Congress a couple of years ago: “. . . To be a truly great nation, we must also excel as entrepreneurs before the world. We must create Filipino brands for the global market place.”
Entrepreneurship as we know it is wide spread: from fruit vendors and prepaid SIM card outlets to giant malls – making our typical neighborhood an overwhelming hodgepodge of activity, a potential environmental challenge, if we’re not there yet? But the more practical issue is: This model, after several decades, can’t double an already relatively large (vs. our neighbors) local economy, roughly at $100B – which is what we must attain to break the bondage of poverty given our population size? What we direly need is (high value-added) major investment and globally competitive industry because of their greater multiplier effect and market reach? And this is the crisis our presidential candidates must address: force the right debate and agenda, and raise the bar – for the Filipino people and themselves and thus be true leaders and models?
Gokongwei puts entrepreneurship in perspective: “. . . Why serve 86 million when you can sell to four billion Asians? And that’s just to start you off. Because there is still the world beyond Asia . . . As a boy, I sold peanuts from my backyard. Today, I sell snacks to the world . . . We just made sure we came prepared with great products and great strategies. We ended up changing the rules of the game instead” . . . [recognizing that] “the Philippines has no big industrial base, and Filipinos do not create world-class products.”
Not surprisingly, beyond his own experience, Gokongwei highlights the Koreans’ focus and Lee Kuan Yew’s single-mindedness in driving economic development. Should we revisit Lee Kuan Yew’s exhortation about discipline – because it just may apply despite our being “Pinoy kasi”? That we’re capable of discipline – to drive our own development initiatives?
Focus and single-mindedness can be in our psyche especially when we’re pursuing a noble purpose? (For instance, Al Gore thought he won the election but the country had to be focused and single-minded in order to move forward . . . despite the magnitude of the stake – not just for Gore and America but for the world.) Whenever we are unwilling to compromise for the common good, we may want to test the magnitude of our stakes – or our egos?
NEDA is currently updating our economic development plans. It is admirable that they are pulling together what they call 21st century industries to boost the country’s competitiveness. The success of this endeavor can be measured against Gokongwei’s self-imposed yardstick: “We just made sure we came prepared with great products and great strategies. We ended up changing the rules of the game instead” . . . [recognizing that] “the Philippines has no big industrial base, and Filipinos do not create world-class products.”
Talents and skills and good intentions can’t guarantee success for NEDA . . . and the country – it is imperative that we are focused and single-minded. And that means within government and between the public and private sectors there must be commitment and support – and likewise from every sector of society, including education and the Church. And our planners must be able to spell out and articulate how each one must play their part – to boost the country’s competitiveness. For example, should the Church be preaching more about “helping ourselves” – e.g., the writer’s sister, a nun, worked with farmers as a green advocate while another group in the chapel prayed 24/7. But there is a more efficient, productive and high value-added agribusiness program that the country should pursue?
Development requires national leadership! We can’t afford national leadership “to get away with murder”. Neither should we tolerate empty (poverty-fighting) rhetoric – it’s an insult to Filipino intelligence, and fools the vulnerable, a double whammy. Instead we should hold the candidates’ feet to the fire – to spell out their economic programs and how they would execute them?
Entrepreneurship as we know it is wide spread: from fruit vendors and prepaid SIM card outlets to giant malls – making our typical neighborhood an overwhelming hodgepodge of activity, a potential environmental challenge, if we’re not there yet? But the more practical issue is: This model, after several decades, can’t double an already relatively large (vs. our neighbors) local economy, roughly at $100B – which is what we must attain to break the bondage of poverty given our population size? What we direly need is (high value-added) major investment and globally competitive industry because of their greater multiplier effect and market reach? And this is the crisis our presidential candidates must address: force the right debate and agenda, and raise the bar – for the Filipino people and themselves and thus be true leaders and models?
Gokongwei puts entrepreneurship in perspective: “. . . Why serve 86 million when you can sell to four billion Asians? And that’s just to start you off. Because there is still the world beyond Asia . . . As a boy, I sold peanuts from my backyard. Today, I sell snacks to the world . . . We just made sure we came prepared with great products and great strategies. We ended up changing the rules of the game instead” . . . [recognizing that] “the Philippines has no big industrial base, and Filipinos do not create world-class products.”
Not surprisingly, beyond his own experience, Gokongwei highlights the Koreans’ focus and Lee Kuan Yew’s single-mindedness in driving economic development. Should we revisit Lee Kuan Yew’s exhortation about discipline – because it just may apply despite our being “Pinoy kasi”? That we’re capable of discipline – to drive our own development initiatives?
Focus and single-mindedness can be in our psyche especially when we’re pursuing a noble purpose? (For instance, Al Gore thought he won the election but the country had to be focused and single-minded in order to move forward . . . despite the magnitude of the stake – not just for Gore and America but for the world.) Whenever we are unwilling to compromise for the common good, we may want to test the magnitude of our stakes – or our egos?
NEDA is currently updating our economic development plans. It is admirable that they are pulling together what they call 21st century industries to boost the country’s competitiveness. The success of this endeavor can be measured against Gokongwei’s self-imposed yardstick: “We just made sure we came prepared with great products and great strategies. We ended up changing the rules of the game instead” . . . [recognizing that] “the Philippines has no big industrial base, and Filipinos do not create world-class products.”
Talents and skills and good intentions can’t guarantee success for NEDA . . . and the country – it is imperative that we are focused and single-minded. And that means within government and between the public and private sectors there must be commitment and support – and likewise from every sector of society, including education and the Church. And our planners must be able to spell out and articulate how each one must play their part – to boost the country’s competitiveness. For example, should the Church be preaching more about “helping ourselves” – e.g., the writer’s sister, a nun, worked with farmers as a green advocate while another group in the chapel prayed 24/7. But there is a more efficient, productive and high value-added agribusiness program that the country should pursue?
Development requires national leadership! We can’t afford national leadership “to get away with murder”. Neither should we tolerate empty (poverty-fighting) rhetoric – it’s an insult to Filipino intelligence, and fools the vulnerable, a double whammy. Instead we should hold the candidates’ feet to the fire – to spell out their economic programs and how they would execute them?
No comments:
Post a Comment